Will DMs Need to Plan the PC Strategy?

[Grossout]

And I am generally fed up with generic medieval fantasy worlds. When you have a system with lots of magic then this should reflect on the society. But instead magic changes nothing in how the world works and it even goes so far that magic actively gets ignored in some cases (See D&D novels & resurection).

I totally see what you're saying and for the most part, I agree with you. Assuming I'm understanding the statement correctly, here's one way to look at it:

People generally don't use magic on mundane things, such as a plow that works by itself, for fear that others will be able to "reverse engineer" the magic on the device and thus be able to perform the magic themselves. Magic users don't like for their magic to be on display, unless it is necessary.

Again, I'm not totally sure that's what you meant by your statement, but I thought I'd take a stab at it since it came to mind...

 

[Blackbrrd]

As a DM you always need to know your players and their characters and plan accordingly.

It seems, from the utility spells we have seen in 4e that they are nerfed in comparison to 3e. In other words, they will probably influence your game a lot less.

Personally I don't find games where solving the plot relies solely on the cleric/wizards meta knowledge of spells in splat books, as very interesting. The divination spells in 3e and earlier editions are extremely powerful and a lot of plots that would normally work don't.

Take Ravenloft for instance. To handle detect evil and similair spells and abilities, they have just banned them. Without the banning there are a lot of plots that just wouldn't work.

Oh, and I really like how fly and invisibility and probably similair spells use a minor action to sustain. That way you can't have more than 3 of these spells in effect at the same time, and if you have more than one in effect you are missing out on standard/move actions...

 

[the Jester]

Situation: The PCs must get into a big fortress with big, well made walls. Technically the DC for climbing the wall would be very high. Now use the 4E skill challenge system where one player wants to scale the wall.. What do you do?

1. Allow it even though the PC can't make the check -> automatic failure which counts
2. Don't allow it to not give the PCs a failure as he has no chance to succeed
3. Reduce the DC for climbing the wall so that the PC can make it.

Solution 1 is unfair in the context for skill challenges, 2 is less than ideal DMing and 3 is, according to Vempyre not necessary.

Or he can make a success towards defeating the overall skill challenge without successfully climbing the wall. The two DCs don't have to be the same, and learning that a given approach isn't going to work helps defeat the overall challenge.

 

[IceFractal]

See, I don't mind that fly takes actions to sustain - it's the "5 minutes, once per day", "40' speed", and "16th level" aspects that bother me. That's just a pitifully short effect for the level it's at.

I though Paragon tier included flying as something that people could be expected to use. Last time I heard, Paragon tier started at 11th level, so why are you only getting mediocre flight spells when you're already half-way through it?


It basically bothers me that things like flying over a swamp instead of walking through it and cracking open locks are things which are apparently equal to defeating Pit Fiends and ruling countries. What the heck good is it to level up and achieve new "tiers" of power, if it just means bigger numbers on your blasting spells? If you can't even bypass something like a small chasm, then you aren't an archmage, no matter what the level says.

And yes, I admit this was a problem with some classes even in 3E. A problem, not a desired state of affairs. Bigger numbers may be enough for some, but I want higher levels to actually produce meaningful change in how I approach things.

 

[cwhs01]

Ummm, you don't seem to have understood my request.

I didn't say compare spells with the same name. I said take 5-6th level characters in 3E and 4E, look at the utility spells available to them, and compare them.

we haven't seen a 4e level 5 or 6 pc yet (i think?), but i am pretty sure that one of the objectives with 4e was to disempower spellcasters a bit, bringing them on par with melee folk. At least when it comes to the number of choices, during and out of combat. Clerics, wizards, druids and other casters with access to truckloads of spells in 3e will certainly have fewer available to them in 4e. This presumably includes utility spells.

It is a valid concern that 4e spellcasters and thus parties have fewer choices than they did in 3e. Well, players may have fewer choices but dm's may have more when it comes to adventure design.

Some may see it as a problem, i think it is a good thing. Detect x spells, speak with dead, read thoughts etc. have allways bugged me both as a player and dm. Because why would you purposely design your game so any number of cool plots and stories were impossible? okay, not impossible, but how many times will the pc's fall for the old mindblank/shield thoughts trick? If you really want these spells in your game, why not just make a rule stating that all baddies have a red ring around their feet and friendlies are green? faster and gets the same result.
As a player i prefer not knowing alignments of npc's. As a dm i prefer my players to not know alignments of npc's.

anyhoo. if these kinds of spells aren't in the first phb, it'll take 30 secs for someone to homebrew and put them on the web.

 

[Vempyre]

3E characters have fly and invisibility for example.

Which is bad.

 

[Derren]

Which is bad.

To quote hong: Why?

 

[Vempyre]

To quote hong: Why?

*grins* I expected that one, hehe.

Because both abilities break tactical encounters to no end, and at an early lvl in 3E, at that. That is why they are so high lvl in 4E. When they become available in 4E is when the gameplay is expected to take that kind of turn, where it truely belongs in the leveling ladder (to my opinion, and to teh opinion of the designers too it seems). And making them last a short enough duration also makes sure they don't get abused even at that level of play.

 

[Scipio202]

Situation: The PCs must get into a big fortress with big, well made walls. Technically the DC for climbing the wall would be very high. Now use the 4E skill challenge system where one player wants to scale the wall.. What do you do?

1. Allow it even though the PC can't make the check -> automatic failure which counts
2. Don't allow it to not give the PCs a failure as he has no chance to succeed
3. Reduce the DC for climbing the wall so that the PC can make it.

Solution 1 is unfair in the context for skill challenges, 2 is less than ideal DMing and 3 is, according to Vempyre not necessary.

Well, (a) not all skill checks have to be "skill challenges" per se. If he wants to climb a wall it can just be a simple climb skill check.

But (b) even within a skill challenge you could take option (4) let PCs take whatever actions they want, but if it is something that the DM rules is either impossible, or irrelevant to the issue at hand, just don't count the successes or failures towards the challenge.

If one of the PCs wants to sing a song, say, let him. And if he sings it well, or poorly, its completely irrelevant to getting into the fortress. Since he hasn't done anything productive (or unproductive), it hasn't changed anything about the challenge, and its no different than if he'd done nothing for that stretch or time (again, with respect to the challenge).

 

[Sojorn]

*grins* I expected that one, hehe.

Because both abilities break tactical encounters to no end, and at an early lvl in 3E, at that. That is why they are so high lvl in 4E. When they become available in 4E is when the gameplay is expected to take that kind of turn, where it truely belongs in the leveling ladder (to my opinion, and to teh opinion of the designers too it seems). And making them last a short enough duration also makes sure they don't get abused even at that level of play.

There are playstyles where there is no such thing as a "broken" encounter.

Likewise, one cannot abuse powers.

Of course, such playstyles, as I think Gene pointed out, tend to require very specific things for everyone at the table to have a good time as they're not very compatible with playstyles that do consider encounters breakable.