D&D is dead.
I thought not. I think I was somewhat open-minded. I didn't like some changes, but I thought I could make 4/e work for me.
But I've read WotC's stuff very carefully. They don't want 4/e to be adapted to my campaign -- rather, they want me to adapt to 4/e. I've read all about the 'product identity' they're trying to create.
In the end, though, we realized that any choice of an existing setting would alienate some of the audience, and all carried
years of history, some of which conflicted with how we wanted to improve and change D&D’s identity.... We want players like you to use the elements of D&D’s product identity to create your own world, crafting your own characters and stories that explore it. That’s the advantage that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has over every other game out there, and we do not intend to squander such a treasure.
D&D has always been a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying. 4/e is not -- 4/e is designed to be played in a nameless, but nevertheless tightly-defined default world to which any supported campaign worlds will be forced to conform. Just look at what's happening to Forgotten Realms.
Thirty years are now gone. There has been no meaningful effort to honor 30 years of play, 30 years of history, 30 years of contributions.
I'm not saying 4/e won't be a good game. But WotC is no longer interested in supporting my play -- they are now trying to control my play.
People can take my rant any way they want -- but I'm finished with WotC. I'm going to snatch up all the 3.5 volumes I can and leave them be.
D&D -- RIP
Might I recommend Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules? ^_^
Lol! You're such a pimp... :-)
|
"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short lived campaign...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system." -- Gary Gygax AD&D DMG Preface.
Yeah, D&D was never about "forcing you too conform." That whole "so strange as to be no longer AD&D thing...totally non-judgmental.
D&D has always been a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying.
Ah...no. There has always been a deterministic magic system with obvious, far-reaching setting implications. There has also been a ton of implied setting built into monster descriptions, price lists, etc. The fact that you could strip these things out doesn't mean they weren't there.
If you are actually after a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying, I suggest Fantasy Hero or GURPS Fantasy (4E, not 3E, which was a campaign setting).
|
"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short lived campaign...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system." -- Gary Gygax AD&D DMG Preface.
Yeah, D&D was never about "forcing you too conform." That whole "so strange as to be no longer AD&D thing...totally non-judgmental.
Same as it ever was.
|
I'm going to snatch up all the 3.5 volumes I canMight I recommend Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules? ^_^
Why recommend that? You guys are gonna change to 4e anyway. :P
Ok seriously, the way you envision D&D might be dead to you. I am NOT happy about the suggestions/ideas that 4e is heading(I was so mad about the announcement of 4e I sold my shares of Hasbro, thats how mad I was), but its not like the designers of 4e came to your house, tied you up, took all your books, and burned them in front of your eyes. Well, maybe they do did that.....
Anyway, your vision of D&D has to live within YOU and the people you game with. Thats the way I have to see it. My gaming group decided not to go with 4e EVER, we will always play 3.5E or ealier editions, but D&D will not be dead to us, although gaining more fluff might be dead in the water, but THAT is an entirely a different sorry.
At any rate, I do understand how you feel.
Might I recommend Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules? ^_^
Already there :)
D&D has always been a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying.
Ah...no. There has always been a deterministic magic system with obvious, far-reaching setting implications...
I don't entirely disagree. In particular, the Vancian magic system was the biggest weakness -- it was hard (or impossible) to exactly recreate many settings. But IMO more flexible systems were burdened with markedly inferior rulesets (one of the worst cases was Rolemaster, which I loved and hated).
IMO 3.x did a good job of making D&D more generic. IMO 4/e is trying to do the opposite.
Regards :)
"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short lived campaign...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system."
Yeah, EGG was sometimes brilliant, often odd, and at times wrong :)
Why recommend that? You guys are gonna change to 4e anyway. :P
This is not a wholly inconsequential point. I can say with some certainty that at least a handful of people, myself included, are holding off on placing orders or subscribing until we know which way the wind is blowing. I know the delay in making a decision is not Paizo's preferred option, but the uncertainty makes me wary of committing one way or the other.
"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short lived campaign...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system." -- Gary Gygax AD&D DMG Preface.
Yeah, D&D was never about "forcing you too conform." That whole "so strange as to be no longer AD&D thing...totally non-judgmental.
You do realize that that quote was written in the context primarily of tournaments for the newly-formed RPGA, yes? Gygax's point, which is clear from the preceding paragraph, is that D&D needs rules standards if the game is to be a common medium for gaming between people in disparate parts of the world who come together to compete in tournaments.
"The danger of a mutable system..."
You do realize that that quote was written in the context primarily of tournaments for the newly-formed RPGA, yes? Gygax's point, which is clear from the preceding paragraph, is that...
I didn't realize that. It does put his comments in a more reasonable light.
Thanks :)
I don't entirely disagree. In particular, the Vancian magic system was the biggest weakness -- it was hard (or impossible) to exactly recreate many settings. But IMO more flexible systems were burdened with markedly inferior rulesets (one of the worst cases was Rolemaster, which I loved and hated).IMO 3.x did a good job of making D&D more generic. IMO 4/e is trying to do the opposite.
Regards :)
Have you looked at Fantasy Hero for Fifth Edition Hero? IMHO Hero 5 is quite a strong ruleset, and Fantasy Hero is a very well-done genre book. Personally I stick with D&D because the support is better (largely because of Paizo), and because of the player network. But if you're going to jump off the "new edition of D&D train" you largely lose those benefits anyway...
Why recommend that? You guys are gonna change to 4e anyway. :PThat is not a certainty at this point. We STILL haven't seen the OGL, much less the rules.
I'd love for you guys to see the OGL too, since that would require the GSL to go away and be replaced with something good.
I'm going to snatch up all the 3.5 volumes I canMight I recommend Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules? ^_^
I would recommend those as well. =)
|
Contributor
|
I'd love for you guys to see the OGL too, since that would require the GSL to go away and be replaced with something good.Why recommend that? You guys are gonna change to 4e anyway. :PThat is not a certainty at this point. We STILL haven't seen the OGL, much less the rules.
Okay, yes, I meant to say GSL.
D&D has always been a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying.
Simply untrue. The game has never been generic - it has always been informed by specific choices made by designers and writers.
Elves aren't more generic than dragonborn, they're just more Tolkienesque and cliched (but I repeat myself). Orcs aren't more generic than tieflings. Wizards who memorise spells organised into nine levels of power out of spellbooks, and who can find themselves unable to cast any more magic after using up all the spells they've prepared, are not more generic than wizards who always have a certain amount of magical mojo up their sleeve. Pelor, Heironeous, Lolth, and Moradin are not more generic than the Raven Queen, Bane, Torog, and Zehir. The Great Wheel is not more generic than the Astral Sea. Law and Chaos as primal forces of the universe is not more generic than their not being so.
There has never been a generic edition of D&D. It's just that Fourth Edition is, in some few respects, less traditional in the context of the larger fantasy genre and gaming history specifically.
Elves aren't more generic than dragonborn, they're just more Tolkienesque and cliched (but I repeat myself). Orcs aren't more generic than tieflings.
Elves are common in western legends, long before Tolkien walked this earth. Same with Dwarves and Gnomes. Tribes of orcs are common western myths. Single tieflings occurrances are common western legends, but not whole civilizations. I don't know of anything in popular western legends that resemble a dragonborn.
Wizards who memorise spells organised into nine levels of power out of spellbooks, and who can find themselves unable to cast any more magic after using up all the spells they've prepared, are not more generic than wizards who always have a certain amount of magical mojo up their sleeve.
Mere mechanics. Nothing more. The mathematics of how magic works isn't always (or even, usually) explained. I don't have (much of) a problem with retconning the magic system from 9 levels to 30 levels or to the equivilent of power points by saying, "This is the way its always been done."
Pelor, Heironeous, Lolth, and Moradin are not more generic than the Raven Queen, Bane, Torog, and Zehir. The Great Wheel is not more generic than the Astral Sea. Law and Chaos as primal forces of the universe is not more generic than their not being so.
You're mixing D&D w/ Greyhawk. Two things that should not be seen as interchangable.
There has never been a generic edition of D&D. It's just that Fourth Edition is, in some few respects, less traditional in the context of the larger fantasy genre and gaming history specifically.
D&D is a generic toolkit. Greyhawk is the setting. You're mixing them. when they shouldn't be. 4E requires CIVILIZATIONS of Tieflings. Show me one single western legend where that is true. Devil worshipers, sure. But the tiefling was always the paragon, the champion of the worshipers, not the average person in the cult. And while dragons appear in western legends. 4E's assumptions require a specific setting.
|
|
"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short lived campaign...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system." -- Gary Gygax AD&D DMG Preface.
Yeah, D&D was never about "forcing you too conform." That whole "so strange as to be no longer AD&D thing...totally non-judgmental.
There is a certain irony is quoting from the guy who invented the system that is being pretty much wholesale abandoned as justification from wholesale abandoning it...
I sure won't miss Vancian spellcasting being the only game in town, but hey, it *hasn't been* the only game in town since the Sorcerer appeared in 3.0., so that 'big fix' is about a day late and a dollar short, since it's already been done. (Plus the various spell point systems in Spell & Powers in 2nd edition, but those were optional, not 'core.')
I sure won't miss Vancian spellcasting being the only game in town,
Well, to be fair, Vsncian spellcasting hasn't been the only game in town since before 3rd Edition. Unless you meant the only game in D&D town...
4E requires CIVILIZATIONS of Tieflings... 4E's assumptions require a specific setting...
I feel the same way. Tieflings are the most glaring example of the very distinct character of 4/e's default world.
While my argument about D&D's history of generic-ness might have a couple of holes, WotC is (IMO) taking more steps away generic fantasy than toward it.
I sure won't miss Vancian spellcasting being the only game in town,Well, to be fair, Vsncian spellcasting hasn't been the only game in town since before 3rd Edition. Unless you meant the only game in D&D town...
Not even in D&D town, really. Changing the Vancian casting to a spell point system has been house-ruled since 1st Ed AD&D. Player's Option: Spells & Magic provided a basic spell point system as well as several variants on the system to simulate different styles of magic for 2nd Ed AD&D. 3.x has Recharge Magic and Spell Point variant systems in the SRD.
The problem with 4e's magic system is a spell's designation of at will, per encounter, and per day becomes at least as important as its "level." It makes it much more difficult to create a spell point variant spellcasting system (or any alternate magic system) without creating one from scratch.
|
|
D&D is a generic toolkit. Greyhawk is the setting. You're mixing them. when they shouldn't be. 4E requires CIVILIZATIONS of Tieflings. Show me one single western legend where that is true.
4E requires no such thing. In your home brew tieflings could be loners. They could be removed from the game if you do not want them and 4E will run just fine.
But the point that really rubs me the wrong way is the idea that generic = western myth? Is D&D so provincial that it must exclude other forms of mythology?
|
|
The problem with 4e's magic system is a spell's designation of at will, per encounter, and per day becomes at least as important as its "level." It makes it much more difficult to create a spell point variant spellcasting system (or any alternate magic system) without creating one from scratch.
Why? It seems to me that any alternate system simply requires a numerical value for the power source, a recharge rate for that source, and a cost per spell.
Lord, tell me it's not true.
I agree with him again.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
4E requires no such thing. In your home brew tieflings could be loners. They could be removed from the game if you do not want them and 4E will run just fine.
In this, I find myself agreeing with CWM. Tiefling nations are presented as a default, but you don't have to add them to your campaigns if you don't want them. The same for teiflings in general.
"I'd like to play a tiefling ranger."
"I'm sorry, but I'm not allowing tiefling PC's."
There, that wasn't so hard.
Likewise, you could disallow clerics, divination spells, spiked chains, or warhorses. (A friend of mine has a fantasy setting where folks ride camels and large "loping lizards".)
What this means is that 4th Edition, like all other RPG's is robust; that it allows modifications in home-brew campaigns. In some systems, the "crunch" is wed to the background narrative much more closely. Try running Vampire without clans.
On the other hand, I think people are right in saying that the default world of 4th Edition, before making modifications, is more exotic than other Editions. Gygax wrote in standard tropes of fairy tales. the 4th Edition team is developing a new kind of "factory settings" world.
But the point that really rubs me the wrong way is the idea that generic = western myth? Is D&D so provincial that it must exclude other forms of mythology?
The ixitachitl, ogre mage, and rakshasa would agree, CWM.
And the trope of "nations of people whose ancestors made pacts with demons" is not new. It's Howard's Hyperboreans. It's Lovecraft's Tcho tchos. It's Paizo's Cheliax.
Why? It seems to me that any alternate system simply requires a numerical value for the power source, a recharge rate for that source, and a cost per spell.
The problem with 4e's magic system is a spell's designation of at will, per encounter, and per day becomes at least as important as its "level." It makes it much more difficult to create a spell point variant spellcasting system (or any alternate magic system) without creating one from scratch.
Say you want to run 4e using a spell point system instead of the system in the core books. How many spell points does each spell cost, taking into account the balance issues involved with at will, per encounter, and per day spells of the same level? Do per encounter spells cost twice the spell points of at will spells and per day spells cost three or four times as much? Do per encounter or per day spells instead get a fixed modifier to the spell point cost depending on the spell itself? How many spell points does a character gain at each level, by class? These can all be handled fairly easily using 3.x (see Spell Points in the SRD). The 4e magic system sounds like it will be much more difficult, especially with the "spells" that aren't spells.
What if I want to run a mage who can learn/research many spells but can only "memorize" a few of them each day to cast spontaneously (sort of a cross between a wizard and sorcerer in 3.x, using the sorcerer's spell progression and "spells known" as the "memorized" spells). It sounds like I'll need to completely re-work the 4e magic system to do that.
What if I want healing magic to be available only to dedicated empathic clerics of certain deities and/or a specific "healer" class (a very common archetype in fantasy and myth)? Considering that "automatic combat healing" is a core function of the 4e cleric, that means I need to develop my own non-combat healing magic system and "completely nerf" one of the "roles" of a core class.
The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game. You can even use it to run a 4e style magic system using Recharge Magic. The way 4e is being presented, much of that flexibility will be lost.
|
D&D is dead.
I thought not. I think I was somewhat open-minded. I didn't like some changes, but I thought I could make 4/e work for me.
(SNIP)
People can take my rant any way they want -- but I'm finished with WotC. I'm going to snatch up all the 3.5 volumes I can and leave them be.D&D -- RIP
Well, I thought that given 4e still exists, it was kinda undead instead.
|
Say you want to run 4e using a spell point system instead of the system in the core books. How many spell points does each spell cost, taking into account the balance issues involved with at will, per encounter, and per day spells of the same level? Do per encounter spells cost twice the spell points of at will spells and per day spells cost three or four times as much? Do per encounter or per day spells instead get a fixed modifier to the spell point cost depending on the spell itself? How many spell points does a character gain at each level, by class? These can all be handled fairly easily using 3.x (see Spell Points in the SRD). The 4e magic system sounds like it will be much more difficult, especially with the "spells" that aren't spells.
What if I want to run a mage who can learn/research many spells but can only "memorize" a few of them each day to cast spontaneously (sort of a cross between a wizard and sorcerer in 3.x, using the sorcerer's spell progression and "spells known" as the "memorized" spells). It sounds like I'll need to completely re-work the 4e magic system to do that.
What if I want healing magic to be available only to dedicated empathic clerics of certain deities and/or a specific "healer" class (a very common archetype in fantasy and myth)? Considering that "automatic combat healing" is a core function of the 4e cleric, that means I need to develop...
I do not think I can add anything to this. Thank you so very much, Dragonchess Player, for saying this so clearly and eloquently.
This states what D&D will lose in the vain pursuit of MMORPG and anime fans that have already turned their backs on PnP RPGs designed with their universes in mind.
It sounds like I'll need to completely re-work the 4e magic system to do that.
I just do not see this. It appears flexible because it has had several years to be completely re-worked with copious splat books. 4e will be exactly the same a few years from now.
|
|
Just a disclaimer - this will all be out of context since we do not have the actual rules so I will have to rely on broad principles in some cases as i resond.
How many spell points does each spell cost, taking into account the balance issues involved with at will, per encounter, and per day spells of the same level? Do per encounter spells cost twice the spell points of at will spells and per day spells cost three or four times as much?
It seems to me you have the answer right there - time increments can translate into relative cost. If at will costs 2 units to cast then per encounter could be one magnitude more expensive to cast - say 4 units. Once per day spells could be 8 units. It comes down to building in the cost for power/rarity.
Do per encounter or per day spells instead get a fixed modifier to the spell point cost depending on the spell itself?
That may work as well but it may not scale to spell level as well as some form of multiplier.
How many spell points does a character gain at each level, by class? These can all be handled fairly easily using 3.x (see Spell Points in the SRD). The 4e magic system sounds like it will be much more difficult, especially with the "spells" that aren't spells.
Well - 4E will have some mechanism to increase spell casting capacity per level so why would it be so hard to tweak the power source to meet that increase, or any increase that meets the level of magic you want in your game.
What if I want to run a mage who can learn/research many spells but can only "memorize" a few of them each day to cast spontaneously (sort of a cross between a wizard and sorcerer in 3.x, using the sorcerer's spell progression and "spells known" as the "memorized" spells). It sounds like I'll need to completely re-work the 4e magic system to do that.
Not having the rules I would guess that the rework would not be much more than would be required for 3E or perhaps a little more. But from the sounds of things it won't be rocket surgery.
What if I want healing magic to be available only to dedicated empathic clerics of certain deities and/or a specific "healer" class (a very common archetype in fantasy and myth)? Considering that "automatic combat healing" is a core function of the 4e cleric, that means I need to develop my own non-combat healing magic system and "completely nerf" one of the "roles" of a core class.
It would nerf the 4E cleric just as much as the 3E cleric so I don't really see the difference.
The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game. You can even use it to run a 4e style magic system using Recharge Magic. The way 4e is being presented, much of that flexibility will be lost.
That is what I don't really see - from everything we have learned about the 4E magic system it is no more or less flexible than 3E. Is there something specific about it that you see as rigid?
The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game.That's hilarious.
Again, Recharge Magic, and Spell Points already exist in the SRD. Psionics are OGL, also. Reserve feats exist in Complete Mage. Plus, there are the alternate magic systems (incarnum, invocations, pact, shadow, and truename magic), already published by WotC for 3.x, to use for inspiration to tweak the core magic system. Unless you wish to completely redesign the magic system, as opposed to modifying it, it's not difficult to make changes to fit the setting and tastes of the group. It could be as simple as eliminating some spells, moving others between school/class spell lists, and/or removing or modifying classes (adopting some of the variants from the SRD like Domain Wizards, Specialist Wizard Variants, Spontaneous Divine Casters, or Prestige Bards, Paladins, and Rangers).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Again, Recharge Magic, and Spell Points already exist in the SRD. Psionics are OGL, also. Reserve feats exist in Complete Mage. Plus, there are the alternate magic systems (incarnum, invocations, pact, shadow, and truename magic), already published by WotC for 3.x, to use for inspiration to tweak the core magic system. Unless you wish to completely redesign the magic system, as opposed to modifying it, it's not difficult to make changes to fit the setting and tastes of the group. It could be as simple as eliminating some spells, moving others between school/class spell lists, and/or removing or modifying classes (adopting some of the variants from the SRD like Domain Wizards, Specialist Wizard Variants, Spontaneous Divine Casters, or Prestige Bards, Paladins, and Rangers).The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game.That's hilarious.
That's true, but it's not Core, by your own admission. Core is the big three books (PHB, DMG, MM).
How many spell points does a character gain at each level, by class? These can all be handled fairly easily using 3.x (see Spell Points in the SRD). The 4e magic system sounds like it will be much more difficult, especially with the "spells" that aren't spells.Well - 4E will have some mechanism to increase spell casting capacity per level so why would it be so hard to tweak the power source to meet that increase, or any increase that meets the level of magic you want in your game.
What if I want to run a mage who can learn/research many spells but can only "memorize" a few of them each day to cast spontaneously (sort of a cross between a wizard and sorcerer in 3.x, using the sorcerer's spell progression and "spells known" as the "memorized" spells). It sounds like I'll need to completely re-work the 4e magic system to do that.Not having the rules I would guess that the rework would not be much more than would be required for 3E or perhaps a little more. But from the sounds of things it won't be rocket surgery.
The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game. You can even use it to run a 4e style magic system using Recharge Magic. The way 4e is being presented, much of that flexibility will be lost.That is what I don't really see - from everything we have learned about the 4E magic system it is no more or less flexible than 3E. Is there something specific about it that you see as rigid?
I haven't been following the additional details as closely as I probably should, but the 4e magic system sounds like spellcasters will choose 3.x style spell-like abilities as they progress (much like selecting 3.x feats), with "character level" being at least as important as "spellcaster level" in meeting the spell selection requirements. One of WotC's stated (or at least implied) goals in 4e is to make spells, weapon maneuvers, etc. operate in a similar fashion and at a similar power level from a character building standpoint. A magic system designed around that philosophy will almost have to be even more tightly integrated to the rules and less easily modified than 3.x. Also, the fact that certain elements of the magic system won't be in the initial release at all (druids, summoners, etc.), means that you can't even use it "out of the box" for everything covered by 3.x core rules. If 4e's magic system is at least as easily modified and flexible as 3.x's, I will be thoroughly impressed.
That's true, but it's not Core, by your own admission. Core is the big three books (PHB, DMG, MM).Again, Recharge Magic, and Spell Points already exist in the SRD. Psionics are OGL, also. Reserve feats exist in Complete Mage. Plus, there are the alternate magic systems (incarnum, invocations, pact, shadow, and truename magic), already published by WotC for 3.x, to use for inspiration to tweak the core magic system. Unless you wish to completely redesign the magic system, as opposed to modifying it, it's not difficult to make changes to fit the setting and tastes of the group. It could be as simple as eliminating some spells, moving others between school/class spell lists, and/or removing or modifying classes (adopting some of the variants from the SRD like Domain Wizards, Specialist Wizard Variants, Spontaneous Divine Casters, or Prestige Bards, Paladins, and Rangers).The biggest draw of the core 3.x magic system is that it's flexible, allowing you to easily modify it to a large extent without completely unbalancing the game.That's hilarious.
I never said the unmodified 3.x rules can simulate a wide variety of different magic systems. I said that you could easily modify the core rules to your taste and was providing examples.
|
|
I haven't been following the additional details as closely as I probably should, but the 4e magic system sounds like spellcasters will choose 3.x style spell-like abilities as they progress (much like selecting 3.x feats), with "character level" being at least as important as "spellcaster level" in meeting the spell selection requirements. One of WotC's stated (or at least implied) goals in 4e is to make spells, weapon maneuvers, etc. operate in a similar fashion and at a similar power level from a character building standpoint. A magic system designed around that philosophy will almost have to be even more tightly integrated to the rules and less easily modified than 3.x. Also, the fact that certain elements of the magic system won't be in the initial release at all (druids, summoners, etc.), means that you can't even use it "out of the box" for everything covered by 3.x core rules. If 4e's magic system is at least as easily modified and flexible as 3.x's, I will be thoroughly impressed.
Ok. It sounds like you have a perception of the 4E magic system that I do not have.
My understanding is that there are still spells rather than spell like abilities. There is a level of spells for every character level and that those spells can either be cast every round, once per encounter, or once per day.
So I can see why you would believe it won't be flexible, but I am not so sure it works the way you think it does.
Hmmm... I took a middle ground type scenario away from what I have read.
Spellcasters would have their actual spells that would work like the current system - but have a significantly reduced number.
And on top of that there will be powers that represent spells that would work on the once per <whatever> model.
4E requires no such thing. In your home brew tieflings could be loners. They could be removed from the game if you do not want them and 4E will run just fine.
How odd does a 3.5 setting without elves and dwarves sound? It will run "just fine" but will it feel like D&D. IMO, no. And the same going to be true w/ 4E.
|
|
4E requires no such thing. In your home brew tieflings could be loners. They could be removed from the game if you do not want them and 4E will run just fine.How odd does a 3.5 setting without elves and dwarves sound? It will run "just fine" but will it feel like D&D. IMO, no. And the same going to be true w/ 4E.
But then we are talking fluff and our taste in it rather than a requirement to play the game. As for the presence or absence of a given PC race - I once played a humans only campaign where the only other sentient race was orcs. It was actually quite fun and felt just like D&D. Then again, that comes down to personal taste.
I haven't been following the additional details as closely as I probably should, but the 4e magic system sounds like spellcasters will choose 3.x style spell-like abilities as they progress (much like selecting 3.x feats), with "character level" being at least as important as "spellcaster level" in meeting the spell selection requirements. One of WotC's stated (or at least implied) goals in 4e is to make spells, weapon maneuvers, etc. operate in a similar fashion and at a similar power level from a character building standpoint. A magic system designed around that philosophy will almost have to be even more tightly integrated to the rules and less easily modified than 3.x. Also, the fact that certain elements of the magic system won't be in the initial release at all (druids, summoners, etc.), means that you can't even use it "out of the box" for everything covered by 3.x core rules. If 4e's magic system is at least as easily modified and flexible as 3.x's, I will be thoroughly impressed.Ok. It sounds like you have a perception of the 4E magic system that I do not have.
My understanding is that there are still spells rather than spell like abilities. There is a level of spells for every character level and that those spells can either be cast every round, once per encounter, or once per day.
They're still "spells," but they will act more like 3.x spell-like abilities, since 4e will eliminate the need to prepare spells or worry about spell slots (because that's "not fun"). In other words, all spellcasters in 4e will act similar to a 3.5 warlock (with "spells" instead of invocations and no eldritch blast or some of the other warlock abilities). At least that's how I'm reading what little has been released about how the magic system actually works. Since there will be 25 levels of spells, 4e spellcasters will probably remain more flexible than a 3.5 warlock, but mechanically they'll look very similar, IMO.
|
|
They're still "spells," but they will act more like 3.x spell-like abilities, since 4e will eliminate the need to prepare spells or worry about spell slots (because that's "not fun"). In other words, all spellcasters in 4e will act similar to a 3.5 warlock (with "spells" instead of invocations and no eldritch blast or some of the other warlock abilities). At least that's how I'm reading what little has been released about how the magic system actually works. Since there will be 25 levels of spells, 4e spellcasters will probably remain more flexible than a 3.5 warlock, but mechanically they'll look very similar, IMO.
Okay?
So if they are spells, which was my original assumption, and you can cast some of them in a limited manner, then why would it be so hard to give each one a cost and give each spell caster a rechargeable power source?
But then we are talking fluff and our taste in it rather than a requirement to play the game. As for the presence or absence of a given PC race - I once played a humans only campaign where the only other sentient race was orcs. It was actually quite fun and felt just like D&D. Then again, that comes down to personal taste.4E requires no such thing. In your home brew tieflings could be loners. They could be removed from the game if you do not want them and 4E will run just fine.How odd does a 3.5 setting without elves and dwarves sound? It will run "just fine" but will it feel like D&D. IMO, no. And the same going to be true w/ 4E.
All human is different. Try a game with humans, halflings, vargr (traveller race), Aslan (another traveller race), Avalonians (homebrewed race), ogres, half-ogres, and Dragon Kings (exalted race). Is this game going to feel like D&D? Will this game be D&D or a homebrewed game that happens to use the D&D rules to you?
|
|
All human is different. Try a game with humans, halflings, vargr (traveller race), Aslan (another traveller race), Avalonians (homebrewed race), ogres, half-ogres, and Dragon Kings (exalted race). Is this game going to feel like D&D? Will this game be D&D or a homebrewed game that happens to use the D&D rules to you?
If it uses class, level, armor class, experience points, hit points, STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, and rolls a d20 to hit and other funny dice for damage then it feels like D&D to me.
In my game, I've got Changeling, Shifter, Warforge, dark elf that worship a Scorpion God, Elf that worship deathless ancestor, dragonborn... I have also Flying ship, lightning Train, racial feats, a completly new cosmology, new deities and a new class: The Artificier...
Of course, I'm playing in Eberron... But does that make my game less DnD than... for exemple... the people who play in Greyhawk? Does the Greyhawk campain setting elements that have been included in the core 3.5E is what define DnD???
My current campaign (being the SC AP) hews pretty closely to the vague, European fantasy that some tend to associate with DnD. But I've surely played in other campaigns, like Dark Sun or Ravenloft, that were pretty non-standard. They all still felt like DnD to me.
If it uses class, level, armor class, experience points, hit points, STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, and rolls a d20 to hit and other funny dice for damage then it feels like D&D to me.
your definition of D&D is much different then mine then.
Is MCWoD D&D to you then? Is M&M D&D to you then? How about Spycraft? T20? Star Wars? My definition excludes these.
Or do you simply call these "non-standard" or "non-traditional" D&D games?