|
Many 4E feats do that, but it usually when you switch to a new tier of play not say every level.
That it does.
I'm plugging Dragon Age a lot for some reason today, but their talent system is pretty cool. You pick a talent (say two weapon fighter) and each talent has 3 levels of competency- Novice, journeyman and master. Each of these gives you a new benefit related to the talent. Basically every other level your character advances allows you to either upgrade a current talent or take the novice rank of a new talent. Certain talents also have class restrictions and not all talents are combat related. For instance, there is a scouting talent, and an animal handling talent.I think the D&D feat system would be much better served by something like the above.
i think the 3.5 devs and by extension the Paizo devs saw that the Fighter class received alot of feets and that ws enough. Which I think is wrong. It's just not enough. It's all good to say that Wepaon focus and Greater wepaon Focus yet it gives nothing beyonf a +2 bonus. Nothing else plus it's part of a feat tax. Feats hould have more versatility.
I don't think Feats should be game-changing options with the likes of 3E/PF. They literally can make or break a character. The same is similar to 4E as well, don't get me wrong, but I think you can get away with a lot more Flavor feats in 4E and no die as opposed to not taking certain feats with other systems.
Personally, I like feats that augment class features and alter them a bit in ways that are either enjoyable, unique, and vesatile. A paladin using a feat to increase his Lay on Hands potential like taking away bad conditions, granting Temporary Hit Points, or healing more people but with a little less "oompf" are things I like.
Another thing I like to see in 5E (or more likely, carried over from 4E) is the lack of Prereqisites. Generally, in terms of Alignment and tree-support that feats seem to get. If a feat (or prestige class/paragon path) is going to need a requirement then it better be for a good reason #1, and a good feat over all that I might take regardless #2).
|
The first 20 things that come to mind--
1. Keep Vancian magic dead and buried, 4e was off to a good (and bold/much-needed) start by killing that sacred cow, but 4e still needed more of the flexibility that mages were used to from prior editions without resorting to rituals.
2. Keep 4e's variable-stats for races, it's nice to be able to play different classes without being pigeon-holed into playing X race because Y has penalties to a key stat you need, and/or doesn't have the +2 in the right place, etc. And, like 4e, have only bonuses, no negative stat adjustments.
3. Keep 4e's wide selection of player races available without ECLs or XP penalties or any of that nonsense--we're playing a fictional, fantasy game, let people play whatever they think would be interesting/fun/cool/amazing/etc. Again, more flexibility means more fun for more people to play what they want without feeling "gimped" or penalized, etc.
4. Ditch 4e's awful Skill Set, and use something like Pathfinder's, where there's some compression of skills from 3/3.5e, but not the over-reduction of skills and the corresponding class overlap in skills found in 4e. In 3.5/PF you have to have someone with the skill, in 4e it's hard to find someone without it. Let the spotlight move from character to character, or class to class, as needed, 4e tried far too hard to let everyone jump into the spotlight at once, and that made everyone feel equally pointless/redundant.
5. Skill Challenges--never really worked, I understand the idea to try to highlight non-combat aspects of the game, but this was a clunky and awkward way to do it "naturally" and it always came off as forced and fake.
6. Return Multi-classing to something like 3.5e/PF instead of the "I can do one useless thing once per day!" style of 4e.
7. Keep the iterative attacks in the dead pile, more attacks isn't necessarily more interesting or more fun, but it is more time consuming.
8. Go back to allowing an (meaning just one) extra attack if you use two weapons (instead of +1 to damage for um...just holding this weapon you're never going to use...)
9. Kill Feat Trees and just let players pick the feats they want to create the characters they'd like to play (some min reqs are fine, but don't make someone "waste" three feats to get the one they'll actually use).
10. Allow each class to have it's own niche while still remaining more-or-less balanced. 4e went too far in "flattening" everything to the point that everything felt more-or-less the same despite the minimal "fluff" differences.
11. Keep healing distributed among all players (healing Surges, Second Winds) and keep healing as a minor and ranged action--I've seen more people want to play "leaders" in 4e than I've ever seen reluctantly play the HealBot in any prior edition. The separation of healing from other actions really freed the player up to actually participate and have fun along with everyone else.
12. Put the emphasis back on story, on DM and player narratives, and allow creative people to be rewarded for being creative.
13. Make the battlemat and miniatures optional for those who want it, but completely playable without for those who'd rather just do descriptive/narrative combat.
14. Fixed hit points
15. Fixed class advancement for all classes, like in 4e, over variable like in 3.5e/PF--simplicity is better than meaningless complexity in this case, and the 3-way BAB and variable saves aren't necessarily adding much.
16. Dex to hit, Str for damage for all physical attacks (like in Earthdawn)
17. Armor as DR not AC
18. Drop AC entirely, since you've already got a physical target--REF, just use that for all physical attacks (ties into #17 above nicely).
19. Return to the 9 Alignments, but use a Rifts-style description of each and include some way to track alignment (like in Kotor or ME) so that players are rewarded for playing "true" to their alignment.
20. Put more power back into the hands of the DM, it may require some faith on the player's part, but let them tell their tale, spin their story and have the players be active contributors to it, but don't let the players completely run the show.
Bonus--Kill any mention of "Bladesinger". Admittedly, this is really just a personal request, but I'm sick of every edition since 2e feeling like it just has to have something called this in order to be D&D. Seriously, it's been done to death, let it die...
Again, this is what I'd like to see--ymmv.
And, given all the contradictions in this thread alone, 5e is going to have its work cut out for itself if it really thinks it can make everyone happy...Good Luck!
1. Keep Vancian magic dead and buried, 4e was off to a good (and bold/much-needed) start by killing that sacred cow, but 4e still needed more of the flexibility that mages were used to from prior editions without resorting to rituals.
Interesting. I see that point coming back relatively often.
Personally, I find that Vancian magic defines D&D magic as oppose to insert other game here's magic system. If what people dislike is the 'spell preparation' part, I wish they would say 'remove spell preparation' because that's only a part of what vancian magic is.
Most people are ok with the fact that magic is packaged into 'spells', and that a spellcaster has finite uses of spells in a day; which are the two other components of vancian magic. Non-vancian magic is free-form (i.e. no set spells) and without daily limits, which is potentially great but not necessarily what people mean by 'killing the sacred cow of vancian magic'.
4e offers an interesting concept that meets you halfway, with no spell preparation and a bunch of at-will spells, but I find it lacked a certain 'soul' so to speak. Personally, I hope they keep a (optional?) vancian spell system if their game is that modular.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to see any button mashing powers with cool downs that interrupt verisimilitude, especially for non-spell casters. If my fighter is only allowed to do a specific ability a few times a day I would like it to make sense without resorting to explanations like: it has limited use because in combat there would only be a few times that the opportunity would present itself that would allow you to use this ability but you as a player get to decide when that is. No thanks. I want to be able to use mundane abilities even when it is stupid to do so and doomed to fail.
I think fighters could be made to be more exciting by making them situation dependent. What do I mean by that? Well, I've always loved playing a sword and board fighter, shield bashing followed by a free bull rush into a wall to knock the enemy prone sort of thing. It would be cool if it had lots of stuff like that so that the fighter could sit quietly in simple melee until the enemy put himself in a bad spot and then unleash a barrage of combination attacks. These situation dependent abilities could grow more complex as level increased.
I really like that idea- it can help satisfy the tactical crowd and the verisimilitude crowd if done well. As long as you can build your character towards it and take actions to set up those situations in play, that is. It could work well for teamwork as well- using your example: the party wizard casts a Wall of Ice, then the fighter shield bashes him into it. Loads of fun. :)
Other things I'd like to see:
1)I'll 2nd Diffan on stances- this was something I was really hoping to see more of when 4e came out. I love using them with my warblade (the char. my screenname is based off of...), but I was sad to see them only show up as daily utilities when PHB1 came out.
2)I want it to be as easy to run as 4e.
3)Monsters done 4e style, but NPCs a little more 3e style. (Perhaps with some shorthand style of char-gen to speed them up)
4)Different progressions for certain character types, rather than the unified style. I'm a big fan of Essentials, but feel like it was only a preview of what could be done with that set-up. For instance- give me all 9 schools for the mage, all the domains for warpriest, more weapon choices for fighter, etc.
5) I would love to see one of 2 things- either 5e is close enough to PFRPG to make conversion of APs easy, or so successful that Paizo feels compelled to release the APs in both 5e and PFRPG forms. I enjoy the APs, but I'm pretty 'meh' about the game. (I loved it for a bit after the APG came out, but I've been disenchanted by (what I perceive as) the lackluster showing in both UM and UC...)
|
|
1. Keep Vancian magic dead and buried, 4e was off to a good (and bold/much-needed) start by killing that sacred cow, but 4e still needed more of the flexibility that mages were used to from prior editions without resorting to rituals.Interesting. I see that point coming back relatively often.
Personally, I find that Vancian magic defines D&D magic as oppose to insert other game here's magic system. If what people dislike is the 'spell preparation' part, I wish they would say 'remove spell preparation' because that's only a part of what vancian magic is.
Most people are ok with the fact that magic is packaged into 'spells', and that a spellcaster has finite uses of spells in a day; which are the two other components of vancian magic. Non-vancian magic is free-form (i.e. no set spells) and without daily limits, which is potentially great but not necessarily what people mean by 'killing the sacred cow of vancian magic'.
4e offers an interesting concept that meets you halfway, with no spell preparation and a bunch of at-will spells, but I find it lacked a certain 'soul' so to speak. Personally, I hope they keep a (optional?) vancian spell system if their game is that modular.
'findel
Even within D&D I think there was always a love-it-or-hate-it relationship with Vancian magic. We've had (official) alternatives or augments in Spell Points, Recharge Magic, even Incarnum--and this is outside of countless House Rules where I've seen "casting against Con", "Defiler" and other rules created by GMs in order to let casters have, essentially, at-will spells without slots, or resting, etc. I've even seen some "borrowed" homebrew systems where all spells are point-based and fully "customizable" (borrowed largely from Mage, or Shadowrun or Ars Magica).
So, I'm not sure if "most" people are ok with it, like it, hate it, or just put up with it since that's what there was. I don't have any data to point to, just various anecdotal "evidence" here and with my play group.
But, compared to 4e or System X, it's a clunky, awkward and outmoded way of doing magic. Even in DDO and most other computer adaptations of D&D it's the first thing that's ditched since it's more a holdover from Gygax than a fully functional/easily workable system.
Slots and resting, all the disrupts, SR, spell components, etc. 4e was better for getting rid of it all, but the flexibility was hampered--people expected to have the "utility" that a PF/3.5e caster has, and that was significantly reduced--leaving you with endless At-Wills that were very limited in focus and then rituals to try to make up some of the utility. But, while some disliked the lack of flavor, it worked (mostly) and it was (mostly) balanced.
And, of course, this was opposed to 3.5e/PF's Vancian style of memorizing, resting, and the massive flexibility that led to power-creep or excessive magical "ramp-up". This perceived dissonance between caster and non is why we have the various "Martial V Magic" threads where everyone wants to see some sort of "balance" or way to "level" things between casters and non--between the classes who can do (literally) nearly anything and those who can take a 5' step and swing a sword.
I do think this will be a rather large sticking point for 5e, and I think they'll have to offer multiple solutions/systems/styles of magic in order to make "everyone" happy--but then it'll be a pain to get a group together unless you can somehow reconcile the mages who want to use traditional Vancian magic with those who'd rather have the 4e-style "powers" as spells...
I'm not sure how it'll all shake out, but I can't see one style or system satisfying everyone.
For my money, I need a "module" that's something other than the 1e-3.5e system of magic or I'm not buying into 5e. But, like I said, this is what I'd like to see, and I assume not everyone will agree...
I do think this will be a rather large sticking point for 5e, and I think they'll have to offer multiple solutions/systems/styles of magic in order to make "everyone" happy--but then it'll be a pain to get a group together unless you can somehow reconcile the mages who want to use traditional Vancian magic with those who'd rather have the 4e-style "powers" as spells...
I'm not sure how it'll all shake out, but I can't see one style or system satisfying everyone.
For my money, I need a "module" that's something other than the 1e-3.5e system of magic or I'm not buying into 5e. But, like I said, this is what I'd like to see, and I assume not everyone will agree...
I hear you, but personally I'm not sure I could ever see a totally non-vancian game as proper D&D.
What if they included psions as core classes, alongside vancian wizards--would that answer your concerns? Or would you need there to be an entirely non-vancian arcane spell system in the game?
|
|
I do think this will be a rather large sticking point for 5e, and I think they'll have to offer multiple solutions/systems/styles of magic in order to make "everyone" happy--but then it'll be a pain to get a group together unless you can somehow reconcile the mages who want to use traditional Vancian magic with those who'd rather have the 4e-style "powers" as spells...
I'm not sure how it'll all shake out, but I can't see one style or system satisfying everyone.
For my money, I need a "module" that's something other than the 1e-3.5e system of magic or I'm not buying into 5e. But, like I said, this is what I'd like to see, and I assume not everyone will agree...
I hear you, but personally I'm not sure I could ever see a totally non-vancian game as proper D&D.
What if they included psions as core classes, alongside vancian wizards--would that answer your concerns? Or would you need there to be an entirely non-vancian arcane spell system in the game?
I'd like a fully non-Vancian arcane system.
Psionics is, to me at least, essentially magic in a different form. And while it may be an alternative to magic, I still want arcane casters to be free of the "traditional" restrictions and more like they are in 4e, Shadowrun, Mage, or Ars Magica.
I want my casters to be less god-like at higher levels, but more able to cast spells as needed without the inane rest/memorization/slots/component mechanics.
As to "proper" D&D, I'm not sure what that is. Would we have to return to "Fighting Man" or "Elf" and "Dwarf" as classes? I don't think so, so why do I have to stick with Vancian magic?
Again, ymmv.
I'd like a fully non-Vancian arcane system.
Psionics is, to me at least, essentially magic in a different form. And while it may be an alternative to magic, I still want arcane casters to be free of the "traditional" restrictions and more like they are in 4e, Shadowrun, Mage, or Ars Magica.
I want my casters to be less god-like at higher levels, but more able to cast spells as needed without the inane rest/memorization/slots/component mechanics.
As to "proper" D&D, I'm not sure what that is. Would we have to return to "Fighting Man" or "Elf" and "Dwarf" as classes? I don't think so, so why do I have to stick with Vancian magic?
I meant "proper" in the subjective sense, as in "God it's good to eat some proper meatloaf!" Definitely not suggesting that my preferences are the way the game should be played.
My own circle of gaming friends doesn't include anyone who dislikes vancian magic, so it is good to hear some different viewpoints.
|
|
I meant "proper" in the subjective sense, as in "God it's good to eat some proper meatloaf!" Definitely not suggesting that my preferences are the way the game should be played.
My own circle of gaming friends doesn't include anyone who dislikes vancian magic, so it is good to hear some different viewpoints.
I do love meatloaf--but not the kind with onions in it, and not the kind with BBQ sauce on top, nor the kind with big chunks of egg in it, but it definitely has to have a glaze of ketchup.
That's what I'd want to see in a proper meatloaf.
So, much like D&D, tastes vary. ;)
Most of the gamers I play with have played D&D since forever, but they've also branched out at one time or another, and I think coming "home" to Vancian magic really took the wind out of their (and my) sails.
When you've played in easier, more intuitive and more flexible systems, this one suddenly seems overly restrictive for no real benefit, and then it launches into the stratosphere in its power curve--which is why a lot of the gamers I play with end campaigns around 12th level or so. A 20th level Mystic Theurge required the player to have an Excel spreadsheet open on his laptop for spell management. Not fun.
Simple, flexible, intuitive and useable, that's what I'm after.
...and now I've a craving for granny's meatloaf...anyone have a rez handy?
One of the major reasons i play tabletop games instead of (or at least in addition to) computer games is that tabletop games are not nearly as bound by rules. I want to try crazy, off the wall combinations of spells and abilities to make the DM (or players) heads explode with the sheer brilliant inanity.
With a computer, or with the lock step everything in its slot nature of 4e I can't do that.
I do not want to be handed a character build. I do not want to be handed a choice of character builds. I want to build it. With pathfinders choice of classes, feats, skills, and traits i can make just about everything. (and its getting pretty close to making almost everything viable)
+1 - for tabletop battles I look to warhammer.
also
I do not want a game that is replaced by an incompatible successor after 5 years.
I saw it mentioned before, and I was excited about 4e because I thought it would follow the lines of SW saga. I love that game and I frequently switch off sessions running saga. I do not foresee wizards releasing this however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To all the references to Star Wars SAGA... +1
I really liked how they did that system. Now that the Star Wars part is gone (because the license has expired), they have this fairly decent rules set just sitting around. Sprinkle parts of 4E, Gamma World, and Pathfinder into it, and voila: 5E.
One of my favorite parts of SAGA was how armor worked. At low levels, it was useful. Once you got to be an experienced hero, armor didn't matter anymore because your reflexes were better protection than most armors.
I was looking through the works the 5th Ed. dev teams have done in the past. While they got one guy from Magic, which is an odd choice, Rodney Thompson was also one of the developers and a major contributor for Star Wars Saga.
I guess there is some hope that they are considering revisiting ideas from Saga. ^^
*squeee*
Also the guys who made Iron Heroes and Expanded Psionic Handbook and Hyperconscious.
|
|
If 5E is going to be anything designed as a battlemat combat system like 4E, with healing surges, push back 2 squares, hit n heal, perfect balance with little differentiation, unlimited spell zaps/per encounter/daily, then sorry, this customer is staying away. Bring back modular like basic n advance. Progressive learning. It can be that straight forward as in basic (a few stats, few classes, less feats, skills, etc) or advanced (weapon speed,encumbrance,criticals, etc). Bring back the flavor. That's my main grip.
|
|
Agreeing with Mousey, battle-mats as an OPTION, not the only way to play. Yes you 'could' play without one in 3.5e/4e, but it was a freak'n nightmare. Get rid of 5'-step, slides, slips, slight bumps, and other micro-managed events during a combat. Put the abstract back into abstract when it comes to combat. Go back to defining a round as about 1 minute would help. Leave board-game creation to the parent Hasbro company, let the D&D arm bring back "Products of the Imagination" to the D&D brand.
S.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle mats (or some visual representation of combat encounters) will always be a part of D&D for me. Combat without battle mats is something I'm used to from a handful of smaller (some indie) games. But playing a game like D&D without a field to look at would be like a return to a period of dark ages I can hardly recall.
Battle mats (or some visual representation of combat encounters) will always be a part of D&D for me. Combat without battle mats is something I'm used to from a handful of smaller (some indie) games. But playing a game like D&D without a field to look at would be like a return to a period of dark ages I can hardly recall.
which is wrong?
If the game is to be modular, that would be an easy 'add-on' to a more basic set. I must admit that the dependence on precise battle maps and props of 3ed/Pathfinder/4ed makes it too wargamey/boardgamey for me. I understand that RPG were born from wargames, but they quickly evolved into something different. Mixing RP with wargames can be cool but the default dependency on maps and figs was/is a big turn off for many (especially female) prospect players that I know.
On the other hand, a strong association to war games/skirmish games helps to give D&D a strong identity and target its audience. Players less interested in props can then migrate to other games without a feeling of 'false advertising'.
'findel
Compare this with 3E/PFRPG abilities that do things like cause blindness...permanently. It's just so much more realistic.
I'm hoping we don't see this.
Because it sucks.
Also, what's realistic about magic that causes permanent blindness? How does realism even enter into that?
Well...I was actually thinking about a critical hit related feat :). So it should be fairly realistic there...if you get slashed across the eyes with a longsword...yeah, permanent blindness.
Ah. That one's only in PFRPG.
But see, I realize there's a difference between players here. Some people just want different things out of game. I want a game that simulates a fantasy world. Some others want more of a fun "game" to play in a fantasy setting. And I think this is the fundamental philosophical difference between the 3E lover and the 4E lover.
One of the fundamental differences, yes.
|
One option I would like to see is more detail on the background of your character. Something supported in the mechanics, not just fluff. The 4e backgrounds went in that direction, but I was wanting something a little more substantial.
One of the game systems I am into right now is FantasyCraft. It is based off of the OGL but has some major differences when it comes to races, classes and equipment.
One of the things I like about FantasyCraft is how they separate out someone's background versus their class. They have specialties, which is "what you are", versus their class, which is "how you do it".
Your specialty gives you some benefit, such as a feat, and some other smaller benefits, like a situational bonus to a skill or maybe a minor ability. It is a cool way to break out of being like everyone else in that class. So two soldiers, one with the Barbarian specialty and one with the Shield Bearer specialty can be fairly different besides skill and weapon choices. But their core class abilities remain similar.
I'd like to see something similar to this in the next edition. You could house-rule a lot of this, but I think it would work better as a fully-developed option.
I am also a fan of allowing a skill availability based on background, to a small degree. Having some wiggle-room when choosing skills I think is a good thing.
One option I would like to see is more detail on the background of your character. Something supported in the mechanics, not just fluff. The 4e backgrounds went in that direction, but I was wanting something a little more substantial.
Have you taken a look at Themes yet?
|
|
4th edition, encounter, and daily powers ARE Vancian - ? How can people not see this? It is an even worse kind of Vancian because every day you cannot swap out the "per-time constraint" ability for one you think might work better.
And this is the challenge of any magic system. Limitation based...
Unlimited At-Wills, more-powerful Encounter Powers that refresh every encounter no matter how many times that is per day, and then Daily Powers and Rituals to round everything out.
I don't see anyone memorizing and/or forgetting spells, I don't see any spell slots, or selecting spells from a massive list, preparing spells, or having any truly game-changing uber-powered spells that are "game breaking", etc.
When you're out of spells in 3.5e, you're done. Pick up a rock and use your sling. When you're out of spells...wait, you're never out of spells in 4e...you might not have access to the most powerful ones (Dailies), but you've got your At-Wills and every encounter your Encounter Powers refresh.
If you think 4e is as Vancian as 1e-3e, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
And, as I said, I prefer 4e's magic mechanic to previous editions, but I also prefer Shadowrun's, Mage's and Ars Magica's to 1e-3e.
|
|
Battle mats (or some visual representation of combat encounters) will always be a part of D&D for me. Combat without battle mats is something I'm used to from a handful of smaller (some indie) games. But playing a game like D&D without a field to look at would be like a return to a period of dark ages I can hardly recall.which is wrong?
If the game is to be modular, that would be an easy 'add-on' to a more basic set. I must admit that the dependence on precise battle maps and props of 3ed/Pathfinder/4ed makes it too wargamey/boardgamey for me. I understand that RPG were born from wargames, but they quickly evolved into something different. Mixing RP with wargames can be cool but the default dependency on maps and figs was/is a big turn off for many (especially female) prospect players that I know.
On the other hand, a strong association to war games/skirmish games helps to give D&D a strong identity and target its audience. Players less interested in props can then migrate to other games without a feeling of 'false advertising'.
'findel
Sometimes in "the old days" we did have to get out sheets of paper for quick and dirty maps--but they were the roughest of sketches for when something was too tough to visualize, or the description wasn't clear.
All in all, it was quick, and only used as a crutch when needed.
The incorporation and dependence upon the battlemat as a key element really debuted in 3.0, along with WotC's efforts to sell Chainmail and later the plastic minis.
I've played Warhammer, WH:40k, Battletech, Space Hulk, etc., and I do like mini games--but I don't like them imposed upon my D&D games.
The reason is two-fold. First, it slows the game to a crawl. Second, it takes attention away from the narrative of the story and tends to mire everyone's attention on the board and nothing else.
Some of my gamers are Old School, and the only way I got them into PF from 2e was to ditch minis and battle mats and go with strictly narrative combat.
The downside is an expected lack of precision, and probably many AoOs were missed, but overall it was faster, and "better" in the sense that each player would describe his actions in a cinematic way, instead of just pushing his mini around the board like a chess piece and saying "I 5' step and attack".
For me, I enjoyed the return to everyone focusing on the player and character's actions, and not on the mat. Everyone seemed more engaged in the collective suspension of disbelief, and the atmosphere was more like I remembered it being.
Was it perfect? No. Did we have to sketch out a few things, sure, did it take long or disrupt the game? Nope.
I enjoy 4e--except for the mat. And, unlike 3-PF, you cannot easily remove it from the game, there's far too much to keep track of to do it all in your head or just with marks on your combat tracker sheet.
So, for me, I want a 5e game that's playable (fully) without the requirement of a battle mat.
|
|
Battle mats (or some visual representation of combat encounters) will always be a part of D&D for me. Combat without battle mats is something I'm used to from a handful of smaller (some indie) games. But playing a game like D&D without a field to look at would be like a return to a period of dark ages I can hardly recall.
Hard wiring a battle-mat system into the combat mechanics and then saying others not wanting such minute detail is 'dark ages' mentality isn't a very adult way to get your point across. You like battle-mats, I get that, I don't. Games like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e managed to make a system for both styles of play, why can't D&D - 2e was sans battle-mats and did well for 11 years.
S.
|
|
I think a big issue that I and a lot of other folks have with magic in 4E is that it is functionality equivalent to non-magic powers.I mean, if you ripped the fluff text and the title out of the abilities in 4E, an arcane ranged striker would seem extremely similar to a martial ranged striker ability wise.
I like magic to feel like something mysterious, flexible, intriguing, and unique. I just never felt that in 4E. Magic felt the same as non-magic powers.
I agree with you completely. Remove the fluff and every "power" boils down to roughly the same thing. There are minor difference, but you're correct in suggesting that they're too minor to really matter.
I think it was one of the missteps of 4e. In flattening all the classes, they...flattened all the classes. And, I think what made magic "un-special" wasn't that it was set up the way it was, it was the fact that now everyone can do something "special" instead of just 5' Step and Swing.
BUT, if you read the "Martial V Magic" threads here, none of the martials seem all that happy being "Un-Special"...
I think this is one of the things 5e hopes to address if their initial statements are an accurate portrayal of where the game's going...
But, until we know, we won't...
|
|
Completely agree. The ability to play without a battlemat and not completely invalidate 50% of the player's abilities is a NECESSITY for me.Sometimes I'll prepare maps but then the players just go off the rails and somehow wind up in combat. I really don't want to bother with a mat in these scenarios...it just takes too much time.
Also Val, what we would do sometimes for ad-hoc fights when some visualization is necessary, like if there's a narrow pass or something, was just draw an outline of the terrain on a piece of white paper. We wouldn't actually use it as a map, just use it as a reference of what the terrain looked like and where players wanted to go. It takes like 20 seconds and it helps you "guess" when things like AoO's should happen.
Yep, we did that, or we'd use a white board we had nearby. But, it was really quick and dirty, mostly just a "here's the ledge, here's the ladder, here're the guys shooting from the ledge--what are you doing?"
Really, I'm just trying to head off comments decrying that I missed AoOs since I wasn't using a battle mat and marking every single movement. I admit, we probably missed some. We probably had to guess or GM fiat whether Monster X was really in the AOE or not--even "guessing" and using the scratch paper, I'm sure that I did miss some calls.
I'm just saying that, overall, 2 missed AoOs or the occasional inclusion or exclusion of a baddie in a fireball were more than made up for in the fun that was had imagining and describing everything--for us, that was more important.
I don't see anyone memorizing and/or forgetting spells, I don't see any spell slots, or selecting spells from a massive list, preparing spells, or having any truly game-changing uber-powered spells that are "game breaking", etc.
(...)
And, as I said, I prefer 4e's magic mechanic to previous editions, but I also prefer Shadowrun's, Mage's and Ars Magica's to 1e-3e.
Understand Valmar that there is more to Vancian than memorisation of spells. Spells slots, by concepts, aren't vancian AFAIK. What makes magic 'vancian' is that
- magic is packaged as spells. You can't 'tune down' your cone of cold to chill out your beer. If you don't have the chill beer spell (or perhaps prestidigitation in all seriousness), you're out of luck.
- Use of magic is finite. Once you've depleted your spell points / spell slots / call it as you want, you're out of luck
- Magic users prepare spells ahead of time (because spellcasting takes time and isn't practical for combat situation) and then cast them in due time. Once you're out of prepared spells, you're out of luck.
By opposition, Ars Magica offers a perfectly non-vancian magic system. Granted there are spells, but they are more perfected version of spontaneous magic than spells as D&D understand them. Mage (which was derived from Ars Magica) is similar. I don't know much about Shadowrun... 4e had some vestigial elements of Vancian but was deliberately moving away...
Personally, I like Vancian, but I admit that spell preparation works best (thematically speaking) for wizard and much less for every other caster.
'findel
|
|
I don't see anyone memorizing and/or forgetting spells, I don't see any spell slots, or selecting spells from a massive list, preparing spells, or having any truly game-changing uber-powered spells that are "game breaking", etc.
(...)
And, as I said, I prefer 4e's magic mechanic to previous editions, but I also prefer Shadowrun's, Mage's and Ars Magica's to 1e-3e.
Understand Valmar that there is more to Vancian than memorisation of spells. Spells slots, by concepts, aren't vancian AFAIK. What makes magic 'vancian' is that
- magic is packaged as spells. You can't 'tune down' your cone of cold to chill out your beer. If you don't have the chill beer spell (or perhaps prestidigitation in all seriousness), you're out of luck.
- Use of magic is finite. Once you've depleted your spell points / spell slots / call it as you want, you're out of luck
- Magic users prepare spells ahead of time (because spellcasting takes time and isn't practical for combat situation) and then cast them in due time. Once you're out of prepared spells, you're out of luck.
By opposition, Ars Magica offers a perfectly non-vancian magic system. Granted there are spells, but they are more perfected version of spontaneous magic than spells as D&D understand them. Mage (which was derived from Ars Magica) is similar. I don't know much about Shadowrun... 4e had some vestigial elements of Vancian but was deliberately moving away...
Personally, I like Vancian, but I admit that spell preparation works best (thematically speaking) for wizard and much less for every other caster.
'findel
I think the semantics of 'Vancian' and its 'true' definiteion could entail an entire thread of just that. But, in the limited scope I'll go with this (admittedly now old) post that I've had bookmarked for a while:
Critique on Fire-and-ForgetThe Fire-and-Forget Magic System, whereby casters memorize spells in order to cast them, losing the knowledge to cast them and thus the ability to cast the spell again, was first presented in Jack Vance’s Dying Earth series. Gary Gygax used Vance’s work for a number of sources in the early days of Dungeons and Dragons, but he decided to use a Vancian magic system for two reason:
It’s easy to balance for game play.
It has no resemblance to any real world mythology or occult belief system.At the time, both reasons were very good. Dungeons and Dragons was almost always under scrutiny in the beginning, due to the various beliefs and legends of ties to devil worship or some other such nonsense.
Today, however, neither reason is necessary. Numerous games have demonstrated a number of ways to balance spell casting systems without resorting to a Vancian system, many by simply introducing mana or an equivalent stat. In addition, role-playing has become much more mainstream, and with information available many myths are dispelled. Some organizations, like The Escapist, exist solely to address these myths and educate the public.
It is, however, the second reason which disturbs me the most. I cannot think of a single Fantasy book which has used Vancian magic since Dying Earth, excluding the novels which are based off of RPGs. What am I supposed to model and emulate when presented this situation? The images and archetypes that I am constantly surrounded with are replaced by more constricting ones.
While it is true that in more recent editions of Dungeons and Dragons the Sorcerer has somewhat fixed this problem, though exclusively for arcane casters, if one does not go searching beyond the core books.
For me, this has always been a problem not just of game mechanics, but of disconnect from everything I’m familiar with outside of gaming, and I feel unable to bring a lot of that into the game with systems that use Vancian magic.
The essence to me is that Vancian is, as the article calls it "Fire and Forget", and pre-packaged into set spells.
There's also this Blackgate Articlewhich talks more about the "flavor" of Vancian magic:
"The tomes which held Turjan's sorcery lay on the long table of black steel or were thrust helter-skelter into shelves. These were volumes compiled by many wizards of the past, untidy folios collected by the Sage, leather-bound librams setting forth the syllables of a hundred powerful spells, so cogent that Turjan's brain could know but four at a time.
Turjan found a musty portfolio, turned the heavy pages to the spell the Sage had shown him, the Call to the Violent Cloud. He stared down at the characters and they burned with an urgent power, pressing off the page as if frantic to leave the dark solitude of the book.
Turjan closed the book, forcing the spell back into oblivion. He robed himself with a short cape, tucked a blade into his belt, fitted the amulet holding Laccodel's Rune to his wrist. Then he sat down and from a journal chose the spells he would take with him. What dangers he might meet he could not know, so he selected three spells of general application: the Excellent Prismatic Spray, Phandal's Mantle of Stealth, and the Spell of the Slow Hour."
-"Turjan of Miir", Jack Vance
For D&D this means each spell has a name, takes a "slot" and is memorized and then "forgotten"(somehow--I never forget my name when I use it repeatedly but magic is "different"). And then I need to sleep for 8hrs since I'm exhausted from memorizing...
And, while that (to me) is fine for a 1940s serial radio show, it doesn't fit the systems or styles of magic I've grown up on in fantasy literature or "modern" games. To me, there's a massive disconnect between Vancian magic and any reasonable understanding of magic as forces that are manipulated by the caster. Magic is just a rote process with an expected outcome and it all functions just by "stamping" the spell on reality via a McGuffin engine.
4e made Spells into the same set of Powers that everyone had, and they function the same mechanically. The world of 4e, then, is divided into people who don't really have any powers and those who can manifest their powers in some way--arcane, martial, divine, etc., but they all "work" along the same lines.
Mage seems to work on a pseudo-real notion that you can combine and mix arcane forces/sources to get variable results (with a LOT of DM and player discussion as to what you're trying to do and how it's going to work) and Shadowrun has pre-packaged spells but they're infinitely useable as long as you can channel the raw energy of them without passing out.
I agree, Vancian can thematically fit a Wizard with his dusty tomes and his hours of laborious study, but for a Sorcerer, who's supposedly directly tapped into, and a conduit of magic itself? Something like 4e, Mage, or Shadowrun seems more fitting...
And, in game terms, I hate bogging the action down for everyone just because the Mage has "run out" of spells and now we have to kill 8hrs waiting around--a "scene" that gets fast-forwarded (unless there's a Random Encounter) and skipped over to the point of where you may as well just ditch it as a system and go with continual casting (of some sort).
again, ymmv.
|
0. No rules-based limits on abilities that break verisimilitude: IE - 4e Abilities, Barbarian Rage, etc.
1. Rules should help support verisimmilitude: Ideally, fire powers set things on fire. Cold powers freeze things. Lightning powers can target pools of water or puddles to extend their range. You could use fire spells on a steel door to act like heat metal. Or use lightning to hit someone around a corner who is standing on a metal floor.
2. More detailed out of combat mechanics, ala 3.x, as well as more out of combat abilities (ala 3.x).
3. More Dynamic combat (Martial as well as Casters) than 3.x. I want to see interacting with terrain, running along walls, swinging from chandaliers, knocking down pillars, collapsing rooves, breaking through the wall/floor, use of traps in combat, knocking people down stairs, climbing on top of big monsters to attack them from their backs, throwing other characters, etc, as well as combat maneuvers that come up and get used on a regular basis by all melee combatants (unlike 3e, where it takes special training to make using them not generally a definitively BAD idea). Perhaps nonlethal AoOs, such as the guy gives you an opportunity to kick him in the middle of a sword fight, etc.
4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters, as well as combat stats (I don't really care if they're the same format as PCs stats though). Perhaps balance in-combat and out-of combat separately, so all players can do stuff in either scenario.
5. Lasting Debuffs: Things like attribute damage/drain, or things that lower a stat for a decent duration (minutes), or things that change creature sizes, etc.
6. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.
7. Characters need to have many options they can use in combat, not just "3 daily, 3 encounter, and 3 at-will", and new abilities should never replace old ones: Old ones should get better. The new abilities should be new.
8. Tie available options more to the situation and less to "x/encounter".
9. Hitpoints need to scale *Less* Combat shouldn't slow to a crawl because HP scale out of proportion with damage.
10. Support more creature sizes for players: Large Creatures and Tiny Creatures should be viable.
11. Ideally: Less of a power gap between levels. It would be nice if 20 level 1s could be evenly matched with 1 level 20.
Or use lightning to hit someone around a corner who is standing on a metal floor.
A nitpick, I know, but unless I'm misremembering my sciences, that's not how electricity works. First, the character would need to complete a circuit; I'm not sure how this could happen unless the character were touching another conductive material that led to ground. Also, this is begging for "But I'm wearing leather boots!"
At least three kittens were killed in the writing of this post.
Verisimilitude is overrated.
|
|
A nitpick, I know, but unless I'm misremembering my sciences, that's not how electricity works. First, the character would need to complete a circuit; I'm not sure how this could happen unless the character were touching another conductive material that led to ground.
Okay true enough, I oversimplified, you'e need to either be completing a circuit, or the metal would have to be a good path through them to ground (like that fight in sherlock holmes where the guy leans on the pipes)
Also, this is begging for "But I'm wearing leather boots!"
Leather is not rubber. lol.
Verisimilitude is overrated.
Verisimilitude doesn't need to be absolute, because there are limits to what you can do with an RPG (at least I'm pretty sure there are...)
But I think Verisimilitude is very important.
Of course, roughly half of my list directly or indirectly relates to bringing more verisimilitude to the table.
Oh! I missed one!
4.5: Don't lock me into a class. Let me change classes every level, if that's what I want to do. Odds are nobody will switch that often, but still.
Leather is not rubber. lol.
Well, no, but it offers about 250 kilohms of resistance. Even rubber can be compromised. You'd have to leave it up to the DM to decide if the character's footwear is a good enough insulator.
This is a silly discussion, and I feel bad for starting it.
|
|
Well, no, but it offers about 250 kilohms of resistance. Even rubber can be compromised. You'd have to leave it up to the DM to decide if the character's footwear is a good enough insulator.
We can give them Resistance Ratings!
Warm clothes can resist cold.
Clothes that don't heat up can resist fire.
And Clothes insulated against electricity can resist electricity!
This started out as me kidding, but it would probably work. Those boots might provide Electric Resist 3 or 5 or something.
I agree with you on many of your issues....up to these ones
4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters, as well as combat stats (I don't really care if they're the same format as PCs stats though). Perhaps balance in-combat and out-of combat separately, so all players can do stuff in either scenario.
One, I daresay 80% of these monsters are going to die as soon as they meet the PCs. What, other than keeping them more "realistic", is the point of non-combat statistics that can't be established in one or two paragraphs about said monster? Meaning, what mechanical abilities should they have that aren't combat related. Also, could you give me a few examples of where this is prevalent in 3.5 or Pathfinder?
5. Lasting Debuffs: Things like attribute damage/drain, or things that lower a stat for a decent duration (minutes), or things that change creature sizes, etc.
6. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.
These sort of run together, but I'm just going to have to say "No". If these abilities are going to be factors in the game, there should be a rule that allows consistant attempts to break free of them every round. Also, as a DM and Player of v3.5 and PF, I can say that my group steered clear of Ability drain and level drain for quite a number of resons and it all had to do with re-writing their character sheet. No one wants to argue RAW vs. RAI when it comes to level drain and re-writing all that BS for a few modifier drops in an attribute is just painstakingly annoying.
As for "win buttons", I feel sorta bummed when I one-shot a monster, unless it's coming from a really interesting aspect such as a Critical hit or I'm the last one of the party standing. Having these buttons is asking the DM to give them to monsters too. Sorry but it just stinks going up against an orc fighter and him just "POW, your dead" roll up a new character. Where is the fun in that again?
|
|
Personally, I like Vancian, but I admit that spell preparation works best (thematically speaking) for wizard and much less for every other caster.
'findel
I was going to put my 'take' on magic here, but decided that instead of retyping the lost post of earlier as just a text blurb, it might be more appropriate in House Rules as an "experimental" system, so it's at:
|
|
I agree with you on many of your issues....up to these ones
4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters.
Intelligent creatures (I'd add dragons to your list) are often viable NPCs, not just combat adversaries. 4th edition had the attitude of "give them combat stats, the rest will sort itself out", which created the problem that some monsters have powers relevant to social encounters (charms, shapechange, teleport...), which don't show up in their stats. It also created the impression that many of these creatures were only good for killing, not for storytelling
That's what I mean.
5. Lasting Debuffs: Things like attribute damage/drain, or things that lower a stat for a decent duration (minutes), or things that change creature sizes, etc.
6. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.
These sort of run together, but I'm just going to have to say "No". If these abilities are going to be factors in the game, there should be a rule that allows consistant attempts to break free of them every round. Also, as a DM and Player of v3.5 and PF, I can say that my group steered clear of Ability drain and level drain for quite a number of resons and it all had to do with re-writing their character sheet. No one wants to argue RAW vs. RAI when it comes to level drain and re-writing all that BS for a few modifier drops in an attribute is just painstakingly annoying.
Here' i'd say, if you're going to get constant chances to get out of it, the odds of getting out need to be much lower. like stabilizing in 3e, or something similarly difficult but made easier by a high will save or something. If you have a chance of getting out of it every round then its seriously weakening the effect. Definitely not 50/50. As for the bookkeeping: its a pain in the ass to have to rewrite everything when you get debuffed. I can appreciate that. If the sheet had a debuff section, or maybe if the spell had a list of stuff that gets debuffed when you debuff a stat, you could just write it in a different box.
I never found it that hard to put like (-2) off to the side somewhere, and when I roll, I remember its 2 less than usual. But having a box for debuffs on the sheet would make that much easier.
And of course, if you use a digital sheet, you can have it do the recalculating automatically.
As for "win buttons", I feel sorta bummed when I one-shot a monster, unless it's coming from a really interesting aspect such as a Critical hit or I'm the last one of the party...
So you get bummed when you get a crit and kill a monster?
Anything that is a one-shot win, should have a pretty low chance of success, compared to something that just does a little bit of damage.