PDA

View Full Version : v4 D&D pros vs. cons



mindblank19
2008-10-24, 01:42 PM
Overall, is the new version of D&D better than good old 3.5?

I find it puts more emphasis on roleplaying and has a much clearer, better-organized rules system. It's simple, fast, and efficient. Those are the pros, right?

Well, the cons come from the same sources in my opinion. There seems to be a simple, easy-to-follow rules system, but this simplicity comes at a cost to creativity. All the powers are already there for you; You have a large, but limited selection of abilities, but no real way to make your own. In my opinion, it would be much more fun to make up devilish ways to combine your numerous abilities yourself than have all these combinations pre-made for you.

What do you think?

PS: I own only the new Player's Handbook, so I might be missing quite a bit... :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 01:44 PM
its pretty stripped down, monsterwise. Still, with templates, monsters can be made more interesting. and philosophy seems to be- a few powers, that get used, rather than lots of powers, most of which never get used.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-24, 01:45 PM
Your main point is a major sense of contention. I think it is better, as do many people. Many others think it isn't. In previous arguments we haven't even been able to agree on how the games should be judged.

FoE
2008-10-24, 01:46 PM
Ugh. This issue has been done to death in this forum. OP, why did you feel the need to open old wounds?

Morty
2008-10-24, 01:47 PM
The simplicity is both a pro and a con. On one hand, it's easier to learn everything. On the other hand, everything gets repetitive and boring more quickly.
Come to think about it, that applies to most praises and compliants about 4th edition. I could say how being abstractive and cinematic is a drawback of 4ed, but someone else will list it as an advantage.

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 01:48 PM
Prep time, ease of play, may be scoring points, depending on who's arguing.

Also, when Things from Books couldn't be done in 3rd ed, but can in 4th, this may make people happy. Dwarven fighters making magic items, a la Bruenor.

mindblank19
2008-10-24, 01:57 PM
Sorry about reopening the issue, I only became a member yesterday... :smallcool:

I'm asking this because myself and my friends are currently running two campaigns, one in v3.5 and one in v4. I'm DM for the v3.5 and plan to play a half-elf paladin of Melora in the v4. If anyone has either DMing advice for v3.5 or playing advice for v4, please post it here... if age matters, we're high-schoolers.

Feel free to continue the discussion, if anyone wishes to continue...:smallwink:

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 01:59 PM
well, if you can enjoy both games, more power to you. By playing, or seeing it played, both regularly, might get better insight than others.

Defiant
2008-10-24, 02:16 PM
Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure if I will continue playing it, but if nothing else, I will mine it for 4th ed material. When you have a lot, its a shame to let it go to waste.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 02:21 PM
Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?

Only among a smaller community. It will have no official support, so, like 1e and 2e before it, it will fade into obscurity.

If Pathfinder takes off, that may be where the remnant of a remnant will survive.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with the inherent goodness or badness of a system.

mindblank19
2008-10-24, 02:22 PM
If I continue playing, for sure!:smallbiggrin:


On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.

Based on this, v3.5 will, unfortunately for me, probably not continue for too long.:smallfrown: But perhaps this is for the best, since now my friends own only 3 books more than me on average (as opposed to 7 with v3.5) :smallbiggrin:

kjones
2008-10-24, 02:39 PM
Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?

People still play 1st and 2nd edition, so I don't see why it wouldn't.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-24, 02:45 PM
Multiclassing is one of the things that drew me to dnd. Now that it's gone well so has my interest.

FoE
2008-10-24, 02:50 PM
OK, mindblank, I get it now.

As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.

Morty
2008-10-24, 02:51 PM
As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.

It's undeniable that 4ed encounter budget works, as opposed to CR system that works... occasionaly.

ericgrau
2008-10-24, 03:04 PM
Original Poster got the gist of it already.

Though really 3.5e is more complicated and detailed. 4e isn't really premade combinations of 3.5e stuff. 4e is something simpler but totally different, except in name and a handful of other very broad similarities.

IMO 4e is easier to get into and better for most if you don't want to put in that much effort. 3.5e is better if you want to get into rules details (but most people I see don't). This is my opinion from playing 3.5e and reading lots of 3.5e rules while looking extensively at 4e previews, but not playing yet (not opposed to the chance, just haven't gotten one yet). There are so many awesome details in 3.5e that get ignored in favor of splatbooks, many of which are precursors to 4e. Kind of an outward spreading out into more features instead of an inward getting-nitty-gritty with existing features. That bums me out, but at the same time I can see why that would lead to 4e being a better option for a lot of people.

Saph
2008-10-24, 03:39 PM
As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.

I've DMed both, and didn't notice much difference. If you can do one, you can do the other.

As a player, I like 4e more for one-offs and games starting at level 1, and I like 3.5 more for long-running games where your character gets to significantly develop. 4e's better for casual players and newbies, 3.5's better for players who want a giant toolbox.

- Saph

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 03:55 PM
I'm going to have to second or third or whatnot 4e being easier to run then 3rd ed. The DnD GM at hte local gaming store has really been jumping at 4e due to how much easier his life has been with it. (He is an eternal GM, the poor, noble soul).


On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.
It's also an incorrect one, terribly sorry. MMORPGs built from DnD, as well as other sources; DnD has in turn recognized that even if they don't say it out loud, classes are built with certain conceits in mind (Such as 'glass cannon'), and in a class based system, it's nigh impossible to get around those conceits, so they've turned to embrace them.

<Android> This notwithstanding that they're not Massively Multiplayer, or Online.</Android>

The New Bruceski
2008-10-24, 04:04 PM
On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.


I think you overestimate what the gametable does. It's a shared space where if the DM draws something, the other players see it. If a player moves his figure, it moves for everyone. There is no rules-calculation, it's just dungeon tiles and virtual miniatures.

Technically it makes D&D a MORPG, but only by the loosest definitions of Online. It's as much a MMORPG as two people playing make-believe over Instant Messenger. (EDIT: as far as the game table is concerned.)

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 04:45 PM
Here is my list of what I like and dislike about 4th edition. A lot of these are the same things people have been harping about. A lot of people may disagree with that I'm saying here. I am trying to cover a lot of ground, so I can't be as detailed in my points as I would like, so if someone disagrees with me, mention the specific point and I can go into greater detail about what I mean.

Pros of 4th edition versus 3.5:

Is actually balanced. 3.5 was amazingly unbalanced. For example, compare Wizards or CoDzilla (Clerics/Druids) to fighters, rangers, and monks. In 4th edition, everyone is pretty much on the same level in terms of power.


There are very few traps (terrible choices, not the disarming traps). In 3.5, there were a lot of traps, like weapon focus and toughness. Traps that were intentionally placed there, if Monty Cook's explanations are to be believed. Now, the biggest problem a power/feat can have is not synergizing properly with the rest of the character. Very few feats are intrinsically bad. Of course, this might have more to do with the power level of feats being more normalized.


Standardization. There is much better balance in terms of player character creation, and the monsters CRs are much more accurate (baring some exceptions, like Needlefang Drake Swarms). Also, changing the standard player to monster ratio from 4:1 to 1:1 provides much greater granularity of power adjustment, making it much easier for the DM to scale an encounter and make it just right. All of these mean that the average 4th edition experience for a player is better than the average 3rd edition experience, and that 4th edition experiences for a player are more uniform, rather than being the hit or miss that I often experienced in 3rd edition.


Reduction of complexity in character creation. In 3.5, I felt like I needed to spend a huge amount of effort in order to make a good character. In 4th edition, it does not require nearly as much effort, due to the decrease in importance of feats, items, and alternative class features. Of course, the lack of splat books might be a part of the reason, but I feel as though 4th edition core is vastly less complicated in character creation than 3.5 core


Streamlined play. Battle is much more fun in 4th edition. Everyone has a lot of options, more than the typical melee character (like a non-optimized fighter) in 3.5 which could only hit things with a sword. Also, the many simplifications and changes make combat go quicker and smoother.


Cons of 4th edition versus 3.5:

Weird abstractions/simplifications. I think this is where people say "Oh, D&D is a MorePig!" There are lots and lots of weird things that just don't make sense in terms of an internally consistent world. Things like cubic dragon breaths, diagonals being the same distance as horizontals/verticals, being unable to sell mundane equipment, magic items selling for 1/5th value instead of half, encumbrance rules (being heavily encumbered automatically occupies both of your hands, so you *technically* cannot carry a sword/shield, and dragging more than your normal weight will slow you, so that horses can carry 237 lbs and drag 1,187 lbs, but when they drag more than 237 lbs, like a cart, they can only move 10 ft a round), basically everything breaking down when you consider height. An entire thread around this could be created, so I won't list more.

Some of these things were design decisions to make things easier in combat. Most of them feel like the designers either didn't think things through all the way (encumbrance), or failed to read an applicable rule.


Sloppy editing. For some reason, the 4th edition core books feel a lot more sloppy than 3.5 core. I could list dozens and dozens of examples of things that have not yet been errataed that are either not clear or don't work (and if I really wanted to, I'm certain I could find at least 100 items in the Adventurer's vault that need errata). Things like heavily encumbered dwarfs who are not slowed, yet still have both their hands taken up by their heavy load. A more thorough explanation of what you apply a weapon/implements enhancement bonus to (the best explanation in the PHB is "A magic weapon adds an enhancement bonus to attack
rolls and damage rolls, ... This bonus does not apply to any ongoing damage or other damage that might be applied to the attack." p. 232, which is not very clear on what "other damage" means and is very very easily overlooked). About half of the conjurations simply do not work as one would expect due to poorly/incompletely worded attack/effect entries. Again, the list goes on and on.

This annoys me a lot more than in 3rd edition because the presentation of the rules is a lot more formalized than in 3rd edition (power descriptions are strictly formatted, versus the spell descriptions of 3rd edition that seemed to encourage more flexibility in DM adjudication of the spell by describing more than "here are the precise effects." Presenting the rules in a more formal manner implicitly means more standardization, but lack of clarity opposes this.


Reduction of DM adjudication. This is kind of similar to what I was just talking about. Yes, the books say that a DM can change anything they want, but at the same time the presentation of the rules discourage adjudication and encourage simply applying the stated effects. The removal of open ended spells like Wish and the formalization of the effects gives less room (by default, unless the DM overrides the rules) for DM adjudication. For example, there are no spells with the flexibility of, say, 3.5's Grease. A good 4th edition example is the Goblin Hexer, which has a zone that is flavored as a cloud of dust, that creates a cloud of dust that provides concealment for only its allies. The one way nature of the power makes NO SENSE compared to the flavor (unless you add in flavor that is not printed in the book). The presentation of the power seems to prevent clever uses, as it applies very specific penalties that are loosely related to but largely independent from the flavor.


Items are incredibly weak. At least, the PHB ones. The Adventurer's Vault items are much stronger. But the items enhance the character, never overshadow character abilities. In previous editions, you could get a wand of fireball or other powerful item and completely dominate until it ran out of charges or something. Now, a strong item can only be used once a day. This increases balance, but it doesn't *feel* right to me. I WANT to be able to pick up an uber item and dominate for a short time. Instead, I am just intrinsically better than Also, there are no rules for item creation like there were in 3rd edition, which discourages custom items.

Also, the 1 daily item power per mile stone (more uses at higher tiers) rule is completely nonsensical to me. I really do not see the problem with stocking up on daily usage items and using them all up. Worse, it makes the opportunity cost of the non-combat daily item powers from the Adventurer's Vault unnecessarily high. For example, I will never use the item that summons a mount for the day, as it means I do not get to use my sword's daily power.

I should mention that a lot of people will disagree with me on this point, as many people would prefer that items should not overshadow a character. But, having weak magic items doesn't *feel* realistic to *me*.


Magic Rituals are seriously gimped. Either there is a terrible gotcha that severely reduces the usability of a ritual, or the ritual's component cost is too high. For example, Hand of Fate only predicts the future for the next hour. If I am at a fork in the road, and there is a massive hoard of treasure on the left path two hours away and a Tarrasque on the right path two hours away, the Hand will go "lol, I dunno" when trying to determine which path has the greater reward. Another example, Hero's feast creates food for 5 medium creatures. For 35 gold. If I had 35 gp of material components, why don't I have 5 rations? Yet another example, Silence is useless, as it only reduces the perception check by 10, rather than making true silence. In my opinion, magic should be better or more convenient than doing something the mundane way.


In short, 4th edition is a great combat game. But it feels like there is a lot of verisimilitude missing. Any time you try to do something that the game designers did not forsee, there is almost always a big problem by RAW. I like 2nd edition a lot better as a D&D game (3rd edition feels like a bad compromise between 2nd edition and 4th edition, trying to do both realism and good gaming at the same time, but failing at both). I have a lot more I could say, but I'll stop now, as this post is already extremely long.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 04:49 PM
There are very few traps (terrible choices, not the disarming traps). In 3.5, there were a lot of traps, like weapon focus and toughness. Traps that were intentionally placed there, if Monty Cook's explanations are to be believed. Now, the biggest problem a power/feat can have is not synergizing properly with the rest of the character. Very few feats are intrinsically bad. Of course, this might have more to do with the power level of feats being more normalized.Cons of 4th edition versus 3.5:
Magic Rituals are seriously gimped. 7 For example, Hand of Fate only predicts the future for the next hour. If I am at a fork in the road, and there is a massive hoard of treasure on the left path two hours away and a Tarrasque on the right path two hours away, the Hand will go "lol, I dunno" when trying to determine which path has the greater reward. Another example, Hero's feast creates food for 5 medium creatures. For 35 gold. If I had 35 gp of material components, why don't I have 5 rations? Yet another example, Silence is useless, as it only reduces the perception check by 10, rather than making true silence. In my opinion, magic should be better or more convenient than doing something the mundane way.

This is fairly similar to how magic uuuusually works in fiction that didn't steal its tropes from DnD, actually..

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 04:55 PM
This is fairly similar to how magic uuuusually works in fiction that didn't steal its tropes from DnD, actually..

Could you post some examples? I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, and would like to know more.

For me, it feels like they were trying to go away from 3.5, where the wizard just dominated out of combat situations with utility magic. For example, the wizard who had Knock made the rogue obsolete (since rogues were normally really only good for finding and disarming traps). However, I think they were overzealous in this regard and went too far.

I agree that the wizard's utility spells were strong, but the rituals in 4th edition are down-right unusable, at least unless you have thousands and thousands of GP, like in the Paragon/epic tiers. After all, at that level, who cares if you used 35 gp to summon flying horses.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 04:58 PM
Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?

actually in terms of survivability, it will do better, the D20 license is free

And OP, thank you for bringing up the second most tabboo topic in the forum


Pros
Better combat
Balanced
Better art (some what)
Better combat
Easier to learn
Better combat
Easier to play simply
Better combat.......yeah


Con
Terrible fluff
No back ground of note
Dumbed down absurdly
Ruined aligniments, and that is worst than the 3E, which says a lot
Gods uninteresting
Limiting in terms of character design options
Monsters are little more than state blocks
Bad world design
NPC/PC rules are terrible
Focus so much on combat its almost hack and slash
Simplistic/primative in terms of actual rules other than combat
Shallow in content
massive amount of arbitrary change
Shall i go on?

4E's biggest problem is it is a new edition of D&D. It is built upon one style of gameplay, and so it would be a fine as a spin off game, maybe a RPG version of hte miniatures game. Honestly it would be fine as a spin off game. If you like that one style of play, its great. If you don't like it........

as a new edition, its limiting and takes away so much form eariler eidtions that it goes form a good spin off game to a lack luster edition
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 04:59 PM
Only among a smaller community. It will have no official support, so, like 1e and 2e before it, it will fade into obscurity.

If Pathfinder takes off, that may be where the remnant of a remnant will survive.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with the inherent goodness or badness of a system.

no, actually it has offical support, other than pathfinder, because the license is free for anybody, unlike 2E or 1E, or for that matter 4E
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 05:03 PM
Could you post some examples? I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, and would like to know more.

For me, it feels like they were trying to go away from 3.5, where the wizard just dominated out of combat situations with utility magic. For example, the wizard who had Knock made the rogue obsolete (since rogues were normally really only good for finding and disarming traps). However, I think they were overzealous in this regard and went too far.

I agree that the wizard's utility spells were strong, but the rituals in 4th edition are down-right unusable, at least unless you have thousands and thousands of GP, like in the Paragon/epic tiers. After all, at that level, who cares if you used 35 gp to summon flying horses.

Well, in fiction, magic is generally not the first solution people resort to. I can list a number of tropes as to /why/, but the upshot is that magic generally has an extra cost associated with it that means you will want to explore your options. For instance, in the Warhammer worlds, and this is an extreme example, your soul can be dragged off by evil demons and eaten if you cast spells. Usually, it's not that severe a cost, but there can be all kinds of them. Even Mage has something, and that's all about Magi; You can pull yourself out of touch with normal human beings and lose your sanity if you cast spells too frivolously (As well as the more gamist cost of Mana). I don't feel they're unusable at all; They're merely meant to be used *sparingly*. And Bloody Hell, I meant to ask you what you meant by "The traps were intentional if Monte Cook is to be believed"

There is another difference between DnD spells and normal fictional spells, and that's in the breadth of magic's usefulness for any one mage, but that *isn't* repeated in DnD. Not even for spontaneous casters, who can burn scrolls.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 05:08 PM
Well, in fiction, magic is generally not the first solution people resort to. I can list a number of tropes as to /why/, but the upshot is that magic generally has an extra cost associated with it that means you will want to explore your options. For instance, in the Warhammer worlds, and this is an extreme example, your soul can be dragged off by evil demons and eaten if you cast spells. Usually, it's not that severe a cost, but there can be all kinds of them. Even Mage has something, and that's all about Magi; You can pull yourself out of touch with normal human beings and lose your sanity if you cast spells too frivolously (As well as the more gamist cost of Mana). I don't feel they're unusable at all; They're merely meant to be used *sparingly*. And Bloody Hell, I meant to ask you what you meant by "The traps were intentional if Monte Cook is to be believed"

There is another difference between DnD spells and normal fictional spells, and that's in the breadth of magic's usefulness for any one mage, but that *isn't* repeated in DnD. Not even for spontaneous casters, who can burn scrolls.
1) Define normal fiction. There is lots of fiction, with lots of magic types, not all work that way
2) Wait, doesn't 4E do taht too, just not rituals but other spells?


Anyways, on topic, i think if we are going to name pros and cons, we shouldn't respond to each others claims, because then we are going to get that normal 4E dicussion that nobody likes
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 05:13 PM
1) Define normal fiction. There is lots of fiction, with lots of magic types, not all work that way
2) Wait, doesn't 4E do taht too, just not rituals but other spells?
1: Things that are not 80s hack fantasy. There may be a lot of kinds of magic, but even in a series marketted for kids where magic was supposed to be the best (Harry Potter), it's still not strictly better at everything, in most cases. And the ones where it is are generally just not good books.
2: Which part? If you mean "Enforced limit on the breadth of magic" then no, 4e doesn't do that either; DnD never has. If you mean "Limit the ability magic has to affect the world somewhat, like normal fiction", then yes, it has somewhat. That's why it's relevant.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 05:21 PM
1: Things that are not 80s hack fantasy. There may be a lot of kinds of magic, but even in a series marketted for kids where magic was supposed to be the best (Harry Potter), it's still not strictly better at everything, in most cases. And the ones where it is are generally just not good books.
2: Which part? If you mean "Enforced limit on the breadth of magic" then no, 4e doesn't do that either; DnD never has. If you mean "Limit the ability magic has to affect the world somewhat, like normal fiction", then yes, it has somewhat. That's why it's relevant.

1) Isn't that a little bit broad of a statement? I mean, your basically saying magic works like this everywhere, when the massive amount of different magic workings are absurd.
2) Define "normal fiction". Eddings? Salvator? Rowling? Tolkien? Martine? Bloody Paloni? What counts as "normal". Its a rather general statement?
3) Not really. The PCs are absurdly powerful with massive magic at their disposal, so no its limits on the world doesn't change. It just focues upon combat more than anything else
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 05:30 PM
1) Isn't that a little bit broad of a statement? I mean, your basically saying magic works like this everywhere, when the massive amount of different magic workings are absurd.
2) Define "normal fiction". Eddings? Salvator? Rowling? Tolkien? Martine? Bloody Paloni? What counts as "normal". Its a rather general statement?
3) Not really. The PCs are absurdly powerful with massive magic at their disposal, so no its limits on the world doesn't change. It just focues upon combat more than anything else
from
EE

1. No. I really, really am not making a statement that's too broad. If the fiction is good, Magic is not going to be end-all without some sort of incredible cost attached. The two aren't technically mutually exclusive, it's that without it, fiction tends to drag into Mary Sue-age that drags down the book. See: Elminster.
2. It is a rather general statement. I mean "Things that aren't bad.", quite frankly. I can not think of a good /anything/ where not only is their magic/special things effective at everything, it comes without cost.
3. Its limits on the world have changed vastly. In third edition, by expending my 9th levels, I can have several utterly loyal servants that are far more powerful then I am (Gate, Mindrape Solars). I can detonate a city with trivial ease (Locate City Bomb). 3rd ed allows the creation of that one guy's worlds. The one with the Uber Magocracy that rules all, has magic infrastructure everywhere that everyone can use, and has mindraped all its relevant servants. Third ed allows you to create a new plane for yourself as part of a mechanical thing you can repeat at will, with Epic Magic. An Epic Tier Mage may be a powerful person, capable of a wide variety of tricks, both combat and non-, but the simple fact is that Rituals are nowhere near broad enough for magic, and magic alone, to have these kinds of effects on the world at large.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-24, 05:45 PM
It's undeniable that 4ed encounter budget works, as opposed to CR system that works... occasionaly.
Well. . .we had a random encounter of some wights and gelatinous cubes that was perfectly budgeted on the way to the story encounters. We didn't like it, because a) Sure it gave experience points, but otherwise had no purpose b)Nearly killed us all. . .and didn't advance the story an iota.

So broken or not, I don't like random encounters.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-24, 05:54 PM
Here is my list of what I like and dislike about 4th edition.
Very good and well thought-out post. Thank you.


This is fairly similar to how magic uuuusually works in fiction that didn't steal its tropes from DnD, actually..
Absolutely not. The common trope in fiction is that rituals are hard to obtain, require rare reagents or lunar conditions that are hard to obtain, come with a substantial price such as your soul, and are obscenely powerful. 4E rituals, on the other hand, can be bought in any moderately-sized town, require only easily obtained standard reagents, no preconditions, and a simple price in a handful of gold pieces, and are obscenely weak. That's pretty much the opposite of what you suggest.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:00 PM
Absolutely not. The common trope in fiction is that rituals are hard to obtain, require rare reagents or lunar conditions that are hard to obtain, come with a substantial price such as your soul, and are obscenely powerful. 4E rituals, on the other hand, can be bought in any moderately-sized town, require only easily obtained standard reagents, no preconditions, and a simple price in a handful of gold pieces, and are obscenely weak. That's pretty much the opposite of what you suggest.
I was referring to "Are hard to use", and that ilk, most specifically, as well as the lost breadth (Which he did not lament). As to gold costs.. it's still DnD. I don't expect them to do it completely right, no.

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 06:07 PM
Well, in fiction, magic is generally not the first solution people resort to. I can list a number of tropes as to /why/, but the upshot is that magic generally has an extra cost associated with it that means you will want to explore your options. For instance, in the Warhammer worlds, and this is an extreme example, your soul can be dragged off by evil demons and eaten if you cast spells. Usually, it's not that severe a cost, but there can be all kinds of them. Even Mage has something, and that's all about Magi; You can pull yourself out of touch with normal human beings and lose your sanity if you cast spells too frivolously (As well as the more gamist cost of Mana). I don't feel they're unusable at all; They're merely meant to be used *sparingly*. And Bloody Hell, I meant to ask you what you meant by "The traps were intentional if Monte Cook is to be believed"

There is another difference between DnD spells and normal fictional spells, and that's in the breadth of magic's usefulness for any one mage, but that *isn't* repeated in DnD. Not even for spontaneous casters, who can burn scrolls.

Ok, fair enough. I REALLY do not think that was the angle that the designers were going for. I'd much rather have unusual costs than having a ritual being basically strictly inferior to doing something through mundane means. The most ridiculous ritual that I've seen was from Dungeon/Dragon magazine where one ritual (Wizard's Curtain?) cost 10 gp of components to make a curtain. For 1 hour. It didn't even provide total cover/concealment. It just reduces the perception check of people looking in by 10, IIRC.

Rituals are rather costly. The opportunity cost of learning a ritual and having components for a ritual is a magic item. For that much, there should be SOME use for rituals other than "Oh, we have absolutely NOTHING on us, except our ritual book and material components, but we can eat for today because I know Heroes Feast!" The vast majority of rituals are like this, or are only marginally useful in an extremely, EXTREMELY limited manner.

While you may say that other fiction does not have Magic as the end-all-be-all of D&D, the fact remains that D&D is a reasonably high magic setting. Especially when Eberron comes out, rituals should be fairly common place. If rituals are going to be nerfed as highly as they are now, pretty much everything else in the system needs to be modified, such as removing the commodity nature of magic items and making spells/prayers/exploits much less powerful. Its about verisimilitude.


Anyways, as for my Monte Cook comment, I found the thread I was referencing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809). Basically, the designers of 3rd edition intentionally made certain choices better than others, rather than it being an accident of design. They even put bad advice into the PHB and put crappy feats on the iconics (sample characters). If you want more info, go to the thread, which cites the sources of such comments.


Anyways, on topic, i think if we are going to name pros and cons, we shouldn't respond to each others claims, because then we are going to get that normal 4E dicussion that nobody likes

To be honest, I don't think it is the discussion that is the problem. Its people who go post without reading anything else in the thread and shout out their opinions without reading anyone else's opinions. Also, when people keep on saying the same things over and over without backing up their points or changing their opinions. In my opinion, as long as perspectives are changing and the arguments are adapting, things are good. Of course, arguments not changing has to do with what I said about too many people talking and not enough people listening.

Edit: Thanks for the compliment, Kurald Galain.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:18 PM
Rituals are rather costly. The opportunity cost of learning a ritual and having components for a ritual is a magic item. For that much, there should be SOME use for rituals other than "Oh, we have absolutely NOTHING on us, except our ritual book and material components," which is more or less the only way I can see many rituals like Heroes Feast being used.
...Heroes Feast struck me as a rather obvious way to abstract food carrying/spoilage, really. Granted, I've never needed the help in a normal game of DnD.


While you may say that other fiction does not have Magic as the end-all-be-all of D&D, the fact remains that D&D is a reasonably high magic setting. Especially when Eberron comes out, rituals should be fairly common place. If rituals are going to be nerfed as highly as they are now, pretty much everything else in the system needs to be modified, such as removing the commodity nature of magic items and making spells/prayers/exploits much less powerful. Its about verisimilitude.
DnD is not the only set of high-magic setting. Magic is /still/ not generally end-all. Commonplace, yes. End-all, no.


Anyways, as for my Monte Cook comment, I found the thread I was referencing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809). Basically, the designers of 3rd edition intentionally made certain choices better than others, rather than it being an accident of design. They even put bad advice into the PHB and put crappy feats on the iconics. If you want more info, go to the thread, which cites the sources of such comments.
Interesting. I'm going to go with "Monte Cook has an ego the size of an asteroid and just didn't want to admit that he's not good at this", in the spirit of "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be thought of as ignorance". But who knows, right? It's just so easy to have a flawed product, then after the fact, say "We MEANT it to be flawed! Haw Haw!"

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 06:21 PM
Interesting. I'm going to go with "Monte Cook has an ego the size of an asteroid and just didn't want to admit that he's not good at this", in the spirit of "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be thought of as ignorance". But who knows, right? It's just so easy to have a flawed product, then after the fact, say "We MEANT it to be flawed! Haw Haw!"

Ego huge, yes. But bad at this? Lies. The man is a brilliant designer.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:25 PM
Ego huge, yes. But bad at this? Lies. The man is a brilliant designer.

He claims to have taken design cues from a TCG for use in a tabletop RPG that at the time still pretended to be good at things that weren't combat. Either he didn't, in which case he's simply covering his own ass after legitimately screwing up in a massive way, or he literally doesn't know what he's doing. Though I had heard that Arcana Unearthed (That's *his*, right, with Unearthed Arcana being the WotC D20 supplement?) was much better designed..

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 06:36 PM
...Heroes Feast struck me as a rather obvious way to abstract food carrying/spoilage, really. Granted, I've never needed the help in a normal game of DnD.


One of my friends described it best that D&D treats rations as giant 1 lb granola bars. No cooking required. No spoiling. No utensils necessary. For some reason, the image is just hilarious.



DnD is not the only set of high-magic setting. Magic is /still/ not generally end-all. Commonplace, yes. End-all, no.


Fair enough. However, I think a big part of magic being common place is for it to be USEFUL, which most of the rituals are not except in extremely limited circumstances. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point, as it seems more a matter of taste. I think I will try to make some personal errata and post it on these boards later to demonstrate how *I* would prefer the rituals to be.



Interesting. I'm going to go with "Monte Cook has an ego the size of an asteroid and just didn't want to admit that he's not good at this", in the spirit of "Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be thought of as ignorance". But who knows, right? It's just so easy to have a flawed product, then after the fact, say "We MEANT it to be flawed! Haw Haw!"

The thought had crossed my mind. But when someone admits to being a jerk, I'd rather attribute something to malice than to incompetence based on the admission.

Anyway, my point is that 4th edition does not appear to have intentional traps put in it.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:48 PM
One of my friends described it best that D&D treats rations as giant 1 lb granola bars. No cooking required. No spoiling. No utensils necessary. For some reason, the image is just hilarious.
Duly noted for my next spoof game in anything, thanks :smallbiggrin:



Fair enough. However, I think a big part of magic being common place is for it to be USEFUL, which most of the rituals are not except in extremely limited circumstances. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point, as it seems more a matter of taste. I think I will try to make some personal errata and post it on these boards later to demonstrate how *I* would prefer the rituals to be.
Hm. What qualifies as useful, specifically? Some of your examples seem to show that what you're looking for is day-to-day utility, rather then adventuring utility.



Anyway, my point is that 4th edition does not appear to have intentional traps put in it.
Doesn't seem like it, no.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 06:54 PM
Fair enough. However, I think a big part of magic being common place is for it to be USEFUL, which most of the rituals are not except in extremely limited circumstances. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point, as it seems more a matter of taste. I think I will try to make some personal errata and post it on these boards later to demonstrate how *I* would prefer the rituals to be.

So, first I'll post a nifty podcast about magic-in-fantasy-settings (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/18/writing-excuses-episode-15-costs-and-ramifications-of-magic/). I think it lays out the arguments about how you treat magic fairly well.

That said, Rituals are problematic. I recently joined a game where the DM didn't like the idea of "money for magic" so he made (nearly) all Rituals costless. As a cleric, I quickly noticed how incredibly powerful costless rituals are. Then he switched back to using full costs, and suddenly I couldn't really justify using any of my rituals. Still, they have been used when useful (Eyes of Alarm is very, very good, and reasonably cheap) and sometimes necessary (Linked Portal; but we are in a travel-heavy campaign).

A homebrew fix I came up with is using a Mana System.
Each Ritual costs mana equal to the spell level to cast. You keep certain ritual costs (Raise Dead, Permanency, and Craft Magic Item as examples) but by and large magic is "free." The trick here, naturally, is how much Mana a character has to spend. I figure you'd be best with a system where you gain your level's worth of mana (so LV 1 = 1 Mana, LV 2 = 3 Mana, LV 3 = 6 Mana...), and depending on how awesome you want a character to be, you can add a multiplier to it.

Needless to say, you can cast from Ritual Scrolls without spending Mana, and you can substitute the Material Costs in reagents for Mana if you desire.

It's a simple fix, to be sure, but it might help to recapture a 3e-ish feel for magic without resulting in a Tippyverse... particularly since Magic Items aren't as powerful as they once were.

Jayabalard
2008-10-24, 07:14 PM
I mean "Things that aren't bad.", quite frankly. I can not think of a good /anything/ where not only is their magic/special things effective at everything, it comes without cost.That's a pretty circular statement; you're just talking about fantasy that you like. That doesn't make it "normal" . Of course, if you stick to calling it what it is (ie, fantasy that you particularily like) then that doesn't sound nearly as important as labeling it "normal" does.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 07:15 PM
That's a pretty circular statement; you're just talking about fantasy that you like. That doesn't make it "normal" . Of course, if you stick to calling it what it is (ie, fantasy that you particularily like) then that doesn't sound nearly as important as labeling it "normal" does.

Alright, let's try this then. "Fantasy that doesn't ruin itself by dint of Magic/Phlebotinium using Mary Sues".

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 07:19 PM
Hm. What qualifies as useful, specifically? Some of your examples seem to show that what you're looking for is day-to-day utility, rather then adventuring utility.

When I say useful, I mean that it should be useful for the purpose it was intended. Flipping through the PHB, here are some examples:


Animal Messenger has time length of 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, depending on the arcana check. That is WAY too short to deliver a message. At the very least, the time length for each category should be multiplied by four. maybe even more. I really can't see using this ritual just to save a few hours worth of walking, but I can see using it to save a few days.
Arcane lock takes too long to cast. 1 minute is sufficient to make it not used in combat, but useful if someone is following you, which 10 minutes would prevent. Also, paying 25 gp to get a measily 5 bonus on a DC for lock picking is kind of rough. I think that a 10 bonus would be better, but there should be a ritual version of Dispel magic that would counter/dispel this and other lasting rituals. Maybe change Knock to counter/dispel this automatically, rather than having to make a check.
Make Hand of Fate look into the future for a whole day, rather than just an hour. Or atleast let an arcana check modify the value
Phantom Steed - The cost of using this ritual once is almost the cost of having a horse forever. I think 25 gp or less would be more reasonable considering you only have the horses for one day.
Silence should completely negate sound.
Tenser's floating disk should move at the same speed as you. By RAW, it will move your base speed once per turn. In other words, if you are moving normally, taking two move actions a turn, it will disappear. Plus, it may be able to carry over a ton of material, but it is ONLY 3 FEET WIDE! There should be some provision for actually fitting material on there if it can carry it.
Traveler's Feast (sorry, I have been saying Heroes' Feast, which was the 3.5 Spell). This doesn't have to be better than having rations. 35 gp for a days of food is a lot. 5 or 10 gp is enough, considering that the party spends 0.5 gp per day to eat as a whole (0.1 gp per ration). An increase by an order of magnitude should be enough. Either that, or it should be able to feed like 10 medium creatures and 10 large creatures (so a large party can eat, and so can the party's mounts).
I have more, but you get the point


Some rituals, like Remove Affliction, Create Magic Item, Disenchant Magic Item, Resurrection, ect. are perfect. But a lot of the rituals just require minor changes, like reducing the casting time from 10 minutes to 1 minute, reducing the cost, increasing the duration/bonus, and so on. Otherwise, the rituals aren't worth using until you are 10 levels higher and getting so much gold that the rituals are basically free. In fact, for most of the rituals, I think that completely removing the component costs and increasing the market price would be a great way to make the rituals better.

Anyway, these are all just personal taste kind of things. With just a lot of minor tweaks, these rituals would be vastly more useful and actually worth learning.

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-10-24, 07:24 PM
That said, Rituals are problematic. I recently joined a game where the DM didn't like the idea of "money for magic" so he made (nearly) all Rituals costless. As a cleric, I quickly noticed how incredibly powerful costless rituals are. Then he switched back to using full costs, and suddenly I couldn't really justify using any of my rituals. Still, they have been used when useful (Eyes of Alarm is very, very good, and reasonably cheap) and sometimes necessary (Linked Portal; but we are in a travel-heavy campaign).

A homebrew fix I came up with is using a Mana System.


Thank you for those insights. I don't think it is necessarily a problem of there being a cost, just that the rituals usually have too high of a cost for a meager benefit (not just in money, but in time for casting as well).

That said, I REALLY like the mana system. But, I think that tweaking the numbers and details of the rituals is enough.

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-24, 07:25 PM
It's a simple fix, to be sure, but it might help to recapture a 3e-ish feel for magic without resulting in a Tippyverse... particularly since Magic Items aren't as powerful as they once were.

*is proud to have his own universe*

The New Bruceski
2008-10-24, 07:28 PM
One homebrew ritual change I saw on these boards and like is that you can have it Fast, Cheap, or Good. When casting a ritual you can either use 1/10 the materials, do it in 1/10 the time, or add 10 to the relevant skill check roll.

EDIT: Barring a few rituals, such as item creation.

Lord Tataraus
2008-10-24, 07:48 PM
1. No. I really, really am not making a statement that's too broad. If the fiction is good, Magic is not going to be end-all without some sort of incredible cost attached. The two aren't technically mutually exclusive, it's that without it, fiction tends to drag into Mary Sue-age that drags down the book. See: Elminster.
2. It is a rather general statement. I mean "Things that aren't bad.", quite frankly. I can not think of a good /anything/ where not only is their magic/special things effective at everything, it comes without cost.
3. Its limits on the world have changed vastly. In third edition, by expending my 9th levels, I can have several utterly loyal servants that are far more powerful then I am (Gate, Mindrape Solars). I can detonate a city with trivial ease (Locate City Bomb). 3rd ed allows the creation of that one guy's worlds. The one with the Uber Magocracy that rules all, has magic infrastructure everywhere that everyone can use, and has mindraped all its relevant servants. Third ed allows you to create a new plane for yourself as part of a mechanical thing you can repeat at will, with Epic Magic. An Epic Tier Mage may be a powerful person, capable of a wide variety of tricks, both combat and non-, but the simple fact is that Rituals are nowhere near broad enough for magic, and magic alone, to have these kinds of effects on the world at large.
I just love who you are defining your example set as "fantasy fiction that is good" which allows you to arbitrarily disregard any counter-examples, thus your entire argument cannot be proven wrong. Cangrulations, you won by default and you can go and celebrate in your perfect world where everyone shares your opinions.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 07:54 PM
*is proud to have his own universe*

Hey, don't act like you haven't had your name invoked more for "magic is overpowered" threads than Vance himself!

Besides, Tippyverse is a nice shorthand, particularly since you started designing magic spaceships (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86964&highlight=spaceship). :smalltongue:

FoE
2008-10-24, 08:01 PM
It's undeniable that 4ed encounter budget works, as opposed to CR system that works... occasionaly.


Well. . .we had a random encounter of some wights and gelatinous cubes that was perfectly budgeted on the way to the story encounters. We didn't like it, because a) Sure it gave experience points, but otherwise had no purpose b)Nearly killed us all. . .and didn't advance the story an iota.

So broken or not, I don't like random encounters.

What you said is completely beside the point.

It's not the fault of the system if you don't like random encounters, which can occur in ANY edition, going all the way back to 1E. If you don't like random encounters that aren't part of the storyline, don't use them.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 08:10 PM
1. No. I really, really am not making a statement that's too broad. If the fiction is good, Magic is not going to be end-all without some sort of incredible cost attached. The two aren't technically mutually exclusive, it's that without it, fiction tends to drag into Mary Sue-age that drags down the book. See: Elminster.

Oh we are counting settings? What about FR, Ebberon, Spelljammer, planescape, even greyhawk. Great games and great worlds but high magic.



2. It is a rather general statement. I mean "Things that aren't bad.", quite frankly. I can not think of a good /anything/ where not only is their magic/special things effective at everything, it comes without cost.
HP and Xarth are pretty good. Now don't get me wrong, personally i prefer worlds where magic has a cost, i think it makes better story telling, but i'm not going to instantly assume that everything that doesn't work that way is wrong. At least not without naming specifics



3. Its limits on the world have changed vastly. In third edition, by expending my 9th levels, I can have several utterly loyal servants that are far more powerful then I am (Gate, Mindrape Solars). I can detonate a city with trivial ease (Locate City Bomb). 3rd ed allows the creation of that one guy's worlds. The one with the Uber Magocracy that rules all, has magic infrastructure everywhere that everyone can use, and has mindraped all its relevant servants. Third ed allows you to create a new plane for yourself as part of a mechanical thing you can repeat at will, with Epic Magic. An Epic Tier Mage may be a powerful person, capable of a wide variety of tricks, both combat and non-, but the simple fact is that Rituals are nowhere near broad enough for magic, and magic alone, to have these kinds of effects on the world at large.
And in epic 4E edition your almost as god, your point? 4E edition upped the magical power scale, and apart from magic becoming combat heavy, nothing has changed. The complaint about magic being too powerful and too accesible is true for both 3E and 4E, and so that just makes rituals an under powered mechanic (through to be fair, cool in theory, but so were true namers)


On the subject of replies, i think that the biggest problems with this dicussions is the resulting flames and fallacies taht emerge
from
E

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 08:17 PM
Oh we are counting settings? What about FR, Ebberon, Spelljammer, planescape, even greyhawk. Great games and great worlds but high magic.
As stated earlier; High Magic != Magic is End All without a cost. It means magic's commonplace. Going by the fluff, it's pretty clear that their wizards are either idiots, or not as capable of the dickery that DnD magic, per the books, allows you to do.


HP and Xarth are pretty good. Now don't get me wrong, personally i prefer worlds where magic has a cost, i think it makes better story telling, but i'm not going to instantly assume that everything that doesn't work that way is wrong. At least not without naming specifics
Lord, I knew I should have written these books names down. Oh well, I can handle not being able to produce incontrovertible proof on the internet.


And in epic 4E edition your almost as god, your point?
I would rather fight an Epic 4e mage then an Epic 3e mage. The Epic 4e mage will still fundamentally have to use the same playing field as any other Epic 4e character. The 3e mage can probably invent a spell that allows travel back in time and erase me from the timestream by killing my mother before I'm born. Or Mindrape an Epic creature that can do it.


4E edition upped the magical power scale, and apart from magic becoming combat heavy, nothing has changed. The complaint about magic being too powerful and too accesible is true for both 3E and 4E, and so that just makes rituals an under powered mechanic (through to be fair, cool in theory, but so were true namers)
How did 4e up the magical power scale? I'm legitimately confused on how that's possible, when 3rd ed casters have a mechanical (rather then story driven) method to /create alternate planes and populate them with epic creatures of their own creation/.

Edit: I actually think I understand your argument though. You're saying that 4e characters take up a mantle of godhood, or near it, as Epic characters, and thus, by extension, a 4e Wizard is more powerful, narratively speaking, then a 3e one, yes? Which, narratively speaking, is a true statement. Story wise, a 4e mage is taken as a force of nature. The thing is, his actual mechanical capabilities for dickery with the world are much reduced, compared to a 3e one..

This notwithstanding that it's a move /away/ from Magic as End-all. Sure, thte Wizard is unto a God. THing is, *so is everyone else*. Magic may be narratively more powerful (Not mechanically, but narratively), but with everyone else's ascension to same, it lost its end-all priveleges.

magellan
2008-10-24, 08:33 PM
The problem in this discussion is that an RPG is not a work of Fiction. In Fiction Magic is just "magic" it is not defined excessively. If its all powerfull it enters deus ex machina territory very fast. No sense of danger, because the hero can snip his fingers after all.

In an RPG you define stuff. Excessively so, because you have to think about the consequences before it gets used. A fireball isnt a big fiery thingy burning all that were opposing the hero, it does 6d6 damage. A timestop doesnt let you "do stuff till all story purposes are fulfilled", it stops time for a few rounds. Also you had it before, you cant deus ex machina *anything* in an RPG.

Your argument is therefore pretty void.

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-24, 08:33 PM
Hey, don't act like you haven't had your name invoked more for "magic is overpowered" threads than Vance himself!

Besides, Tippyverse is a nice shorthand, particularly since you started designing magic spaceships (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86964&highlight=spaceship). :smalltongue:

But it still hasn't gone beyond these forums, so my exploits haven't been spread far enough yet.:smallbiggrin:

And honestly, you can make a balanced setting using the D&D RAW in all its stupid glory (well, leave out Manipulate Form) until you hit epic magic. And you can even make epic magic work as written.

And it doesn't restrict story options, power level, character options, or anything else.

The thing is people just don't really feel like putting in the effort too make a world where the RAW (not its fluff, just the mechanics) is taken as the laws of the universe and the effects of that while still maintaining the right feel. Sure, that city might make Sharn look like a dead magic zone but you still have your poor hamlet out in the middle of nowhere where a magic item is seen by a person maybe once in a lifetime.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-24, 08:35 PM
Pros will always beat Cons, because if the Cons were any good they'd be Pros.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 08:39 PM
The problem in this discussion is that an RPG is not a work of Fiction. In Fiction Magic is just "magic" it is not defined excessively. If its all powerfull it enters deus ex machina territory very fast. No sense of danger, because the hero can snip his fingers after all.
I strongly disagree that magic is never defined in fiction. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinovskyParticle) But yes, if all-powerful, it does enter DEM territory. I'm not sure what the last two lines mean though, I'll admit.


In an RPG you define stuff. Excessively so, because you have to think about the consequences before it gets used. A fireball isnt a big fiery thingy burning all that were opposing the hero, it does 6d6 damage. A timestop doesnt let you "do stuff till all story purposes are fulfilled", it stops time for a few rounds. Also you had it before, you cant deus ex machina *anything* in an RPG.

You can Deus Ex Machina anything, actually, particularly as the GM. I believe the words you're looking for are "*should not* Deus Ex Machina anything in an RPG", not "Can't....". And most systems that promote story(Such as, surprisingly, the Storyteller system, and to a degree, 4ed) will have stronger promotion of story controls over mechanical power.

As to "You can't DEM in an RPG as a player"..
I gate a Djinn.
I mindrape the Djinn. I now have 3 Wishes a day. Repeat until unsatisfied. And that's just being really basic, pre-epic. That's pretty close to DEM potential, if not exactly there.


Your argument is therefore pretty void.
Because Magic is never defined in fiction (Except when it is) and because story controls are never used (Except when they are)? I suppose so.

magellan
2008-10-24, 09:14 PM
See, but you had the means to summon the Djinn in the first place. or you aquired them. You had the means to mindrape it. You had 3 wishes, wich are open ended and somewhat problematic spells, but they are spells. Defined somehow however lax that may be. No Deus Ex Machina here. Insanely Powerfull? yes. Deus Ex Machina? no.

DMs cant Deus Ex Machina either. Your explanation might be threadbare, but thats as bad as it gets. I once turned a NPC on a whim into a silver dragon in disguise, because i needed it. Players perspective: "Where there any hints, could we have known? No." Also: no Deus Ex Machina.

I meant that: You *can't* Deus Ex Machina in an RPG.

Edit to add: that TV tropes page ... sorry, dont see much there. Larry Niven gets thrown in without any supporting evidence (Guess its thinking about Ring World Engineers) A parody by Asimov. Some Computer Games, the rest is mainly Sci Fi, not Fantasy, wich is a different kind of magic.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 10:36 PM
The thing is people just don't really feel like putting in the effort too make a world where the RAW (not its fluff, just the mechanics) is taken as the laws of the universe and the effects of that while still maintaining the right feel. Sure, that city might make Sharn look like a dead magic zone but you still have your poor hamlet out in the middle of nowhere where a magic item is seen by a person maybe once in a lifetime.

Well, Rich Burlew aside, perhaps. And maybe Ptolus; I've been pretty happy with the fluff of that setting... though I guess it isn't all that popular.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 11:14 PM
DMs cant Deus Ex Machina either. Your explanation might be threadbare, but thats as bad as it gets. I once turned a NPC on a whim into a silver dragon in disguise, because i needed it. Players perspective: "Where there any hints, could we have known? No." Also: no Deus Ex Machina.

I meant that: You *can't* Deus Ex Machina in an RPG
If you're going to directly name DEM, and then say it isn't, I really don't know what to tell you.

EvilElitest
2008-10-24, 11:23 PM
As stated earlier; High Magic != Magic is End All without a cost. It means magic's commonplace. Going by the fluff, it's pretty clear that their wizards are either idiots, or not as capable of the dickery that DnD magic, per the books, allows you to do.

That doens't change the fact that those are very good settings, with very good power levels (balence issue aside, but that is the fault of 3E on its own)


Lord, I knew I should have written these books names down. Oh well, I can handle not being able to produce incontrovertible proof on the internet.

Name specifics. I mean, your basically saying one way is absolutly right and another is wrong, without actually explaining why. Absolute statements are fine, but they need more backing than simply "i say so"



I would rather fight an Epic 4e mage then an Epic 3e mage. The Epic 4e mage will still fundamentally have to use the same playing field as any other Epic 4e character. The 3e mage can probably invent a spell that allows travel back in time and erase me from the timestream by killing my mother before I'm born. Or Mindrape an Epic creature that can do it.

The 3E one has limited spells, the 4E only needs to rest for a few rounds without combat. Ok, sure, in reality the 3E one is far more powerful, because they are horribly broken, but as designed 4E are more powerful, their magic is easier to access (with fighters and what not having anime style magic as well) and only having to wait around a tad bit in order to regain it, along with established uber powers from the get go


How did 4e up the magical power scale? I'm legitimately confused on how that's possible, when 3rd ed casters have a mechanical (rather then story driven) method to /create alternate planes and populate them with epic creatures of their own creation/.

Well first off, the 3E spell isn't as powerful as you make it, it basically creates a small demi plane, IE a place for your to hang out and study. powerful, yes, but bear in mind, that is hte peak of your power. 4E duds are powerful from level one, kinda of absurdly, because the 4E games is all about going out of your way to make your self herotic. So in terms of effecting the world, 4E. you just need to wait a few min without combat to cast again.


Edit: I actually think I understand your argument though. You're saying that 4e characters take up a mantle of godhood, or near it, as Epic characters, and thus, by extension, a 4e Wizard is more powerful, narratively speaking, then a 3e one, yes? Which, narratively speaking, is a true statement. Story wise, a 4e mage is taken as a force of nature. The thing is, his actual mechanical capabilities for dickery with the world are much reduced, compared to a 3e one..
Pretty much yeah, except it is worth noting that 4E goes out of its way to make the PC classes in general powerful, while 3E wizards only start kicking arse around level 7-9



This notwithstanding that it's a move /away/ from Magic as End-all. Sure, thte Wizard is unto a God. THing is, *so is everyone else*. Magic may be narratively more powerful (Not mechanically, but narratively), but with everyone else's ascension to same, it lost its end-all priveleges.

Wait, in 3E or 4E?

Magellen, what are you saying?
from
EE

LotharBot
2008-10-25, 01:19 AM
I DM'ed a 3.5e campaign from levels 1-27, and played in another serious campaign from levels 5-17, and I loved them both. I've been playing 4e just long enough to have reached level 5 and started playing a "serious" campaign (rather than just a series of one-off explorations.) I was pretty lukewarm about 4e when it came out, but it's really grown on me, and I don't think I'll go back to 3.5.

4e pros

- Consistent scaling. The classes, the powers, the items, and the monsters are all expected to scale together, and WotC actually did the math to make it happen for the most part. (There are a few mistakes, but not enough to ruin the game.)

- No "bad" or "uber" builds. This is a result of the consistent scaling -- now you can build what you want for RP reasons and it'll be playable. So character decisions are more along the lines of "what fits my personality" than "what fits the power level of the game best".

- easier to build encounters, at all levels. It used to take a very long time to build a high-level 3.5e monster, trying to get the HD and magic items and feats and saves and blah blah blah... and then it'd die in 2 rounds if you were lucky, and in 1 spell if you'd overlooked something and the wizard attacked the one defense it didn't have. Now you can build a fairly high level monster or a whole encounter VERY quickly, with the most time spent just coming up with cool fluff. That's a big improvement.

- standardized attack mechanic -- everything targets the same resource. In 3.5, some players were trying to take down hitpoints while others were trying to get something to blow a save or going after SR. This meant that (1) encounters were notoriously hard to "balance", and (2) different classes were playing different games, in some sense.

- standardized actions -- everyone gets a minor, move, and standard. No more full attacks, multispell, etc. that led to some characters being able to simply do more per turn than others, or that led to characters wanting to hold still because if they moved they only got 1 attack instead of 7. I find this leads to more role-playing in combat -- more movement and explanation from the players, rather than the "I attack it a bunch of times and roll 4 scoops of dice for damage" mechanic I had in 3.5.

- easier to homebrew. Custom powers, items, and even classes are fairly easy to build based on the existing material and the info in the DMG. This is because of a lot of the above. (For the OP: there's plenty of room to make your own powers in 4e!)

- generally simplified mechanics. No more having to figure out how to spend 82 skill points when you build a level 14 character. No more having to pre-plan builds from level 1 in order to qualify for that one PrC at level 9. No more having to mark down AC coming from a deflection bonus, a natural armor bonus, an armor bonus, a dex bonus, a dodge bonus, an insight bonus, a divine bonus, and so on.

In short, 4e is easier to play and DM from a mechanical standpoint, which leaves more time for fluff and role-play.

3.5e pros

- huge amounts of resources. 4e is still fairly new, with few published books out for it. In 3.5, you can find settings, campaigns, splatbooks for every type of class, you name it. (A lot of it can be rebuilt easily for 4e.) And a lot of 3.5 books are easy to get for cheap now. And a lot of people know 3.5 inside and out, and are willing to help you on the forums.

- the system seemed "bigger", at least in terms of magic. 4e rituals are pretty neutered. If you want to play a superpowered campaign with world-bending magic, you just can't beat the 3.5e wizard, CoDzilla, etc. And that's at medium levels. Epic is even more extreme.

- better alignment system. My 4 favorite alignments are NG, CG, CN, and LE, and they took out all of them except possibly NG in 4e.

- more build options. Sure, lots of them were garbage, but there were a lot of ways you could take a character with a bunch of 1-level dips or short PrC's. In 4e, your options are more limited (though multiclassing in 4e is cleaner; you no longer lose or gain huge amounts of power for it.)

In short, 3.5e is a more "free" game in terms of having huge numbers of options, but having to deal with all of that mechanically can be a pain.

Before anyone flames me for my obviously pro-4e stance, let me remind you that I don't hate 3.5; I really enjoyed playing it for 2 years with my current group. I just think 4e mechanically works better for us for the reasons listed above.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-25, 04:45 AM
That doens't change the fact that those are very good settings, with very good power levels (balence issue aside, but that is the fault of 3E on its own)
Swing and a complete miss.
Yes, they are good settings. They also don't play casters to their logical fullest, as Emperor Tippy does (And may I say, Tippy, that you have at least some limited repute off these boards). I am in fact suggesting that these two developments are related, because an interesting story with multiple characters won't stem from them.



Name specifics. I mean, your basically saying one way is absolutly right and another is wrong, without actually explaining why. Absolute statements are fine, but they need more backing than simply "i say so"
I did not write the names down of the books. Frankly, I wanted a mind scrub. You have not read books where the main characters are mary sues because Magic Can Do Everything At No Extensive Cost. We are at an impasse. And my problem is Magic That Can Do Everything At No Extensive Cost, as 3rd ed Magic does, tends to lead to Mary Sues. So I don't strictly speaking have a problem with the second way, but I do have a problem with the casual result of the second way. And it's just plain hard for characters to not turn into Mary Sues if only their own way can do anything and everything at no extensive cost.


The 3E one has limited spells, the 4E only needs to rest for a few rounds without combat. Ok, sure, in reality the 3E one is far more powerful, because they are horribly broken, but as designed 4E are more powerful, their magic is easier to access (with fighters and what not having anime style magic as well) and only having to wait around a tad bit in order to regain it, along with established uber powers from the get go
...anime style magic? Only if you don't read stories older then Radio, I guess. Moving along, if the 3e one is far more powerful, because it's horribly broken, why are you claiming the 4e one is more powerful? I evidently guessed wrong, so you'll just have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.


Well first off, the 3E spell isn't as powerful as you make it, it basically creates a small demi plane, IE a place for your to hang out and study. powerful, yes, but bear in mind, that is hte peak of your power. 4E duds are powerful from level one, kinda of absurdly, because the 4E games is all about going out of your way to make your self herotic. So in terms of effecting the world, 4E. you just need to wait a few min without combat to cast again.
Wait a few minutes without combat to cast.. another combat spell again? Combat spells are useful, but their effect on the world at large is somewhat small, compared to, oh, any of the really horrid tricks for third ed magi. Like the Locate City Bomb.


Pretty much yeah, except it is worth noting that 4E goes out of its way to make the PC classes in general powerful, while 3E wizards only start kicking arse around level 7-9
Alright, so I understood your argument after all. Just for the fun of it, can you repeat mine back to me?



Wait, in 3E or 4E?
4e. My problem is more that magic is End-all. Magic stopped being End-All when other roads to power became just as good; After all, you aren't the best if the others are as good as you. Now Magic is fine, as far as I'm concerned

magellan
2008-10-25, 08:24 AM
Deus Ex Machina is among other things a question of perspective. The guy turned Silverdragon was not Deus Ex Machina because there was no information availiable to the PCs that ruled out the possibility of him being a Silver Dragon. So it was entirely possible for him to be a silver dragon, it just didnt come up before.

Now what is a mary sue? (i think you should read less TV tropes my friend ;) ) A mary Sue is a character who can do anything he needs to when he needs to. And the skills arent explained, they are deus ex machinad.

If your mary sue in an RPG would have 1 Fireball memorized, 2 scorching rays and 3 burning hands, and ran into a bunch of fire giants, would she say "actually those are magic missiles, Melfs Acidic arrow and lightning bolt."? What would her DM say to that?

See? you cant have a sudden unexplained ability, because you have a character sheet explaining your abilities. DMs can rewrite history and its fine as long as nobody notices.

TempesT
2008-10-25, 10:15 AM
I think that magic should be more powerful in than it is in 4e. Simply because half of dnd's fluf/world is based on the power of magic. And without "practical" magic, the spellcasting classes are taken out of most instances which they were essencial.:smallfrown:

And instead of downgrading the magic system, mabye making better martial classes or anti-mage classes to equal out the balence between mundian and magic classes.

On the other hand I think that non-spellcasters using magic(not as effectively but still having the choice) is a good idea.

ashmanonar
2008-10-25, 01:10 PM
Multiclassing is one of the things that drew me to dnd. Now that it's gone well so has my interest.

I'm just curious, but WHY? Multiclassing is a fairly minor part of both systems; why does a single aspect of a system drive your like or dislike for it?

hamishspence
2008-10-25, 02:12 PM
i think problem in 4th ed, is, multiclassers pay heavily in feats, and don't get full benefits. Maybe it had to do with iconic novel or game characters one wants to play like?

As I remember, it was pretty tricky in 2nd ed.

mindblank19
2008-10-25, 03:23 PM
yeah... I guess I was exaggerating v4's defects a little, but I still think it's really combat-oriented and not much more. On a few things I noticed immediately...

-- Where did bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage go? And nonlethal damage?

-- Spells getting turned into "Powers" like all other abilities isn't something I liked. Spells should have their own category, which is why so much flexibility and options for spell-creation appear in v3.5

-- Defenses replacing saves seems like a letdown, luck should apply to reflexes at least, and all three if you want realism (what if you think something really stupid and distract an enemy spellcaster's attack vs Will?).

-- No cones? Blasts? CUBE-shaped blasts?? Seriously, that just makes the setting seem so artificial it's not even funny.


The fact is I'm in a quandary. Should I add more v4 books? Try more v3/3.5?? Attempt to get v2??? Leave everything as is???? Or just scrap it all and become a minis gamer instead????? :smallconfused:


(Oh, drat, there are two minis versions too. Now what? :smallbiggrin:)


So anyway, thanks for the feedback. I'd apologize for the long post, but I've seen longer :smallwink:

Artanis
2008-10-25, 04:15 PM
I still think it's really combat-oriented and not much more. On a few things I noticed immediately...
And yet it has more rules for non-combat stuff, such as actually using skills, and social skills that aren't entirely broken.



-- Where did bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage go? And nonlethal damage?
I never really saw much point in those three types of damage. They had literally identical effects the vast majority of the time, and pretty much all it was used for was for DR. And the last thing 3e needed was yet ANOTHER DR to go along with the new DR/material that was introduced in pretty much every single book.

The weapon abilities such as Vorpal that were limited to one damage type are just as easily limited under 4e's system, which would do what it already does and limit the ability to certain weapon types...which would all happen to be that sort of damage in 3e.




-- Spells getting turned into "Powers" like all other abilities isn't something I liked. Spells should have their own category, which is why so much flexibility and options for spell-creation appear in v3.5
The sort of spells you're thinking of are probably the rituals, that have their own section. The powers area for the classes are ways to hurt people. If you want something else, go to rituals.



-- Defenses replacing saves seems like a letdown, luck should apply to reflexes at least, and all three if you want realism (what if you think something really stupid and distract an enemy spellcaster's attack vs Will?).
The odds of things coming out the same as before are actually not that different. 1d20 vs. defense and 1d20+save vs. DC are just two different routes of approaching relatively similar outcomes.



-- No cones? Blasts? CUBE-shaped blasts?? Seriously, that just makes the setting seem so artificial it's not even funny.
That complaint doesn't have to do with lack of circular blasts and whatnot, your complain here is with the new distance system. In 3e, diagonal distance was 1.5-1.5-1.5 (or 1-2-1-2 or whatever), whereas in 4e it's straight-up 1-1-1-1 no matter which direction you're going. If you apply the circular blasts from 3e (e.g. "blows up everything within 40 ft / 8 tiles), it winds up looking like a square.

That's not to say your complaint is invalid or something, of course. I'm merely saying that this change is not a change in and of itself, but rather a side-effect of a change in a different area.



The fact is I'm in a quandary. Should I add more v4 books? Try more v3/3.5?? Attempt to get v2??? Leave everything as is???? Or just scrap it all and become a minis gamer instead????? :smallconfused:

It's really up to you. 3/3.5 has many more splatbooks of all varieties, and will continue to do so for a VERY long time. On the other hand, that's also an advantage for 4e in a way because you can stick with the core 3 without missing much. So it's up to you :smallwink:

The New Bruceski
2008-10-25, 04:21 PM
yeah... I guess I was exaggerating v4's defects a little, but I still think it's really combat-oriented and not much more. On a few things I noticed immediately...

-- Where did bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage go? And nonlethal damage?
Needless complications. Nonlethal damage is now decided at the end (you choose whether your "killing" blow only knocked them out.)


-- Spells getting turned into "Powers" like all other abilities isn't something I liked. Spells should have their own category, which is why so much flexibility and options for spell-creation appear in v3.5 But the cost was a lack of flexibility and options for non-casters. If you make different classes operate under different rules, you've just doubled the work needed to keep track of everything and need to worry about how they interact.


-- Defenses replacing saves seems like a letdown, luck should apply to reflexes at least, and all three if you want realism (what if you think something really stupid and distract an enemy spellcaster's attack vs Will?).
It's exactly the same mechanic, they just put the die roll into the hands of the attacker for consistency.


-- No cones? Blasts? CUBE-shaped blasts?? Seriously, that just makes the setting seem so artificial it's not even funny.
Pi is equal to 4. Again, the change was made to speed up combat. If you play on a hex grid pi is equal to three, and blasts are closer to cones, at the trade-off of some extra paperwork deciding on their shape.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-25, 04:32 PM
-- Where did bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage go?
I am unaware of any people that applied the difference, in 3rd edition.


And nonlethal damage?
It still exists. That is, whenever a player character "drops" an enemy, he can then and there decide whether all the damage done to the enemy so far, by himself and others, turns out to have been non-lethal (even if it were, say, disintegration damage, or alchemist fire).



-- Defenses replacing saves seems like a letdown, luck should apply to reflexes at least,
Luck still applies equally. The only difference is whether the attacker rolls BAB + 1d20 >= defense, or the defender rolls defnse + 1d20 >= save DC. Do the math, it ends up the same.



-- No cones? Blasts? CUBE-shaped blasts?? Seriously, that just makes the setting seem so artificial it's not even funny.
If that bothers you (and frankly it does bother me), play on a hex grid.

LotharBot
2008-10-25, 04:59 PM
Spells should have their own category, which is why so much flexibility and options for spell-creation appear in v3.5

That's what "rituals" are for. I'm glad they made wizard/cleric powers equally powerful to fighter/paladin powers, instead of tons better. Anybody can pick up rituals, which are out-of-combat spells (which you can create yourself; it's not that hard!) There's lots of room for flexibility and options, just not as much room for "I broke the fight" like there was in 3.5.


Defenses replacing saves seems like a letdown, luck should apply to reflexes at least

In both games, all of the luck is in the form of a single d20 roll. In 3.5 it's a save; in 4e it's an attack. There's still the same amount of luck, it's just more consistent to always have the attacker rolling it.


CUBE-shaped blasts?? Seriously, that just makes the setting seem so artificial it's not even funny.

You can always re-introduce the 3.5 mechanics out of the back of the DMG, where you use "cone" and "radius" templates. Personally, I think the added realism isn't worth the pain of trying to calculate which squares are in/out.


Should I add more v4 books? Try more v3/3.5??

Play 4e it a bit (more than 1-2 sessions) and see if you like it. Personally, I do, but you may or may not.

Erk
2008-10-25, 08:12 PM
Deus Ex Machina is among other things a question of perspective. The guy turned Silverdragon was not Deus Ex Machina because there was no information availiable to the PCs that ruled out the possibility of him being a Silver Dragon. So it was entirely possible for him to be a silver dragon, it just didnt come up before.

Now what is a mary sue? (i think you should read less TV tropes my friend ;) ) A mary Sue is a character who can do anything he needs to when he needs to. And the skills arent explained, they are deus ex machinad.

If your mary sue in an RPG would have 1 Fireball memorized, 2 scorching rays and 3 burning hands, and ran into a bunch of fire giants, would she say "actually those are magic missiles, Melfs Acidic arrow and lightning bolt."? What would her DM say to that?

See? you cant have a sudden unexplained ability, because you have a character sheet explaining your abilities. DMs can rewrite history and its fine as long as nobody notices.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Deus Ex Machina does not mean changing prewritten story elements to suit a new situation. It means yanking something out of the blue to solve a story problem. For example, say your players made a few mistakes that forced you to have the Big Bad arrive in the village with them. Due to his extreme superiority at the time he was about to kill them, and you could see no way for him to let them go. So, the blacksmith suddenly reveals that he was in fact a polymorphed Silver Dragon and rescues the players from certain death... that is deus ex machina, of a very classic sort.

Even if you had planned this, rather than pulling it out as an emergency rewrite, if you'd left hints that the blacksmith knew a lot about dragons, seemed wise beyond his years, and appeared unbothered by the heat of his forge, it would still be DEM.

For a player to pull a DEM is very difficult and unlikely, since it requires the player having some control over the setting. Likewise, mechanically, PCs cannot really be Mary Sues. However, DM favouritism of a given PC often results in that player becoming the RPG equivalent to one. It has very little to do with powers, and everything to do with how NPCs react to the character.

Mike_G
2008-10-25, 08:59 PM
I recently played a 4e session. I am torn. I definitely think some things are improved, but some changes leave me cold.



Stuff I liked:

Class balance- Everybody has a bag of tricks, of equal number and relative effectiveness of powers. Everybody can contribute at close to the same level. There's no reason magic needs to be more powerful. That's totally setting dependent. I don't see why I should be orders of magnitude more powerful because I wrote "Wizard" at the top of my sheet and not "Ranger." An X level PC should be within spitting distance of as powerful as another X level PC. Good or bad choices should effect the game, but wanting to play a specific archetype shouldn't handicap you before you even start
Reduced Item dependency Even stripped of gear, you still have all you special powers, unlike 3e, where a naked 20 level fighter has a AC under 20, and does one die + Str damage.
Level Scaling AC, damage, and all your defenses scale with level. No "Bad Save." No high level guy with a Sense Motive of -2.
Attacker rolls versus defense I like targeting his Reflex defense, rather than having the enemy save. Mechanically it's the same, but I like to feel more in control of my attacks.
Rituals and at will cantrips No more clogging up you chosen spell slots with Identify, plus it limits the overuse of powerful spells, since Rituals cost money every casting.
Less vancian Narcolepsy "No, I didn't prepare that, but if we wait 8 hours...." is reduced. Not eliminated, mind, but reduced.
Minions Finally the Stormtroopers/Orcs at Helm's Deep can have a decent chance to hit but be easy for the DM to track. In 3e, you had to pick one. Big battles were a bear to run.

Stuff I disliked:

The book. Even by the lax standards of D&D we've come to love, it's hard to navigate.
The simplified skill system I know I'm in the minority, but I'd like to spend points each level rather than choose trained skills. Minor, but I often play the skill guy, so it's a deal for me. I do like the +1/2 level to every skill, since it does reduce the "maxxed or useless" factor that 3e encourages.
Lack of cross training in powers To some extent, I think the powers should be obtainable by more than one class. No reason Rangers hsould be the only people who can attack with two weapons

I don't think play felt much different. Most of my group has played since the early 80's, and we're pretty used to the way we roleplay.

I feel that combat is more fun as a Fighter or Rogue in 4e than 3e, since you have more options. Shoving the enemy around the battlefield and making use of terrain is fun, as are some of the powers that hamstring, blind or otherwise effect opponents. This is all stuff that a good fighter should be able to do, so why not. It's not an Anime style "Backlash Wave" attack, at least at low levels.

I haven't played a caster yet, but our Wizard enjoyed the flexibility of his At wills, cantrips and rituals.

Overall, I like a lot of it, but parts of the system feel forced and artificial. I think with some hosueruling it could work fine.

EvilElitest
2008-10-25, 09:32 PM
Swing and a complete miss.
Yes, they are good settings. They also don't play casters to their logical fullest, as Emperor Tippy does (And may I say, Tippy, that you have at least some limited repute off these boards). I am in fact suggesting that these two developments are related, because an interesting story with multiple characters won't stem from them.

Yeah, due to balance not design, that doesn't damn the whole ideal, it just damns one manner of approach. I mean, all things considered, those settings do a very good job in terms of high magic, through with different methods



I did not write the names down of the books. Frankly, I wanted a mind scrub. You have not read books where the main characters are mary sues because Magic Can Do Everything At No Extensive Cost. We are at an impasse. And my problem is Magic That Can Do Everything At No Extensive Cost, as 3rd ed Magic does, tends to lead to Mary Sues. So I don't strictly speaking have a problem with the second way, but I do have a problem with the casual result of the second way. And it's just plain hard for characters to not turn into Mary Sues if only their own way can do anything and everything at no extensive cost.


We are at an impasse because your making absolute statements without backing. I don't mind your assertion, but i they way you say it, its right simply because you say so. If i say that First person perspective is better than third person, i need to have more backing than just saying "well everything that doest third person is crap". Your just dealing in absolutes but its based upon your word, and i can't find any support in just you saying its so.



...anime style magic? Only if you don't read stories older then Radio, I guess.
I've read plenty, and the way fighters/what not work is very much like Kenshin in respect.


Moving along, if the 3e one is far more powerful, because it's horribly broken, why are you claiming the 4e one is more powerful? I evidently guessed wrong, so you'll just have to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

3E is more powerful, because they are horribly broken, but the 4E power scale as designed is higher. basically, the ideal of 3E is that it casters and others are balanced off each other. Casters are suppose to have some limitations, but in reality they don't due to the fact that they aren't balenced. However as designed, 4E magic has barely any limitations




Wait a few minutes without combat to cast.. another combat spell again? Combat spells are useful, but their effect on the world at large is somewhat small, compared to, oh, any of the really horrid tricks for third ed magi. Like the Locate City Bomb.

Considering the massive amount you can do simply with your combat potential (see real life weapons) it makes a big difference just in a different way, but i digress

And my point wasn't raw change, its cost. 4E has less cost than 3E, because you only need to wait a few seconds to get your power back. You know, like how magic in Dark alliance or Guantlet magic just comes back after a little while. It is not much of a cost, at lest in 3E, it isn't designed to be limitless


Alright, so I understood your argument after all. Just for the fun of it, can you repeat mine back to me?
alright,
1) While i don't disagree with the idea that free magic is bad, i won't make such a broad absolute statement without details.
2) Regardless of the above assertion, 4E magic is far more cost free than 3E. in 3E, at least you had the appearance of limitations, Ie the system was designed for magic to have limits. In 4E, its just waiting a couple min and hey, magic back.
3) As of such, Rituals aren't deliberately like that, they are just a bad idea


4e. My problem is more that magic is End-all. Magic stopped being End-All when other roads to power became just as good; After all, you aren't the best if the others are as good as you. Now Magic is fine, as far as I'm concerned
And its boring and uninteresting (see linear) now. I'd rather have interesting cool magic then magic that is just designed for combat. True, i think limits on magic are important personally, but i don't think they should be extreme

On the idea of 4E homebrewing, i don't think that is true, because the balence is very delicate.
from
EE

LotharBot
2008-10-25, 09:49 PM
Lack of cross training in powers To some extent, I think the powers should be obtainable by more than one class. No reason Rangers hsould be the only people who can attack with two weapons

1) You can always multiclass into Ranger and take some of the Two-weapon powers.
2) you can always play a "ranger" but call it something else and use different fluff with the same powers.
3) you can always homebrew a class that's based on TWF but isn't a "ranger" per se (a TWF-based defender or leader maybe?) Despite EE's assertion that it's "not that easy" and "balance is very delicate", I've found that it is quite easy to balance homebrew.


4E has less cost than 3E, because you only need to wait a few seconds to get your power back.

Some parts of 4E magic have less cost than 3E magic. Others have more.

I think WotC made a good decision by breaking magic out into at-will/encounter/daily/utility powers for caster classes (wiz, clr, warlock, etc.) which have little to no cost, and rituals, which have some cost. This simultaneously solves two problems in 3.5:

1) "I'm out of spells. I throw my crossbow at him." Low-level casters often ran into this problem, where they simply didn't have enough spells to be able to act like a CASTER in combat all the time. Now, they always have a spell they can cast, which may not be very good but it's better than trying to be an archer.

2) "I broke the fight." Casters in 3.5 often turned what should have been level-appropriate encounters into cakewalks just by having the right utility spell prepared. Now, most of the big utility type spells are not combat-castable, they cost a little bit to cast (so you can't spam them), and they're available to anyone who thinks they fit their character. Meanwhile, spells that are meant to be combat relevant are more-or-less balanced with other combat-relevant powers, and picking one necessarily means you don't have some other useful power from that level.

EvilElitest
2008-10-25, 10:04 PM
Some parts of 4E magic have less cost than 3E magic. Others have more.

I only have to wait a few min and hey, magic back. that isn't much of a cost


I think WotC made a good decision by breaking magic out into at-will/encounter/daily/utility powers for caster classes (wiz, clr, warlock, etc.) which have little to no cost, and rituals, which have some cost. This simultaneously solves two problems in 3.5:

1) "I'm out of spells. I throw my crossbow at him." Low-level casters often ran into this problem, where they simply didn't have enough spells to be able to act like a CASTER in combat all the time. Now, they always have a spell they can cast, which may not be very good but it's better than trying to be an archer.

2) "I broke the fight." Casters in 3.5 often turned what should have been level-appropriate encounters into cakewalks just by having the right utility spell prepared. Now, most of the big utility type spells are not combat-castable, they cost a little bit to cast (so you can't spam them), and they're available to anyone who thinks they fit their character. Meanwhile, spells that are meant to be combat relevant are more-or-less balanced with other combat-relevant powers, and picking one necessarily means you don't have some other useful power from that level.

That doesn't solve anything, that avoids one problem by replacing it with another. 3E didn't handle it well yes, but 4E's "solution" is even worst. It basically makes magic linear and simplistic, Ie purly combat magic, and it makes the spell system feel like Dark Alliance, very video game focused and entirely about combat. 3E was good in theory, bad in design (actually most of the edition is like that) but here the medicine is worst than the cure

on homebrew, it is much harder to do so, because the balence system in 4E is so specific, that you have to work a lot harder to avoid upsetting it, while in 3E its more vauge, for better or for worst
from
EE

The New Bruceski
2008-10-25, 10:28 PM
3E didn't handle it well yes, but 4E's "solution" is even worst. It basically makes magic linear and simplistic, Ie purly combat magic, and it makes the spell system feel like Dark Alliance, very video game focused and entirely about combat.
EE

Are you forgetting about rituals, or not counting them for some reason?

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-25, 11:14 PM
Are you forgetting about rituals, or not counting them for some reason?

Aren't rituals a separate thing from magic making dedication to a magic class useless for non combat magic? Unless there's a 'ritual master' class...

LotharBot
2008-10-26, 12:14 AM
I only have to wait a few min and hey, magic back.

Except of course for rituals, which you're conveniently leaving out.


4E's "solution" is even worst. It basically makes magic linear and simplistic, Ie purly combat magic...

I disagree. 4E's solution is BETTER because it splits "combat magic" and "useful non-combat magic" apart, scales them both appropriately for the world, puts costs on the stuff that's world-changing while leaving the stuff that's merely hitpoint-destroying easy to access, and allows all classes access to world-changing magic.

The absolute worst thing about 3.5 was the way magic scaled, or didn't, with non-magic-using classes. 4e fixed that, not perfectly, but pretty well.


on homebrew, it is much harder to do so, because the balence system in 4E is so specific, that you have to work a lot harder to avoid upsetting it, while in 3E its more vauge, for better or for worst

Having personally done it, my opinion is that homebrew is easier in 4e. In 3.5e, game balance was incredibly fragile. As a DM, I was constantly fighting against the system to try to bring it back into some semblance of balance so that all my players could participate meaningfully. 3.5 balance wasn't "vague", it was "bad", and homebrewing was a great way to make it worse unless you were VERY careful.

Because 4e has specific details for balance, as well as dozens of examples of powers at each level (between the different classes), I find it easy to create new powers that are appropriately balanced. Along those same lines, it's easy for me to create new enemies at a given level, just using the DMG guidelines and creating interesting flavor-filled effects.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-26, 12:32 AM
...and allows all classes access to world-changing magic.


See that I disagree with.
It runs counter to the deserved stereotype of wizards devoting themselves to the study of magic above all else. What this sounds like to me is a Warmage.

Asbestos
2008-10-26, 12:50 AM
See that I disagree with.
It runs counter to the deserved stereotype of wizards devoting themselves to the study of magic above all else. What this sounds like to me is a Warmage.

Well, wizards are trained in Arcana (useful for a lot of rituals) and I think they start with a couple of rituals known and gain rituals for free as they increase in level. Everyone else has to pay to acquire them, and take a feat to be able to even cast them.

FoE
2008-10-26, 12:56 AM
See that I disagree with.
It runs counter to the deserved stereotype of wizards devoting themselves to the study of magic above all else. What this sounds like to me is a Warmage.

Magic is an incredibly powerful force, correct?

Here's the thing: as I understand it, the only thing required to be cast magic is dedicated study. If magic is available and wizards/clerics do not have some innate ability that allows them and them alone to use magic, it stands to reason that a great number of people would want to learn how to use it.

I mean, why wouldn't they? You'd have to be an idiot not to. Magic is an incredibly powerful force; for the cost of a Ritual, you can comprehend foreign languages you've never learned, teleport across great distances, spy on other people and creatures without their knowing and even raise the dead.

So what's the end result? If you have to be a wizard or cleric to use magic, then you got a world full of wizards and clerics. Magic stops being special.

Otherwise, you have to have a world have martial classes saying "Oh, I wield a weapon, and that's good enough for me. Put away your Ritual Scrolls! I have no need for them! I'll totally ignore the use of this incredibly handy tool that would greatly aid me in my adventures! Dum de dum de dum ..."

So, people want to learn how to use magic. As a result, they gain the ability to cast Rituals, which is basically the same as reading a scroll with a spell on it.

Rituals produce wondrous effects but at a cost, so that's why magic hasn't supplanted manual labour and so forth.

On the other hand, they aren't dedicated wizards/clerics, so they don't ever gain the ability to wield magic like a weapon. That's what takes the years and years of study to do.

The New Bruceski
2008-10-26, 01:35 AM
Aren't rituals a separate thing from magic making dedication to a magic class useless for non combat magic? Unless there's a 'ritual master' class...

Wizards and Clerics start with Ritual Casting. Wizards get additional rituals for free as they level up. Anyone else needs Arcana (class skill for Warlock/Wizard) or Religion (class skill for Warlock, Paladin and Cleric) and needs the ritual caster feat.

So Wizards do it best, and Clerics start with it. Paladins and Warlocks can buy into ritual casting for one feat (assuming they train in the appropriate skill at creation), while everybody else needs to spend two feats to do so. Sounds like a cost for becoming adept to me.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-26, 02:22 AM
Yeah, due to balance not design, that doesn't damn the whole ideal, it just damns one manner of approach. I mean, all things considered, those settings do a very good job in terms of high magic, through with different methods
They had balance in mind when designing the setting? Regardless, I suspect that we're not really communicating on this point, so forget it.


We are at an impasse because your making absolute statements without backing. I don't mind your assertion, but i they way you say it, its right simply because you say so. If i say that First person perspective is better than third person, i need to have more backing than just saying "well everything that doest third person is crap". Your just dealing in absolutes but its based upon your word, and i can't find any support in just you saying its so.
In more simple terms, "Whatever, let's drop it". Put whatever you want in response to that, I'm not answering. There, now it's crystal clear for everyone.


I've read plenty, and the way fighters/what not work is very much like Kenshin in respect.
...How? Kenshin operated based on incredible speed. how's that compare to most mythic characters in the west, who operate based on incredible strength? In what sense is Heracles or Cu Chulainn remotely similar to Kenshin?


3E is more powerful, because they are horribly broken, but the 4E power scale as designed is higher. basically, the ideal of 3E is that it casters and others are balanced off each other. Casters are suppose to have some limitations, but in reality they don't due to the fact that they aren't balenced. However as designed, 4E magic has barely any limitations
So you're going off of Intention, not Results. 'kay.



And my point wasn't raw change, its cost. 4E has less cost than 3E, because you only need to wait a few seconds to get your power back. You know, like how magic in Dark alliance or Guantlet magic just comes back after a little while. It is not much of a cost, at lest in 3E, it isn't designed to be limitless
Low cost, low return. I'm cool with efficient, low power magic, which is what combat magic is, in comparison to grand sorceries one sees at say, epic (Or just 15+) DnD in 3rd ed, the grander spells one can weave in Exalted or MAge, etc. You're talking about the combat magic as if it had anywhere near the potential of even Wish.


alright,
1) While i don't disagree with the idea that free magic is bad, i won't make such a broad absolute statement without details.
2) Regardless of the above assertion, 4E magic is far more cost free than 3E. in 3E, at least you had the appearance of limitations, Ie the system was designed for magic to have limits. In 4E, its just waiting a couple min and hey, magic back.
3) As of such, Rituals aren't deliberately like that, they are just a bad idea
You may have misunderstood my request. I wasn't asking for your responses to my argument. I want you to repeat back to me what you thought my argument was. I can't help but feel there's something up here, with the responses not totally syncing up with what I was saying.


And its boring and uninteresting (see linear) now. I'd rather have interesting cool magic then magic that is just designed for combat. True, i think limits on magic are important personally, but i don't think they should be extreme
Magic is boring? Does that mean you feel melee was always boring?
That notwithstanding, you *have rituals*. Rituals handle most of magic's non-combat.

Starsinger
2008-10-26, 02:39 AM
Hello, my name is Starsinger, and I'd like to talk to clear up some things.

Myth: Rituals are totally new to 4th edition, and previous editions had nothing similar.
Fact: While the idea that Rituals appeared some day from the void and forced their way into the 4e Player's Handbook amuses me, the truth is Rituals are based on a variant rule for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 from a book called Unearthed Arcana, the rule was named Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm)

Myth: 4e/Anime invented non-spell casters doing interesting (i.e. more than hitting someone with a sharp metal thingy) things.
Fact: Check out non-greco-roman mythology, read a book, watch a movie,

Myth: Anyone in 4e can regain their encounter abilities after "a short while".
Fact: This one is a bit fuzzy. But for starters, "a short while" is 5 minutes while you're not in combat. That is 300 rounds. But let's try this again, that's 5 minutes. Let's take this scenario, Steve the Fighter is fighting Bob the Wizard. Bob runs out of encounter abilities and decides to run away for "a short while" (remember, that's 5 minutes/300 rounds) to recover. The flaws with the scenario? Assuming Steve never found Bob, Bob wasn't technically at rest and therefore most DMs would not allow a recovery of encounter powers. Furthermore, if the DM allowed Bob to recover his powers, Steve would also recover his encounter powers.

Myth: Magic in Gauntlet returns after a little while
Fact: Yes, when you pick up a brand new magic potion. I hate it when I have to go pick up a mana potion in 4e so I can get my encounter powers back. :smalltongue:

Myth: 4e is like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Fact: Yes. 3.5 is similar to Record of the Lodoss War, which of course means 3.5 is like anime :smallsigh:
Opinion: I liked BG: Dark Alliance (both of them)

Myth: 4e is better at everything than previous editions
Fact: Like many things, 4e does not appeal to everyone and therefore you should feel no obligation to like it if you try it. You should however feel obligated to try it, since unlike other things, Table-top RPGs really have to be experienced before you can judge them accurately (Except FATAL)

Edit:
Myth: The fact that anyone can take Rituals means that Wizards and Clerics are pointless.
Fact: Well, no. Yes, anyone can use Rituals, but Wizards and Clerics do it better. You see, Wizards and Clerics not only start with the feat (and a ritual book) for free, but they get free rituals in it. Furthermore, they're likely to be trained in the relevant skills for rituals and have high enough Intelligence and Wisdom scores to reliably pull them off. So sure, your Rogue has a possibility to resurrect someone, but the Wizard/Cleric will do it much more reliably.

Erk
2008-10-26, 01:16 PM
on homebrew, it is much harder to do so, because the balence system in 4E is so specific, that you have to work a lot harder to avoid upsetting it, while in 3E its more vauge, for better or for worst

Given how much you despise 4e, I find it most noble that you've nevertheless spent a lot of time homebrewing for it, so that you could understand how difficult it is and share your knowledge with the rest of us who merely play the game.

Seriously, I homebrew stuff every session, in 3e and 4e. It's way, WAY easier than it ever was in 3e now, as the system is fully modular and there are strong and distinct guidelines to what is balanced and acceptable. My player characters get at least one homebrewed power/ability added to the list of what they can choose from at each level. It's very rare that we face balance issues, and when we do they are very easy to remedy: it's clearly laid out what should and should not be at a given power level. Read the spoiler below for a more detailed explanation.

What kind of evidence do you have to support your assertation that 4e's balance is delicate?

I wrote a more detailed analysis of why 4e balance is extremely resilient, if you're interested. It got long, so happy spoilerisation!

Is it hard to balance homebrew player abilities?
Even if I introduce a majorly overpowered encounter ability, the player with the ability can only use it once per encounter. Obviously these arguments apply to dailies as well but even more so.

I've seen that already with a warlord ability I set up that targets will. When the player started using it as a first attack every single encounter, we discussed it, decided it was o/p, and nerfed it... but even knowing it was o/p all we were seeing was a single, fairly overeffective attack in a single round. In order to seriously upset the entire combat balance with that one o/p encounter ability, I'd have had to design it in an utterly stupid manner.

By "utterly stupid" I mean it would have had to target a weak save or have a big bonus to attack, target multiple enemies, do more damage than the average Daily ability, and have overpowered secondary effects (or at least 2 or more of these big mistakes). Anything else just doesn't have too much impact on a fight individually.

A wizard in 3e with an o/p spell can design a fantastic contingency/celerity combo, memorise the spell dozens of times, and flood the combat with it. We saw a lot of this as I recall. A fighter with an overly effective homebrewed feat could use it as much as desired.

The only easy way to upset balance in 4e is to design a brutally powerful at-will ability. Thus, the only place a DM needs to be exceptionally careful is when making custom at-wills. Does this limit them? No way. Even with this in mind, my players all have one homebrewed at-will and will be getting new ones at 4th level; all I did was err on the side of caution when designing my at-wills, ensuring they were all better than Sure Strike and worse than Twin Strike.

Is it hard to balance homebrewed feats?
I'd say this is the toughest one to balance. 4e has a much more constant level of feat power than 3e did, making the baseline for feats a lot clearer. However, there are still no clear guidelines, so it takes a bit more practice than anything else. Still, I've got several homebrew feats in play, including a familiar for the wizard character purchased with a feat, and so far none seem overpowered or worthless and everyone is quite happy.

Is it hard to balance homebrew creatures/NPCs?
There is a guide to making them, step-by-step. It's never been easier to homebrew, I can make custom beasties in minutes. *swoon* possibly my favourite part of the DMG?

Are homebrewed rituals hard to balance?
The ritual system was designed to make it essentially possible to do anything with rituals: they are powered more by plot than balance. That makes this a tough question to answer, but I think it's pretty easy to balance them myself.

I use a homebrewed ingredient system (ie. everything complex requires esoteric reagents) for my rituals, so I'm not fit to comment on homebrewing for those running the RAW GP-as-components system, but with my system I simply ensure any powerful ritual has a component I can make difficult to find if the players start overusing it. I think that is even possible with RAW. Thus even if the component is listed as costing 35 GP, it simply might not be available easily if the ritual is making things too easy.




Pros and Cons
I just realised I haven't actually posted about the topic. Here is my opinion on stuff that's not been flogged to death (I agree with many preposted opinions as well)

Pro
-Very easy to homebrew and tweak
-Fluff is divorced from crunch and kept generic, making the system amazingly easy to adapt to any setting
-Rules are kept simple to avoid getting in the way of story.
-Making characters is easy, fun, and fast.
-Reliance on miniatures has been "hardcoded" into the system rather than tacked-on, and flows with all the rules much better than previous editions
-Balance. Balance, balance, balance.

Con
-Homebrewing an entire base class takes a fair bit of time (of course, if you are starting at level 1 you can build it a few levels at a time rather than all in one sitting)
-Reliance on miniatures makes it less portable: it's a lot harder to play D&D on a long drive now.
-True low level play is very hard to arrange (I have been working on a system, but it's not easy). By older D&D standards, games start at level 3 or so; no easy way to change that.
-Loss of crafting-by-skill. Easily remedied.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:29 PM
Incantations actually are awfully like The Epic Spellcasting System, only rebalanced. Also, similar version was done in Urban Arcana Campaign Setting just before 3.5 came out.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-26, 03:23 PM
Magic is an incredibly powerful force, correct?

Here's the thing: as I understand it, the only thing required to be cast magic is dedicated study. If magic is available and wizards/clerics do not have some innate ability that allows them and them alone to use magic, it stands to reason that a great number of people would want to learn how to use it.

And a knack in the form of your stats.


I mean, why wouldn't they? You'd have to be an idiot not to. Magic is an incredibly powerful force; for the cost of a Ritual, you can comprehend foreign languages you've never learned, teleport across great distances, spy on other people and creatures without their knowing and even raise the dead.

So what's the end result? If you have to be a wizard or cleric to use magic, then you got a world full of wizards and clerics. Magic stops being special.

Otherwise, you have to have a world have martial classes saying "Oh, I wield a weapon, and that's good enough for me. Put away your Ritual Scrolls! I have no need for them! I'll totally ignore the use of this incredibly handy tool that would greatly aid me in my adventures! Dum de dum de dum ..."
Why can't everyone draw at the dnd table? Why do I still need help running my character? People focus on different things and not everything interests them.


So, people want to learn how to use magic. As a result, they gain the ability to cast Rituals, which is basically the same as reading a scroll with a spell on it.
So they multiclass into, oh wait? Nevermind.
Magic is supposed to be a small thing at first and the more dedicated you are the greater the rewards, provided you have the foresight and ability to reach magic greatest heights...before crashing into the levelcap.

If you can gain access (I may still be misunderstanding this) to powerful magic without taking a magic class why take a magic class other than combat magic? Why not just take fighter and instead of learning to ride you dabble in reshaping the universe...

Rituals produce wondrous effects but at a cost, so that's why magic hasn't supplanted manual labour and so forth.
There's also the 'five years of study to turn the soil over factor'.


On the other hand, they aren't dedicated wizards/clerics, so they don't ever gain the ability to wield magic like a weapon. That's what takes the years and years of study to do.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:55 PM
since only adventurers, or rare NPCs with class, can have feats, ritual casting won't be that common- will tend to be restricted to wizards, apart from PCs, since NPC clerics don't get Ritual Caster.