4e crunch vs. 4e fluff

[Lord Iames Osari]

I've been noticing that a lot of the complaints about 4e aren't complaints about the rules changes that are being made (although there are some of those), but about the fluff of the "default" setting.

I don't understand this. Since D&D is intended to be used with many different settings, the influence of the "default" setting on the basic rules will be minimal and easily ignored.

I'm excited for 4e. I think that the ruleset will bring us another step closer to "getting it right". Do I like all of the fluff elements of the "default" setting? *shrug* Not particularly; but I'm just going to adapt my homebrew campaign setting anyway, so I'm free to cherrypick what I do like and leave the rest.

In other words, why are people getting so hung up on the fluff elements, which will change every time you switch from one campaign setting anyway?

[Trog]

Because geeks like to complain.

[Artanis]

Because geeks like to complain.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Pronounceable]

Because people are stupid and prone to consider the default fluff of DnD their sacred book. Which means there'll be an increase in Aragorns (from DMotR) with the PCophile attitude WotC is displaying.

[Kurald Galain]

In other words, why are people getting so hung up on the fluff elements, which will change every time you switch from one campaign setting anyway?

Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

[Rutee]

God forbid we focus our game on the stars of the narrative.

[Jayngfet]

only things I complain about is

A. The removal of half orcs

and

B. The removal of sorcerers

Some of us have high magic worlds with sorcerers and huge orc populations.

[Artanis]

only things I complain about is

A. The removal of half orcs

and

B. The removal of sorcerers

Some of us have high magic worlds with sorcerers and huge orc populations.

Half-Orcs will be in the MM, and they've mentioned Sorcerers (though I don't know when/if/where they'll be implemented)

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, many of their fluff changes are deeply stupid and unnecessary (I'll defend this opinion if you force me to, but remember this is an opinion and you're free to just think I'm a dumbass without calling me out on it). But supposedly my favorite published campaign setting is remaining largely static, so I have less to complain about.

[Newtkeeper]

Really, how much does fluff matter? I say it matters a great deal, even though it is easy to change.

In the abstract, I have nothing against fluff changes. There are two things that bother me, however:

1) *Unnecessary* fluff changes. Really, what was wrong with the Great Wheel, the Blood War, or Faerun? If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that!

That is a minor gripe, I'll admit. If it wasn't broke, and they break it, I can revert to the old version. So far as I know, 1e-3e fluff isn't rigged to explode when 4e comes out.

A few *specific* fluff changes that bother me: evil-on-evil conflict becoming less important. Dude, Evil turning on itself is a classic. World working only for the benefit of the PCs. I realize it does, in fact, exist for them, but, as a player, I want a sensible, cohesive world, not some theme park! I don't ask for statistics on how much grain is produced in Cormyr , but I do ask for Cormyr to have some reason, even if I never know it. As a DM, this goes double.

2) Changes in fluff dictating changes in crunch. This, I mind a great deal. Suppose, in my setting, Gnomes are an important race? Suppose, in my setting, there are sorcerers? Suppose my setting has vancian magic? Taking all these away from me, or forcing me to come up with inferior homebrew, strikes me as a bit mean.

RIP: Great Wheel.
RIP: Blood War.
RIP: Faerun as We Know it.

We'll miss your officialdom, old chaps. You hung on for several editions, but, in the end, you went the way of all flesh (or paper). Still, you aren't dead for me, for I can, by Thor, run my gaming group as I wish! And in that statement, there is hope.

[Hzurr]

Well, many of their fluff changes are deeply stupid and unnecessary (I'll defend this opinion if you force me to, but remember this is an opinion and you're free to just think I'm a dumbass without calling me out on it). But supposedly my favorite published campaign setting is remaining largely static, so I have less to complain about.

*thinks hard*

Heh, nah, I'm just joshin'.


*thinks hard again*


While I don't agree with all of the fluff changes they've made, I understand why they made a lot of the changes, and I think they've been doing a decent job of justifying why they decided to make fluff changes, which I appriciate. Again, I don't always agree with it, but I appriciate it.

[Sleet]

Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

I like a lot of what I see in 4e, but this is what concerns me. The Golden Wyvern Adept is emblematic of this fear.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Mainly because WOTC is mixing in fluff with their crunch, making it harder to separate the two.

I like a lot of what I see in 4e, but this is what concerns me. The Golden Wyvern Adept is emblematic of this fear.

Oh, for the love of - !

The Red Wizard and Thayan Knight prestige classes appear in the 3.5 DMG and Complete Warrior, respectively. Using the same kind of logic you people are applying, WotC is assuming that Thay exists in everybody's game world. Oh noes! Wizards of the Coast has ruined D&D!

[Newtkeeper]

Oh, for the love of - !

The Red Wizard and Thayan Knight prestige classes appear in the 3.5 DMG and Complete Warrior, respectively. Using the same kind of logic you people are applying, WotC is assuming that Thay exists in everybody's game world. Oh noes! Wizards of the Coast has ruined D&D!

Good sir: there is a difference, to my mind, between Prestige Classes and base classes. I can drop a prestige class with no problem (hey, if I wanted to, I could play without Prestige Classes), but reinventing the wizard would be much more difficult.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

[Newtkeeper]

Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

Myself, I'm not worried about that feat, or even the (probably baseless) rumors that the feat is a part of making wizards more 'dragon based'. All that I can work around- change a few names is all.

What I cannot work around easily is the removal of vancian magic, and the replacement of it with (pardon my hyperbole) WoW magic- i.e., per encounter rather than per time period.

[Rutee]

You recognize that "Per Encounter" is much closer to fantasy standard then Vancian Magic, I trust.

[Lord Iames Osari]

What I cannot work around easily is the removal of vancian magic, and the replacement of it with (pardon my hyperbole) WoW magic- i.e., per encounter rather than per time period.

That is primarily a crunch change.

[Crow]

The problem I have with "per encounter" is what the hell that actually means. Does it mean that the wizard needs to stop and take a breather afterwards or something? If so, suppose a wizard gets into a fight and blasts off some spells, and then afterwards proceeds to crawl through the dungeon for an hour. At that point, he gets into another fight. Does he get his spells back even though he hasn't paused to rest? What if he gets into a fight, and there is only a one-minute interval before they come up on another group of baddies? Does he get his spells back then? It is afterall a separate encounter.

If you can bust out magic all day long (how many encounters can you cram into a day!?), I don't see any reason not to just make everything "at will" and be done with it.

[Newtkeeper]

You recognize that "Per Encounter" is much closer to fantasy standard then Vancian Magic, I trust.

Ah, my friend, that is where you and I differ. While I have no strong love for Vancian magic, most fantasy wizards tire enough that a few minutes of non-combat will not have them back in full shape. Gandalf, for instance, after contesting the balrog at the door to Balin's tomb, is still not in full 'fighting trim' after a fair rest and a fairly long period of walking- and thus sorta dies. Rest will help him to an extent, but all the 'non-encountering' in the world won't do him a lick of good.


If they were to tie it into Subdual damage, or fatigue, or some similar mechanic, you might have a point, but 'per encounter' has no precedent in the literature. After all, at least the good Mr. Vance was a pre-DnD fantasy author!

[Rutee]

"Per encounter/Per Day/At Will/Ritual" has no basis in literature? I suggest you broaden your scope just a smidgen to account for the fact that the system encompasses everyone. If you must look to specifically magic effects, I would point out Full Metal Alchemist, wherein the Alchemists in the setting generally had some limit to how much they could act within a given span of time. Taoist Sages, in multiple depictions in (Wuxia) fiction generally do not seem to operate on anything resembling Vancian Magic or fatigue. Main problem with your argument is that most mystics that have to worry about fatigue or "Spells per X" in (classic) fiction? Are also capable melee combatants. And on the note of Gandalf, did he exhaust himself with every single spell? 'cause I'm pretty sure he only faced that with the Balrog. Notwithstanding, you know, tales of all sorts that have people besides mages.

If you want a mechanic to turn it into Subdual damage, such a thing is in Slayers d20, to boot, which is free to download. Whether or not you care for the fluff, the system is pretty spiffy.

The problem I have with "per encounter" is what the hell that actually means. Does it mean that the wizard needs to stop and take a breather afterwards or something? If so, suppose a wizard gets into a fight and blasts off some spells, and then afterwards proceeds to crawl through the dungeon for an hour. At that point, he gets into another fight. Does he get his spells back even though he hasn't paused to rest? What if he gets into a fight, and there is only a one-minute interval before they come up on another group of baddies? Does he get his spells back then? It is afterall a separate encounter.

Bear in mind a moment that I will be applying White Wolf's definition of "Scene" for this, and that the GM is perfectly in grounds to overturn this, but I imagine that an "Encounter" is, generally, one specific fight. As to a fight that is waves, I would just say "It's all one fight", if the waves were fast (Measured in minutes) as opposed to hours. If you're still dungeon crawling, you can be assumed to not be resting per se, but depending on the circumstances, you may not actually be working that hard too. You might be searching and walking along, but it can be assumed (I should think) that you're not exactly exhausting yourself or your mystical potential. If you are, that might be different..

[Sleet]

Who said anything about base classes? Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat.

My point exactly. Prestige class names are easily changed. With feat names like this, there's nothing left after you file off the serial numbers. There's nothing in that feat name that suggests what it does, thus guaranteeing that I'll have to constantly refer to the rules to remind myself what it does. "Wait. Does Golden Wyvern Adept enlarge the spell, or maximize it?" "It extends it. You're thinking of Silver Wyrm Mastery." "Oh, silly me. How could I forget."

It's atrocious design, for a variety of reasons.

[Newtkeeper]

"Per encounter/Per Day/At Will/Ritual" has no basis in literature? I suggest you broaden your scope just a smidgen to account for the fact that the system encompasses everyone. If you must look to specifically magic effects, I would point out Full Metal Alchemist, wherein the Alchemists in the setting generally had some limit to how much they could act within a given span of time. Taoist Sages, in multiple depictions in (Wuxia) fiction generally do not seem to operate on anything resembling Vancian Magic or fatigue. Main problem with your argument is that most mystics that have to worry about fatigue or "Spells per X" in (classic) fiction? Are also capable melee combatants. And on the note of Gandalf, did he exhaust himself with every single spell? 'cause I'm pretty sure he only faced that with the Balrog. Notwithstanding, you know, tales of all sorts that have people besides mages.

You misunderstand my point. I do not claim that Vancian magic has a broad basis in literature (although it works in Vance's books tolerably well, it does not at all apply to Gandalf). I do not even claim that 'per time-period' or 'until exausted' magic lacks support in the literature (they appear to me to be the most common).

However, there is a difference between 'per time-period' and 'per encounter'- encounters can, as you said, last as long as you wish.

There is also a difference between 'until exhausted' and 'per encounter'. In all the works I have read (which are not comprehensive, but include most of the greater western ones- I can't answer for what China says magic is), any mage who tires from magic is also physically tired and vice versa.

I would appreciate more information on how Taosist mages operate, by the way.

[Crow]

My first choice would be a fatigue or subdual damage system, or if not that, something akin to recharge magic. to me, "I need a few minutes before I can shoot that fireball off again." just sounds better to me than "Hurry up and kill that orc, Ranger. So I can get my spells back for the next battle."

I just hope the fluff that they come up with to explain the per encounter abilities is internally consistent and makes sense.

[Newtkeeper]

My first choice would be a fatigue or subdual damage system

Aye, I would have no problem with that (that's how GURPS works, BTW, and several other RPGs besides). If they can work it so that it will differentiate between the mage and the party for encounters (so that, in a big battle, the mage can go sit in a corner and regains pells), I wouldn't have very much problem with it. But a pure 'per encounter' is just silly, and (again, pardon the term) MMORPGesque.

[averagejoe]

Because geeks fans like to complain.

Fixed it for you.

Edit:

Aye, I would have no problem with that (that's how GURPS works, BTW, and several other RPGs besides). If they can work it so that it will differentiate between the mage and the party for encounters (so that, in a big battle, the mage can go sit in a corner and regains pells), I wouldn't have very much problem with it. But a pure 'per encounter' is just silly, and (again, pardon the term) MMORPGesque.

I thought that most MMORPG's used a recharging mana system. What you're saying you would have no problem with doesn't seem so different from that.

Who cares if it's MMORPGesque anyways? There's only one question I ask when I evaluate mechanics: is it a good or a bad mechanic? Where it comes from doesn't matter at all.

[Serenity]

We already have a working definition of per-encounter abilities from the Tome of Battle, and it isn't 'Finish off that orc so I can get my spell back.' It's pretty explicit that if another horde of orcs descends on you just after you finish off the first wave, your per-encounter abilities don't recharge. You need time to realign yourself, briefly meditate, etc. Also note that Wizards will have per-day spells as well as per-encounter ones, presumably their particularly powerful guns that they will have to learn to conserve.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

In my setting, one of the main points were gnome sorcerers! And how am I going to errata my custom sorcerer class if I don't have a base? It's so much harder. Well, on second thought, the my custom sorcerer class has nothing at all in common with the WotC sorcerer.

[Starbuck_II]

Ah, my friend, that is where you and I differ. While I have no strong love for Vancian magic, most fantasy wizards tire enough that a few minutes of non-combat will not have them back in full shape. Gandalf, for instance, after contesting the balrog at the door to Balin's tomb, is still not in full 'fighting trim' after a fair rest and a fairly long period of walking- and thus sorta dies. Rest will help him to an extent, but all the 'non-encountering' in the world won't do him a lick of good.

Gandald was bleeding to death. All the magic in the world will not save you if you can't heal when you are bleeding.

[Newtkeeper]

Who cares if it's MMORPGesque anyways? There's only one question I ask when I evaluate mechanics: is it a good or a bad mechanic? Where it comes from doesn't matter at all.

I think that there you are right. I stand by my comment that it is weird and has few precedents, though.