|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 6:29PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
I actually like the spells in 4E, though not some of the other powers but I can imagine the simplified spell format throwing people off. In fact without the 2 lines of fluff at the top of every spell all you would really have to go on would be the name to know what any given spell really does.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 6:51PM
#122
|
|
|
The treatment spellcasting got was one of my least favorite things about 4e. It was nothing to do with its power, but the way that the spells and casting system was designed. It was the lack of flavor text, the lack of components, the way they mechanically functioned just like a fighter's attack, and how more creative and open-ended spells became ritual-only. Sure there's nothing saying you couldn't use a wind gust spell to power the sails of your boat, but when the spell description is hardly more than "Deal 1d10+INT damage and push the target 2 squares" it's not exactly encouraged. In focusing on the game mechanically, the roleplaying heart was cut out alive.
Basicly, spells no longer felt like magic. They felt like numbers in a game.
The number of spells that are at all as simple as you describe are absurdly outnumbered by conjurations, zones, summonings, effects with after effects, save ends effects that get worse/do something different on first failed save, etc.
Trying to characterize the powers of a class with access to conjuring an orb of flame that you can then move around the battle field, doing damage to anything that comes into contact with it, or stand too close to it, not to mention no damage spells like sleep, as "deal 1d10+int damage and push the target 2 squares" is just rediculous.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:22AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
The treatment spellcasting got was one of my least favorite things about 4e. It was nothing to do with its power, but the way that the spells and casting system was designed. It was the lack of flavor text, the lack of components, the way they mechanically functioned just like a fighter's attack, and how more creative and open-ended spells became ritual-only. Sure there's nothing saying you couldn't use a wind gust spell to power the sails of your boat, but when the spell description is hardly more than "Deal 1d10+INT damage and push the target 2 squares" it's not exactly encouraged. In focusing on the game mechanically, the roleplaying heart was cut out alive.
Basicly, spells no longer felt like magic. They felt like numbers in a game.
I see people using the argument that the power setup was to much like nin casters.
my folow up question would be is this a problem with the caster class, or with the other classes.
as thay already scraped pure AEDU for most non caster classes in essentials.
If essentials with this cnage would have come out instead of 4th.
do you think your opinion on the casters would have been difrent if the casters used AEDU and the other classes other systems ?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 2:58AM
#124
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The treatment spellcasting got was one of my least favorite things about 4e. It was nothing to do with its power, but the way that the spells and casting system was designed. It was the lack of flavor text, the lack of components, the way they mechanically functioned just like a fighter's attack, and how more creative and open-ended spells became ritual-only. Sure there's nothing saying you couldn't use a wind gust spell to power the sails of your boat, but when the spell description is hardly more than "Deal 1d10+INT damage and push the target 2 squares" it's not exactly encouraged. In focusing on the game mechanically, the roleplaying heart was cut out alive.
Basicly, spells no longer felt like magic. They felt like numbers in a game.
The number of spells that are at all as simple as you describe are absurdly outnumbered by conjurations, zones, summonings, effects with after effects, save ends effects that get worse/do something different on first failed save, etc.
Trying to characterize the powers of a class with access to conjuring an orb of flame that you can then move around the battle field, doing damage to anything that comes into contact with it, or stand too close to it, not to mention no damage spells like sleep, as "deal 1d10+int damage and push the target 2 squares" is just rediculous.
The battle spells of previous editions were numbers in a game ... boringly predictable ones.. ooh look d6 per level damage save half damage wow exciting.... the other component ignored ofcourse is rituals.. because only combat counts.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:45AM
#125
|
|
|
This topic keeps coming up over and over again, why do you guys keep arguing about it...
To a lot of us, 4th edition magic sucks. The reasons might be unfounded but there are a LOT of people that feel that way which means that they failed miserably somewhere.
I was hoping this thread would help identify why... But if you guys are going to assault everyone that says something bad about 4th edition magic in a thread called 'why didn't you like it', nothing constructive will come out of it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:20AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2011
|
To a lot of us, 4th edition magic sucks. The reasons might be unfounded but there are a LOT of people that feel that way which means that they failed miserably somewhere.
I was hoping this thread would help identify why... But if you guys are going to assault everyone that says something bad about 4th edition magic in a thread called 'why didn't you like it', nothing constructive will come out of it.
Emphasis mine.
If some of the reasons are unfounded, how are we supposed to identify why some people hate 4e's magic?
It's very difficult to take seriously answers to a "why" question that sometimes seem to be "because", other times seem to be "I don't like the presentation/formatting" and other times is a factually wrong "it killed all creativity" or some other answers along these lines.
About creativity, on one hand I must admit that, in my experience, most 4e's players don't try to use creatively their spells/powers. On the other hand, in my experience, most 3e/AD&D/ Rolemaster/Warhammer Fantasy/Call of Cthulhu/Runequest/Other RPGS' players also don't try to use creatively their spells/similar powers.
But the same players do use their magic creatively in games like Nobilis, Ars Magica or any of the iterations of Mage from World of Darkness. Maybe that has something to do with the difference between "open" magic systems and "closed" magic systems. And yes, 4e's magic system is obviously a "closed" system. Like all vancian magic in the previous editions of D&D IIRC.
About presentation and formatting of spells, I admit that's clearly up to each one's preferences. But I'd rather have a clear, easy to understand and straightforward format that is easy to apply in combat and leave additional off-combat uses up to the playing group than a more complex and convoluted format that, apparently, may or may not spark some kind of creativity in some kind of players.
About other things: Rituals, I'd gladly have the costs, levels and casting times changed but as an idea I personally think they were all right. AEDU may use some changes but I also like the system. Vancian I don't like because I've been thinking it's a silly system with less advantages than disadvantages ever since I first read about it, but YMMV.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 11:01AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
To a lot of us, 4th edition magic sucks. The reasons might be unfounded but there are a LOT of people that feel that way which means that they failed miserably somewhere.
I was hoping this thread would help identify why... But if you guys are going to assault everyone that says something bad about 4th edition magic in a thread called 'why didn't you like it', nothing constructive will come out of it.
Emphasis mine.
If some of the reasons are unfounded, how are we supposed to identify why some people hate 4e's magic?
It's very difficult to take seriously answers to a "why" question that sometimes seem to be "because", other times seem to be "I don't like the presentation/formatting" and other times is a factually wrong "it killed all creativity" or some other answers along these lines.
About creativity, on one hand I must admit that, in my experience, most 4e's players don't try to use creatively their spells/powers. On the other hand, in my experience, most 3e/AD&D/ Rolemaster/Warhammer Fantasy/Call of Cthulhu/Runequest/Other RPGS' players also don't try to use creatively their spells/similar powers.
But the same players do use their magic creatively in games like Nobilis, Ars Magica or any of the iterations of Mage from World of Darkness. Maybe that has something to do with the difference between "open" magic systems and "closed" magic systems. And yes, 4e's magic system is obviously a "closed" system. Like all vancian magic in the previous editions of D&D IIRC.
About presentation and formatting of spells, I admit that's clearly up to each one's preferences. But I'd rather have a clear, easy to understand and straightforward format that is easy to apply in combat and leave additional off-combat uses up to the playing group than a more complex and convoluted format that, apparently, may or may not spark some kind of creativity in some kind of players.
About other things: Rituals, I'd gladly have the costs, levels and casting times changed but as an idea I personally think they were all right. AEDU may use some changes but I also like the system. Vancian I don't like because I've been thinking it's a silly system with less advantages than disadvantages ever since I first read about it, but YMMV.
Technically 3 and 3.5 had an open magic system as you could invent your own spells and they were considered RAW within the DMG. They just had to be okayed by and could be tweaked by the DM. You still had to prep those invented spells or have them in your list just like anyone else would for any other spell. So not as open as Mage but you also don't have the instant and universal punishment for using magic that you do in Mage.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 11:09AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2008
|
To a lot of us, 4th edition magic sucks. The reasons might be unfounded but there are a LOT of people that feel that way which means that they failed miserably somewhere.
This is a tricky one, because fun is often hard to define. I know I agree with Gnarl... 4th edition magic just... sucks... To me, it feels like numbers and not like spells. Can I explain the exact reason... probably not in any way that someone who hasn't felt it will understand.
It is like the game Tera that I just started playing. When I break every part down to its core in that game, I hate it. The character editor sucks, the lore sucks, the dialogs suck, the concept of not being able to move while fighting sucks... Yet the game is really really fun to play. Same thing with Diablo 3... every part is horribly executed, but the game is actually really fun to play.
The concept of fun-ness is an experience. It cannot be broken down into parts that each makes sense. What I do know is that magic in the previous editions is way more fun to me. Perhaps it was because each battle played out differently due to its limited resource, perhaps it was because you sometimes were powerful and sometimes helpless, perhaps it was because it used a different system, perhaps it was more fun because you didn't fall asleep waiting for your turn...
My best explanation is that to me, it felt like in the old magic, each spell was uniquely designed with love. In the new magic it felt like they plowed down some balanced numbers and wrote a half-hearted description to go with it. As with everything someone is giong to say... oh nooo... that is wrong... look at this /pointsatexamplethatimwrong.
That is just the best explanation I can give that gets closest to describing my feeling of why 4th magic sucked.... The spells felt like those quests that devteams adds to a CRPG to reach the magic 300 quests number that is needed by marketing.
"Hello stranger... Good that you came by... I need 20 rat tails for my suffle for tonight. Could you please "Kill 20 rats"."
It has numbers, it has flavor... it just doesn't have heart...
The Character Initiative
Show
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 11:50AM
#129
|
|
|
Butcha, your answer is actually far more reasonable than the ones people argue about because you are using subjective feelings as the basis for your argument rather than creating false statements about facts that are clearly wrong. I think part of why magic doesn't feel magical is that it uses a more structured mechanical backbone than previous editions and that it has a very similar mechanic to martial abilities. I would like the similarity to martial abilities to become more divergent from spell abilities and more spells like cantrips (which are almost exclusively used creatively).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:07PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
To a lot of us, 4th edition magic sucks. The reasons might be unfounded but there are a LOT of people that feel that way which means that they failed miserably somewhere.
If the reasons are unfoudned, they should stay out of the topic then. As you said, this is to help identify why people didn't like 4e's magic system, people coming in here and using unfounded idiotic reasoning will not get us anywhere in that regard.
|
|
|
