I want to charm the Princess not do 1D6 Psychic damage and Attack the person next to her until the end of her next turn.
The failing WIth 4 E magic is in the spell design, and In it's implementation as a whole. TO tear this down, Earlier editions of D&D Magic was Unlimited, Spells grew with the caster, and did not out live their usefulness, for right or wrong it worked as well. Of course the grotesque number of supplements adding spells that probably made some pore editor give up and just start stamping approved on eveery one of them is a major problem, and for the DM to address, but Cutting down on these would not have hurt in editions 1 2 and 3, and may have stopped the wizard from being seen as all powerful.
Pretty much Magic Hit hard at what ever it did, a fire ball killed any one fighter attack, any backstab, or sneak attack, or even skill use, Because it was limited, where as the others were not, A mage can knock and open the door once or twice a day, probably after all other options are exhausted. Why? Because Knock is limited. Like any other Spell. It is used, then SOme resource is consumed, Spell sot Mana point, or what ever mechanic was used, it is now gone, and Eventually a caster will run out all together. This is why 1 Spell is greater than 1 of a reusable resource. THat Much I will agree with.
Now for the problem with the Idea. In earlier editions, the Wizard cast his Sleep. then he sat down the rest of the party fought, and he said "Hey guys let's rest" He became dead weight until his spells were recovered. Fast forward 18 lvels, The same wizard casts and Casts THe party accepts he can kill any encounter, and then the DM throws a monster at them whle he is out of spells. Again the character is useless, And the party with out a resource, a resource who in those editions could do Nothing because he has no armor, the worst weapons and the worst attack of any one. Dead weight again.
Now 4th edition, Magic is unlimited, ANd Every one has it, But it Has many problems. First It is now impossible to fully unload when needed, Thepower system fails to account for that the party may need a caster to blow all their encounter powers for the day to over come a single encounter for some reason, bad luck, High damage, or an unreachable target come to mind. The same with Healers. (Leaders can go away, 4th ed Healing is not healing, it's spotty panic button presses when some one is slamed down for a huge amount of health. But at least it is ranged, which is a small perk) The answer is the party is killed, Normally in an anti climactic blaze of arguing and complaining that hovers around the game table for the next hour or two.
The Second issue Is that spells had other uses as well, Non combat (4th ed heresy, All is combat, there is nothing out side of it, you will damage every thing you touch) These consumed the same resource as your attack spells, which made magic all the more precious, asking the sorcerer to knock the door might cost you a spell needed later to save a party member's life. and Added a further dynamic to the game and an out of the box thinking. Such as a sorcerer flying up to a ledge then fireballing a giant out of it's reach, forcing it to change tactics or be pelted by wht ever attack he chose. Carm person applied to the last surviving goblin to find out where his buddies are hiding, or sleep used to put out a fellow player who is going into a lunatic rage from a failed madness check. (Yeah I just threw in Ravenloft there). The point being that these Non combat uses for magic made it a powerful tool, but an expensive one. It gave a spell caster definition beyond another source of damage, and status effects (which by the way are pathetic levels 1-15 in 4th. Really, The fighter is more controlling than the control Wizard?) Now this said Magic Is only in certain hands the mage, the cleric, and that is about it. and THe mage suffers for it, (see the mention of attack rolls and armor and weapons as well as see how yough you feel with 5 hp at first level facing any thing.) THe resource is limited, when it is gone it is gone, and I agree with that for the most part. Just remove the character being dead weight, like toting a child along for the ride once his one spell is spent. At wills tried to fix this, But failed to capture magic, Ultimately like every one else you spammed your at wills. magic was turned into the same formula as sword swings as healing as sneak attacks, ANd it is not one thing.
It is not magic.
Ultimately Magic does huge amounts of damage and or amazing feats but the caster knows that it is limited, the caster must manage it, it does not come back after five minutes, it is not repeatable like the swinging of a sword or sneaking up on some one, and that makes every spell from sleep to Wish valuable, Every spell counts And must be chosen carefully.
Lastly Rituals. These really break it, as playing a mage you are penalized, in every physical way the game is against you. Lowest health, no armor, a stick for a weapon. In fourth your spells are no better than any one else's equivilant ability usually worse but AoE, which is not always a good thing. Have a risk for friendly fire (Seems the mage and the warlock are the only ones with that risk in 4th with AoE's) And now all that you can do out of combat is reduced to a feat and given out freely to every one? Why can't the you wear plate and swing a sword? it's not like the reason you were penalized is there anymore. In 4E there was no magic just powers. It boiled down to being that simple.
Now going forwards, I really am not too big on the vancian system coming back, If any thing it made casting feel rigid, and Murky. Spell levels were fine, a good gauge of power and effect, but the slots didn't flow like they should, I would recommend a Spell point system going forwards, treat spells as having a level yes determining their cost and how powerful a caster is required to cast them. And Tracked on the sheet like health. this also allows for some Late game magic restoration through Scrolls potions, what ever device you choose, ANd removes the need for at will abilities for casters as the lowest level or two once you are past the beginning of the game, will be castable and so cheaply that you would need to be non stop casting for hours to exhaust yourself completely if you must spam an attack against a particularly long lasting opponent. lso some of these spells may have feats that allow their cost to be reduced as well at upper levels applying to a single favorite low level spell each time. Removing the dead weight problem, but still leaving the magic as a resource to be managed as well as allowing scaling costs on spells by the desired damage, and another of other capabilities impossible in the vancian system. (For example Fireball cost 10 (10-25) Spell points does 5d6 damage, Additional spell points may be spent 3 per level beyond fifth up to a maximum of 15 additional spell points for 10d6 damage)
I nominate Kaldric as my favorite TSR D&D poster. It's Friday, the dude has a few beers, and his posts become shorter and funnier. Other people drink the whole case and write a manifesto. C'mon man, it's the weekend!
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Emwasick, I about snorted my lager out my nose. I like the cut of your jib. In an entirely non-creepy way.
Cheers, man. Some Jameson over here. Please don't make me snort-laugh.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
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.
If someone says, "all spells are basically XdY+Z damage and push the target 2 squares, they are factually wrong.
It's important to point out when people are factually wrong.
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.
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.
If someone says, "all spells are basically XdY+Z damage and push the target 2 squares, they are factually wrong.
It's important to point out when people are factually wrong.
Well, actually many of them are. Most spells/powers in DnD 4th ed are damage + some condition, very often push/slide/pull. For me it's uninteresting since all of it is mostly about repeativeness. You basically take damage and put a random condition - and thus have a power/spell, so there almost always is damage and condition from list. It lacks diversity of the previous editions for me.
But that's not my major problem with 4ed spellcasting. It all feels... the same. The mechanics of casting spells is mostly the same as that of warrior using powers. Sure, you got some extra rules like augumentation via power points for psions, some additional damage from sorceror special ability, etc. but all in all it is very much the same, or at least feels the same.
I'm a big fan of 3rd edition, although it had a lot of flaws in balance. What I loved about 3rd was spellcasting - it had a flavor, a diversity. You casted differently with different classes.
Wizards had to remember spells and think hard about the threats that may appear during a particualar adventure.
Sorcerors had a limited number of spells know, but could use them more often and more freely.
Clerics/Druids had known all spells but could choose only a few. But their unique feature was spontaneus spellcasting, they could changy any spell into healing or summoning or inflicting wounds.
Shadowcasters could only follow certain paths of magic, but their casting of spells was completely different. They very enigmatic, their spells changed their very nature and in time become a part of themselves, allowing them to cast spells as supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Binders had to make pacts with alien beings, binding their souls together. Each pact gave them various abilities and spells - an unlimited access to them, although each power had only a few abilities.
Truenamers would use language of creation to utter sentences that change the reality. They had no daily usage - they could use the utterances as much as they want, but with each use the reality was more resisting.
Psions could use their powers by spending power points, not just argumenting them, and their argumentation was more developed and interesting. From a 1 level spell with enough argumentation you could make even a 6 lvl spell.
Warlocks had essences and invocations that would either had 24h long effects or change their main source of damage, eldritch blast. They could use these powers without any restrictions on the number of use.
Incarnum was the matter of soul, allowing you to create personal magical items that granted you magical powers and spells. You had to resign from from equipment maybe, but the advantage was you didn't had to spent gold on it.
Tome of battle introduced matrial class that worked similarly to those of 4 ed, being a choice - not an obligatory feature for all.
Archivist would combine what clerics and wizards were able to. Divine spells with a prayer's book, allowing to add there spells outside of the class spell list.
Etc.
Every class was unique in its spellcasting - not only in a modifier to damage, but in flavor and mechanics.
In 4 ed I feel like I'm choosing between the same classes, when it comes to spellcasting mechanics.
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.
If someone says, "all spells are basically XdY+Z damage and push the target 2 squares, they are factually wrong.
It's important to point out when people are factually wrong.
Well, actually many of them are. Most spells/powers in DnD 4th ed are damage + some condition, very often push/slide/pull. For me it's uninteresting since all of it is mostly about repeativeness. You basically take damage and put a random condition - and thus have a power/spell, so there almost always is damage and condition from list. It lacks diversity of the previous editions for me.
But that's not my major problem with 4ed spellcasting. It all feels... the same. The mechanics of casting spells is mostly the same as that of warrior using powers. Sure, you got some extra rules like augumentation via power points for psions, some additional damage from sorceror special ability, etc. but all in all it is very much the same, or at least feels the same.
I'm a big fan of 3rd edition, although it had a lot of flaws in balance. What I loved about 3rd was spellcasting - it had a flavor, a diversity. You casted differently with different classes.
Wizards had to remember spells and think hard about the threats that may appear during a particualar adventure.
Sorcerors had a limited number of spells know, but could use them more often and more freely.
Clerics/Druids had known all spells but could choose only a few. But their unique feature was spontaneus spellcasting, they could changy any spell into healing or summoning or inflicting wounds.
Shadowcasters could only follow certain paths of magic, but their casting of spells was completely different. They very enigmatic, their spells changed their very nature and in time become a part of themselves, allowing them to cast spells as supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Binders had to make pacts with alien beings, binding their souls together. Each pact gave them various abilities and spells - an unlimited access to them, although each power had only a few abilities.
Truenamers would use language of creation to utter sentences that change the reality. They had no daily usage - they could use the utterances as much as they want, but with each use the reality was more resisting.
Psions could use their powers by spending power points, not just argumenting them, and their argumentation was more developed and interesting. From a 1 level spell with enough argumentation you could make even a 6 lvl spell.
Warlocks had essences and invocations that would either had 24h long effects or change their main source of damage, eldritch blast. They could use these powers without any restrictions on the number of use.
Incarnum was the matter of soul, allowing you to create personal magical items that granted you magical powers and spells. You had to resign from from equipment maybe, but the advantage was you didn't had to spent gold on it.
Tome of battle introduced matrial class that worked similarly to those of 4 ed, being a choice - not an obligatory feature for all.
Archivist would combine what clerics and wizards were able to. Divine spells with a prayer's book, allowing to add there spells outside of the class spell list.
Etc.
Every class was unique in its spellcasting - not only in a modifier to damage, but in flavor and mechanics.
In 4 ed I feel like I'm choosing between the same classes, when it comes to spellcasting mechanics.
I'm just quoting you because of your last line although I agree with your sentiment almost entirely:
"In 4 ed I feel like I'm choosing between the same classes, when it comes to spellcasting mechanics."
This line denotes an opinion, opinions are never facts, thus opinions don't need to be based on things that are 100% fact. The subjective question, "What didn't you like about 4e casting?", was asked. The validity of his statements or thorough accuracy does not matter because this is an opinion. If this is an opinion about why 4e magic was disliked, and it is an opinion shared by many, than it should be made known so that they don't fall into a smilar pitfall in the next edition. Even if the statement is not 100% true, or if the sentiment is expressed with a flase generalization, it does seem true to many people so then there is a shred of validity to the complaint. If everyone looking at your product thinks the product is blue, when in reality it is blue with green dots, the reality does not matter only what has been perceived. If a large number of people are seeing this then maybe in the future you will make the green dots more numerous and with greater definition. The false generalization was fine because it expressed what people felt and thought, and it helped you make your product better.
So no, no it is not always important to point out when people are factually wrong. It is especially not important to do so, and is in fact a faux pas to do so, when you are discussing opinions. Opinions can't be right or wrong so you trying to disprove someone else's opinion, or proving it to be wrong, by disproving their basis for their opinion is pointless, and kind of [expletive]ish. just wanted to clarify why, "It's important to point out when people are factually wrong", is actually incorrect for this conversation as it is not based in fact, and your opinion about what others think was not asked for. The question, "To those who did not like 4e casters, why?", specifically asks people that disliked the system for their opinions on why. You obviously like the magic system doctor bad wolf, all [expletive]ing on others peoples opinions, with facts or your own opinion, in a place where it was directly not asked for, accomplishes is making you look like a [expletive].
Personally I am usually a giant fan of facts, and getting things right, for some arguments, but even I understand that in a discussion of opinions facts are not the most important thing. You can think the opinion is wrong, it is how being human works (we disagree on things). Your disagreement can be based on your own opinions or on facts but it doesn't change the other person's opinion and it hardly matters at this level of discussion to try and tell people why their opinion is wrong.
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.
If someone says, "all spells are basically XdY+Z damage and push the target 2 squares, they are factually wrong.
It's important to point out when people are factually wrong.
Well, actually many of them are. Most spells/powers in DnD 4th ed are damage + some condition, very often push/slide/pull. For me it's uninteresting since all of it is mostly about repeativeness. You basically take damage and put a random condition - and thus have a power/spell, so there almost always is damage and condition from list. It lacks diversity of the previous editions for me.
But that's not my major problem with 4ed spellcasting. It all feels... the same. The mechanics of casting spells is mostly the same as that of warrior using powers. Sure, you got some extra rules like augumentation via power points for psions, some additional damage from sorceror special ability, etc. but all in all it is very much the same, or at least feels the same.
I'm a big fan of 3rd edition, although it had a lot of flaws in balance. What I loved about 3rd was spellcasting - it had a flavor, a diversity. You casted differently with different classes.
Wizards had to remember spells and think hard about the threats that may appear during a particualar adventure.
Sorcerors had a limited number of spells know, but could use them more often and more freely.
Clerics/Druids had known all spells but could choose only a few. But their unique feature was spontaneus spellcasting, they could changy any spell into healing or summoning or inflicting wounds.
Shadowcasters could only follow certain paths of magic, but their casting of spells was completely different. They very enigmatic, their spells changed their very nature and in time become a part of themselves, allowing them to cast spells as supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Binders had to make pacts with alien beings, binding their souls together. Each pact gave them various abilities and spells - an unlimited access to them, although each power had only a few abilities.
Truenamers would use language of creation to utter sentences that change the reality. They had no daily usage - they could use the utterances as much as they want, but with each use the reality was more resisting.
Psions could use their powers by spending power points, not just argumenting them, and their argumentation was more developed and interesting. From a 1 level spell with enough argumentation you could make even a 6 lvl spell.
Warlocks had essences and invocations that would either had 24h long effects or change their main source of damage, eldritch blast. They could use these powers without any restrictions on the number of use.
Incarnum was the matter of soul, allowing you to create personal magical items that granted you magical powers and spells. You had to resign from from equipment maybe, but the advantage was you didn't had to spent gold on it.
Tome of battle introduced matrial class that worked similarly to those of 4 ed, being a choice - not an obligatory feature for all.
Archivist would combine what clerics and wizards were able to. Divine spells with a prayer's book, allowing to add there spells outside of the class spell list.
Etc.
Every class was unique in its spellcasting - not only in a modifier to damage, but in flavor and mechanics.
In 4 ed I feel like I'm choosing between the same classes, when it comes to spellcasting mechanics.
I'm just quoting you because of your last line although I agree with your sentiment almost entirely:
"In 4 ed I feel like I'm choosing between the same classes, when it comes to spellcasting mechanics."
This line denotes an opinion, opinions are never facts, thus opinions don't need to be based on things that are 100% fact. The subjective question, "What didn't you like about 4e casting?", was asked. The validity of his statements or thorough accuracy does not matter because this is an opinion. If this is an opinion about why 4e magic was disliked, and it is an opinion shared by many, than it should be made known so that they don't fall into a smilar pitfall in the next edition. Even if the statement is not 100% true, or if the sentiment is expressed with a flase generalization, it does seem true to many people so then there is a shred of validity to the complaint. If everyone looking at your product thinks the product is blue, when in reality it is blue with green dots, the reality does not matter only what has been perceived. If a large number of people are seeing this then maybe in the future you will make the green dots more numerous and with greater definition. The false generalization was fine because it expressed what people felt and thought, and it helped you make your product better.
So no, no it is not always important to point out when people are factually wrong. It is especially not important to do so, and is in fact a faux pas to do so, when you are discussing opinions. Opinions can't be right or wrong so you trying to disprove someone else's opinion, or proving it to be wrong, by disproving their basis for their opinion is pointless, and kind of [expletive]ish. just wanted to clarify why, "It's important to point out when people are factually wrong", is actually incorrect for this conversation as it is not based in fact, and your opinion about what others think was not asked for. The question, "To those who did not like 4e casters, why?", specifically asks people that disliked the system for their opinions on why. You obviously like the magic system doctor bad wolf, all [expletive]ing on others peoples opinions, with facts or your own opinion, in a place where it was directly not asked for, accomplishes is making you look like a [expletive].
Personally I am usually a giant fan of facts, and getting things right, for some arguments, but even I understand that in a discussion of opinions facts are not the most important thing. You can think the opinion is wrong, it is how being human works (we disagree on things). Your disagreement can be based on your own opinions or on facts but it doesn't change the other person's opinion and it hardly matters at this level of discussion to try and tell people why their opinion is wrong.
When their opinions are based on a false premise. Then I always try to educate them. Once they realize the true facts they are free to continue to have the same opinions as they started with. I just try to take the out the misleading factor.
"Its impossible to role-play in 4E"
"Actually its not, here's the proof."
"Oh, well I found it difficult to role-play in 4E."
Opinions can't be right or wrong so you trying to disprove someone else's opinion, or proving it to be wrong, by disproving their basis for their opinion is pointless, and kind of [expletive]ish.
Just a nitpick, but opinions can be right or wrong when they refer to things that relate to facts. If you were to hold the opinion that the Earth is flat, your opinion would be wrong. If you held the opinion that humans were ruled by evil squirrel overlords, your opinion would be wrong. If you hold an opinion about whether a certain editions spellcasting mechanics were better or worse than another editions, you would not be wrong, since it is a completely subjective matter.
