Community

I think the major problem that many have with the 4E magic system is that you can't swap out different spells when you rest, and you can't find new spells to scribe into your spell book. These two things could easily be cured by using the item rules. You can find scrolls, but you can't use more than 1 encounter scroll per encounter or 1 daily scroll per day (just like the original item rules). Then when they learn new spells from scrolls they could swap out their spells when they rest to recover dailies. I see no balance issues in this. The fact of the matter is later on in 4E you could get the right feats and class features to do this with encounter and dailies, but not at-wills. I'd like to see this as a default assumption for wizards. You would pick 3 at-wills, 2 of which you have readied at any given time, and the ability to swap them out at rest. The same would go for encounter and dailies.

The other problem was that no one thought they could use their powers outside combat. I'd put a little line at the bottom of each spell that describes common ways to use the spell outside combat. Gust of wind could be used to push enemies in battle or it could be used to blow dust off items in a 3x3 area, blow light items around in a 3x3 area, or splash water in a 2x2 area...

May 2, 2012 -- 2:41PM, Zaenos wrote:

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.

 
Wow, I opened a can of worms unintentionally. Let me try and sort this out...

May 2, 2012 -- 3:30PM, Lawolf wrote:

@Zaenos: I have not read anything more absurdly false yet in this thread. In 4e every spell has a sentence or two of fluff. In other editions only 15% of spells had any flavor text at all (go read your 1e, 2e, or 3e PHB if you don't believe me). Not only that there are many many open ended non combat utility spells (the wizard knows 4 at-will at first level). In edition 4e is the only edition to openly encourage creative uses of powers (DMG pg 42). Your gust of wind example is something perfectly supported in 4e. I have seen a Druid use chill wind to keep us cool and help us during a skill challenge in a desert. I have used a shadow illusion power and ghost sound with my pixie executioner to trick people into thinking I was a big imposing hero instead of a six inch fairy. I have seen more creative uses of powers in 4e than in all my times playing 3e. I do agree that casting spells could feel similar to using a martial power if all you cares about is roll d20 deal X damage apply X effect, but the casters in 3e faced the same issue when you get down to it (only the person rolling the d20 was switched). Also, nothing is stopping you from using components for 4e caster, only now it is purely flavorful so it does not prevent you from playing a caster whose power does not come from bat guano.

I was speaking from my experience, which was apparently quite the opposite of yours. In my experience, the earlier an edition the person started playing at, the more creative they were with their spells. The 4e players I've known have been almost universally 'blasty'. However, this had little to do with the editions themselves - just the players.

I did make a mistake, or more accurately, a grossly mispresented comment in my post about the "lack of flavor text". I am aware that every single spell in 4e had a sentence or two of flavor text. Although, these descriptions could hardly be called actual flavor. Some were interesting, but many were frankly quite dull, and at worst even cheapened my image of the spell. Earlier editions did have many spells lacking any flavor whatsoever, but that was okay. It made a judgement call for what spells needed it. Was the Light spell given more flavor in 4e than 3.5e? Incontrovertibly. But that's not what I was talking about anyway. What I tried (poorly) to convey was that 4e spell descriptions were sterile. Compare the 3.5 entry for Web to 4e's. It's not just the opening two sentences describing the substrance that count; it's the language used throughout the whole description. It's not a few brief, game jargon-centric rules, it's given depth and detail. It's the way the web was treated like an actual obsticle in the world and not just a rule.

May 2, 2012 -- 6:51PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

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.

I wasn't trying to summarize the entire class, I was summarizing the writing style of entries.
Again, go compare the writing style of 3.5's Flaming Sphere, Sleep, or Fireball to 4e's.  

And in any case, the "flavor" of the text is probably the least of the things that mattered to me.

May 3, 2012 -- 12:22AM, edwin_su wrote:

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 ?

Probably, yes. Although I can't say for certain, being unfamiliar with essentials.

May 3, 2012 -- 2:58AM, Garthanos wrote:

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. 

To some degree, you're right. I rarely play evokers for that reason.

And I didn't ignore rituals. I mentioned them in my post as being where most of the more interesting spells were regulated to.

May 6, 2012 -- 5:54PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 1:27AM, Qumi wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 10:30PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 9:45AM, Gnarl wrote:

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 really think that the idea that spellcasters in 3.5 were so different is complete hogwash, at least in a lot of cases.

Wizards and nearly every other arcane type caster use literally the same spells. Cleric and druid spells really aren't that different from arcance spells. Got a class that you want to give some minor casting? Ok, give it limited access to another class's list!

yeah. That's boring. No thanks.

Anyway, I said that it's false to say that all 4e spells are basically the same. You respond with, many of them are pretty much the same.

You don't see the difference (even if you're right) between "many" and "basically all"?


sleeps: No. It is very nearly always of vital importance to point out factual innacuracies. An opinion based discussion does not change that.

Opinions that are based on blatant falsehoods should be shone to be such, especially in a public debate. The idea that opinions are somehow beyond things like qualitiv analysis is preposterous. Some opinions are better than others, no matter what you were told in 1st grade.

You're raging that 4ed spells are not only about damage and sliding and yet you make such statements...

Have you played 3,5 ed? Which magic casting classes?

Only wizards and sorcerors have the same list of spells - and even them have some unique spells reserved only for their use.

Druid and Cleric have some similarities, but their spell lists are almost completely different

Warlock have unique spell list.

Shadowcaster have unique spell list.

Incarnum users have unique spell list.

Binder has unique spell list.

Assassin has unique spell list.

Truenamer has unique spell list.

Psion has unique spell list

Archivist is unique in that he can combine arcane with divine.

Etc.

Sorry, but your argument is invalid and I say this as a fact. Classes have different spell lists, although several spells are common among them.


And I have to say, I also get the feeling that spells in 4 ed are basically the same thing for every class. The thing I said about diversity, about spells being just a mix of a damage and condition - it seems for me that almost every class shares the same or similar spells but with different names. 


Oh and for flavor text - it was never a problem for me. I've quite a bountiful imagination and I always tend to make huge descritions out of casting a spell, how energy focuses in my hands, how takes it shape, how it soars and flexes, etc. While I like flavor texts of spells, sometimes I find that a bit... limiting. It basically tells me how the spell looks like and I feel compelled to describe it like that, while otherwise I would make a totally different description. What I am saying is that:

Spell flavor =/= flavor text

Flavor text is cool and all, but that's in my opinion just a form of laziness of imagination. I remember playing a shadowcaster and using the spell Killing Shadows where I described the tendrils of shadows sometimes as ribbons that would choke my enemies, sometimes as serpents that would bite them and sometimes simply as an overwhelming wave of darkness drowning them.