Things About 4e We Must Admit Are Probably Good Innovations

RPGPundit · February 15, 2010, 06:27:00 PM

I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

JRR · February 15, 2010, 06:35:01 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

I think both of the above ideas are horrible. Magic should have a cost, either in spell slots, mana, spell points, or whatever. Casting it willy nilly may achieve some aspect of balance, but the cost in flavor is too high.

DeadUematsu · February 15, 2010, 06:40:07 PM

Nonsense, JRR. Nonsense.

Just Another User · February 15, 2010, 06:41:10 PM

And they are not exactly innovations, rituals did already exist in 3.x (in a better form, IMHO) and for the unlimited magic attack, there were warlocks and reserve feats and this if you limit the search to D&D.

ggroy · February 15, 2010, 06:46:06 PM

Magic users were largely useless at lower levels. No big surprise in games that level up very slowly from level 1, the magic user players were largely sitting around bored playing gameboy or watching television.

Caesar Slaad · February 15, 2010, 07:05:14 PM

Saving throws translated to target numbers and reflex target made the same as the "armorless" AC target. It never made sense to me that they were different.

That's pretty much all that occurs to me.

estar · February 15, 2010, 07:11:28 PM

Quote from: JRR;360706I think both of the above ideas are horrible. Magic should have a cost, either in spell slots, mana, spell points, or whatever. Casting it willy nilly may achieve some aspect of balance, but the cost in flavor is too high.

Flavor is a part of setting and genre. Maybe being able to cast a magic missile at will doesn't work for your setting but it works for others.

Also Rituals do have a cost, components. Components have to be purchased in gold in-game which leads to better roleplaying than any mechanical system of mana , or spell points.

jeff37923 · February 15, 2010, 07:11:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

RPGPundit

I don't understand why this is an uncomfortable notion. Could you please explain?

ggroy · February 15, 2010, 07:13:13 PM

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;360712Saving throws translated to target numbers and reflex target made the same as the "armorless" AC target. It never made sense to me that they were different.

That's pretty much all that occurs to me.

The genius of AC in the earlier editions, was that it was just one single defense stat to do attack rolls against. AC was able to accommodate not just armor, but also how agile a target was against attacks. This is what made THAC0 very easy to implement.

With four static defense stats in 4E, AC isn't so impressive any longer. If I had designed 4E, I probably would have used fortitude/reflex/will as the static defenses and eliminate AC altogether. Armor could be changed into something which "soaks" up hit point damage.

EDIT: In such a system, melee attacks would be against a target's fortitude and ranged attacks would be against a target's reflex.

The Shaman · February 15, 2010, 07:23:45 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times.

I like the resource management side of magic in the various incarnations of D&D, which is why I like the constraints of the pre-4e D&D/Vancian magic system, so this doesn't appeal.

If you want to shoot magic missles or lightning bolts each round, get a wand or a ring.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic.

Still has a resource management requirement, isn't readily adapted to combat, can be made super-cool in terms of components and ritual elements - yeah, this I like.

winkingbishop · February 15, 2010, 08:03:58 PM

I'm glad they began to break down the notion that healing the party required a divine spellcaster. Certainly, there were some small exceptions like bards and the occasional cure spell, but now most of the so-called Leaders have some ability to keep people going during the fight.

Unfortunately, this whole business relies on those second winds or healing surges or whatever they're called which I thought was implemented and explained rather poorly.

JRR · February 15, 2010, 08:07:07 PM

Quote from: estar;360715Flavor is a part of setting and genre. Maybe being able to cast a magic missile at will doesn't work for your setting but it works for others.

Also Rituals do have a cost, components. Components have to be purchased in gold in-game which leads to better roleplaying than any mechanical system of mana , or spell points.

That's no different from most spells in any edition of D&D. Components have been required since day one.

Aos · February 15, 2010, 08:36:19 PM

Another vote in favor of rituals. I think they are great.

mhensley · February 15, 2010, 08:44:06 PM

Getting rid of infravision (or darkvision) for most creatures is a decidedly good thing. So is getting rid of alignment detection spells.

arminius · February 15, 2010, 09:22:41 PM

I like both of the innovations Pundit cites...as implemented in other games.

Not sure I'd like them as part of D&D, let alone see them as improvements. Of course, I'm coming from an OD&D/Basic/1e perspective.