Quote from: JRR;360724That's no different from most spells in any edition of D&D.  Components have been required since day one.

Components didn't appear until the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook appeared. There were no spell components in OD&D.

And Pundit, mages with an attack they can use every round isn't very new either. A common house rule for OD&D allowed magic-users to use slings (1d4 points of damage, same as their dagger -- using Greyhawk damage rules). A lot of GMs simply allowed magic-users to zap targets with a magic blast from a wand for the same damage (but unlike a magic missile spell, required a roll to hit just like the sling).  This was no different from letting them use a sling and pick up stones as ammo, but it fit the character class better.

Another thumb's up to rituals, which in some way are a throw-back to the pre-AD&D magic system -- where stuff like creating magic items, golems, homonculi, etc. weren't spells, but rather required a minimum level, usually some special knowledge or item, time, and money. The trend in AD&D to conform all these kinds of procedures (as well as things like summoning demons or familiars) into the "daily slot" spell system always felt awkward and shoe-horned to me, so I'm just as happy to see the rituals re-separated from the spells. The only possible game-balance impact I can see is the Int-based min/max spells per level -- in AD&D, if a character learns a bunch of non-combat ritual-type spells then he might not have room to learn all the good combat-oriented spells too. That's a pretty minor factor, though (especially since, in practice, this rule seemed to almost always be ignored).

I'm less thrilled with giving magic-users and infinitely-reusable "zap" spell, but can see that as the game has become increasingly combat-oriented that something like this was probably needed, and if the spell is no more effective than thrown daggers or darts it doesn't significantly change the shape of the game. For flavor purposes, though, I'd still rather have it be a minor wand (with a large number of charges and easy to recharge) than an intrinsic ability -- AD&D already posits that every first level magic-user starts the game with a major magic item (a book of 1st level spells), so why not with two?

Quote from: ggroy;360717The 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.

I don't totally disagree with you, but the AC vs. Reflex/Will/Fortitude split is part of what distinguishes physical attacks from magical attacks, mechanically speaking. Yeah, some physical attacks target Reflex, but they're exceptions.

On the other hand, getting rid of the distinction would clear up many of the irksome weapon vs. implement issues. On the third hand, you'd lose one of the ways you can distinguish two weapons. So I dunno; might work out, might not. I'd playtest it if I were designing.

Anyhow. Innovations. I like power sources a great deal. Primal Power and reportedly Martial Power II add a lot of fluff vis a vis power sources, which is great. I like that I can define a campaign world's feel partially by saying "OK, these power sources are available to these cultures."

I like skill challenges. I understand that I am the only person in the world who likes them. I think they were poorly understood even by the designers at first; it was only with DMG 2 that we really got good skill challenge rules and good examples of skill challenges.

I think healing surges are interesting. They're important resource management, but they're perhaps too subtle as resource management, since you can't tell how important they are until you've played a fair bit of the game. Also, you need some decent GMing skills to make them meaningful. So interesting innovation, but the implementation could at least use a little explanation.

The DMG 2 material on boons and training as magic item replacements, I like that.

Other things I like (and dislike) about the game were not terribly innovative.

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.

I don't agree at all. I find 4e one of the worst RPGs I've ever played, but on this I agree with Pundit.

I concede the ideas have merit, but the 4e implementation is horrid.

Is the magic missile (sic) spell of 4e really different than simply firing a crossbow? Is it 'magical' in any way? There is literally nothing that spell does that cannot be equivalently accomplished with a physical ranged weapon. A mage (if created the right way) might even be BETTER at tossing a javelin than casting the spell.

Rituals are an interesting idea, and certainly make a lot of sense, the implementation of so many of them is so bad. Ten minutes' chanting and some gold to 'magically' see something 100 feet away? Seriously? A number of other rituals likewise don't make much sense...theoretically good idea, poor implementation.

Darts + a bearer to carry more (plus flasks of oil, and a hired linkboy to carry a lamp from which they may be lit) makes the magic-user a tad bit more useful than anyone's giving credit, in older editions.

But of course for most people since the rulebook didn't say "Magic-users can take darts as their weapon proficiency, and hurl flasks of oil" the idea of up and doing so must have been just beyond comprehension.

I get sick and tired of the notion that creeps up with every post 1e game that "Well now we've finally fixed the mage!  No more useless 1st level!" because if you can't think of ways to play the character so they're actually useful (like I outlined above), maybe a pen and paper RPG is a bit much for you.  And to the "guy with a game boy" example?  Thank god I don't have to game with anyone like that.

Reading this thread reminds me of a guy trying to talk himself into visiting the nasty crack whore that stands on the corner down the street... "Well, she's got nice taste in shoes..."

Spellcasters having reliable attacks works great in play, but for me it really kills the flavor.  Magic is supposed to be mysterious and powerful, so having blast attacks at your fingertips all the time creates a completely different dynamic that, IMO, doesn't emulate classic fantasy all that well.  What it does remind me of is Mutants & Masterminds, so 4e came off feeling almost like a contemporary comic-book sort of fantasy game.  I would also say the same thing about 3.x and its higher power-curve compared to older editions, but to a lesser extent.

That doesn't make it a bad game, but the implied setting doesn't exactly interest me.

I liked the constant magic missile bit. Yes magic should be powerful / have limits, but gas-powered mages (be they vancian or point buy) aren't something I ever saw in fantasy before D&D, and have always bugged me.

Rituals were pretty nice too. The idea of using casting times as a limiter on utility isn't new, but I think it's underutilised.

If they really wanted to "get it right" for flavor (IMO) there would be some element of spell failure, and of spectacular spell failure for trying something way outside your capabilities.

As others have said, static saves were nice. Though also as others have said, AC could have been cut in favor of armor as DR.

I kind of liked 1w/2w/3w martial powers, and don't know why.

I've got mixed feelings about healing surges, etc. I like the idea of healing that scales with level (as opposed to characters actually becoming harder to heal as their hit points increase)... I'd just rather limit the available sources of healing to... you know... magic or sleep.

Powers made it so combat maneuvers were separate from each other... as opposed to the old feats/class features/ etc. bit, that would often let you stack a munch of modifiers on a single attack and break the game (had some fun with twf/sneak attack builds in 3.x).

There's probably lots of little things I'm missing.

Quote from: beejazz;360757I liked the constant magic missile bit. Yes magic should be powerful / have limits, but gas-powered mages (be they vancian or point buy) aren't something I ever saw in fantasy before D&D, and have always bugged me.

So you...never read Jack Vance.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360758So you...never read Jack Vance.

Nope. As a kid, I got fantasy from Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, whoever wrote The Book of Three, The Horned King, etc. (edit: also Harry Potter and those crappy Goosebump books)  and a bunch of old fairy tales and mythology books. I don't think D&D picked up Vancian magic (as opposed to all the other possible models) because it was iconic or widespread... they did it for gameplay reasons. Not a bad thing, just not something I like.

There are no innovations to be found in 4e. Or... not in the first three books, anyway (I haven't seen any others.) That's not what they're trying to show it off as either, so that should work out fine.

Marketing-wise, it's just D&D all over again, but neater and more balanced.

I would say that it borrows very heavily from other games, 3e (+ splats) included.

I like the idea of at-will attacks for spellcasters. Not just things like Magic Missile or Cloud of Daggers...but also cantrips like Light, Prestidigitation and Ghost Sounds. I always thought it was silly in AD&D that these relatively minor things took up an entire 1st level spell slot.

If one divorces the idea of spellcaster flavor from D&D, then someone who can always channel at least a small amount of magical energy is more fitting to the ideal. Especially since I believe that one of the primary influences of the 4E Wizard was Jim Butcher's "Harry Dresden" series wherein casters can summon quick and dirty expressions of power on a regular basis, but for the big, world altering type stuff they have to spend time and effort setting it up (ala' rituals) So in this regard I find the design decisions here to be very flavorful.

I like that attacks are made against static defenses, and that savings throws have become a duration tracker rather than a defensive mechanic.

I like that summoners have to use their actions to command creatures.

I like that monsters each have their own gimmick. Goblins get to scurry away when you miss them, Hobgoblins get to make a savings throw as soon as they are hit with an effect, Gnomes turn invisible when you hit them, Orcs go into a frenzy when wounded, Gnolls get bonuses for attacking in packs...

Before, it felt as though the only difference between one melee monster and the next was HD.

I like the modularity of the design. The whole Fiendish Drow Half-Dragon Pirate3/Ninja4/Cyborg2/Zombie10 culture of 3.x really got on my nerves after a while.

That being said, there are also some newer elements of the game that really bug me.

Quote from: ggroy;360717EDIT:  In such a system, melee attacks would be against a target's fortitude and ranged attacks would be against a target's reflex.

What about characters that want to nimbly dodge out of the way of attacks, rather than just standing there and taking it?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see an alternate armor system, but I haven't found a good way to augment it yet.

Nothing listed in this thread so far has struck me as good (for D&D; they may be good ideas for other, non-D&D games) or innovative. Rituals have some potential, but all they do is codify things that were previously specific to a campaign (seriously, is there a DM out there who didn't make up something like "to open the gates of the sealed city of the dwarves, you have to *blah* *blah* *blah*"?) and lumped in a bunch of spells that belonged to the utility niche. All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

Quote from: Melan;360768All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

QFT. Rituals may have been a moderately good idea back when Mearls submitted them to supplement and not supplant a functional magic system - a system which allowed the use of utility magic in as well as outside combat.

Nothing in 4E's (alleged) innovations can ever outweigh the loss of removing utility magic from the game. And no, this isn't helped by copy-pasting names of (previous editions') utility spells on rituals.