Quote from: StormBringer;543981That isn't 'magic'.  That is 'science'.  Possibly 'crafting'.  A game system should only emulate the actual physics of a setting; ie, fire burns; creatures with wings can fly; rocks fall, people die; etc.  It doesn't really matter how a ball of fire is created, just that it fills up this certain volume and the intensity causes this much damage and is able to melt this certain kind of metal.  Opening a rift to the Elemental Plane of Fire, drawing the heat out of a nugget of sulphur, sympathetically creating an explosion from a glob of bat guano...  doesn't matter what causes it.  The only thing the rules can reasonably address is what the effects are.



Spell Y has this range, that casting time, and does Xd6 points of damage.  Done.  The rest is set design.


Then you should adopt a form of Mage for your games.


That is my job when I put the Viking Hat on.  I don't want some game designer padding their rules with all kinds of nonsense assumptions I may not want or need in my campaign.  The absolute minimum assumptions and impacts from spells or other magic related topics.  "Magic items exist, and here are their effects"; I will decide how, why and with what frequency they exist.

Again all fair points.

4e took the Spell Y has this range, that casting time, and does Xd6 points of damage to its limit such that the spell/effect/power could only do that which was written. I am assuming you don't want to head all the way down that path.

This is just one of my foibles. It stems I expect from my degree, although I suspects it predates it and my degree reflects the interest. I studied Anthropology and specialised in myth magic and ritual and a prevalent theme in the anthropological study of magic is looking for its internal consistency. Every Since Evans-Pritchard wrote 'Myth, Magic and Ritual among the Azande' that has been the approach and indeed whenever you analyse the magical rituals of a pre-literate society you see strong logical themes.
Now cutting back to fantasy for a moment, as I noted up post all decent fantasy novels that focus on the magical have a Magic system a magic as science kind of set up. It might be that through knowing a creatures true name you can control them it might be that you can open up pockets to other elemental planes and pull in fire or ice or whatever, but they uniformly have a structure to them.

I like the Mage approach but there is also a touch of laziness to it. D&D has hundreds of spells with evocative names and histories. Mage avoids having to do that work. I really want to see both. Here is the way magic works and here are 300 examples of spells designed with that system. Then a player who wants to use premade spells can do so and one that wants to create their own unique magic can.

I totally understand the argument for setting filling in the detail of magic but it irks me when a spell is nerfed for game reasons.
If you look at Mage hand, what is does, it really makes no sense that it can't attack for example. Can it pinch a wenches bum in a bar? if so it can touch and exert pressure so why can't it stick it's finger in someones eye? Now if it was a divine gift I could see how the power source wouldn't allow it, if it was granted by a pact with some creature a bond with the faey or something, then fair enough, but its not. The spell creates a spectral hand controled by the caster that can move about upto 5 feet off the ground etc etc It can't attack because that would make it too powerful in the GAME. That just irks me.
Magic missile is similar. It creates a bolt of force that will target a creature unearingly. So is it intelligent? can it detect life, what about animated cretures that have no life how can it target them. All that stuff irks me.

I know its just me and its just a game but like I said we all have foibles

Quote from: jadrax;543951http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120531#80545

Another one that makes me pretty happy.

Pretty much a deal breaker for me at this point in time.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544015Pretty much a deal breaker for me at this point in time.

Curious as to why that is .

I can't see how flexibility can harm a 4e play style.

Quote from: RPGPundit;542266What does everyone else feel about this?  I didn't invent this mechanic, but advocated strongly for it to be kept. I think its a much more clever way to handle a lot of things that otherwise have to be handled by strings of modifiers.

RPGPundit

I agree. I prefer the simplicity of the current Ad/Disad roll over tables of modifiers to remember/look up.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544015Pretty much a deal breaker for me at this point in time.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Quote from: jadrax;543951http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120531#80545

Another one that makes me pretty happy.

EXCELLENT. That is what I want to hear!

Quote from: jibbajibba;544022I can't see how flexibility can harm a 4e play style.

Did you play 4e?  Inflexibility is the whole point.  Asking the GM for a ruling is going on bended knee with waiting mouth, didn't you know that?

Quote from: CRKrueger;544032Did you play 4e?  Inflexibility is the whole point.  Asking the GM for a ruling is going on bended knee with waiting mouth, didn't you know that?

But if you have the fexibility to insert inflexibility you are golden right?

The group just makes a list of 5 big rules.
You always get advantage if ...........
You always get disadvantage if ............
Use skill checks to resolve ............
Spell and powers are used as written ......
The DM can not override rules 1-4 ......

done

Quote from: jibbajibba;544036But if you have the fexibility to insert inflexibility you are golden right?

The group just makes a list of 5 big rules.
You always get advantage if ...........
You always get disadvantage if ............
Use skill checks to resolve ............
Spell and powers are used as written ......
The DM can not override rules 1-4 ......

done

You're thinking logically, which is a waste of time in this case, since we're talking about TCO having a tantrum.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544036But if you have the fexibility to insert inflexibility you are golden right?

The group just makes a list of 5 big rules.
You always get advantage if ...........
You always get disadvantage if ............
Use skill checks to resolve ............
Spell and powers are used as written ......
The DM can not override rules 1-4 ......

done

This actually works better than hardcoding them into the rule book in my opinion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544036But if you have the fexibility to insert inflexibility you are golden right?

The group just makes a list of 5 big rules.
You always get advantage if ...........
You always get disadvantage if ............
Use skill checks to resolve ............
Spell and powers are used as written ......
The DM can not override rules 1-4 ......

done

I don't really deal in "ifs". When they change the playtest to something like what you describe above, I'll form a new opinion on that. Until then, I'm judging the game based on concrete evidence, that being the actual playtest which is mother-may-I up, down, and sideways.

It's a taste thing. I dislike mother-may-I intensely.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544041I don't really deal in "ifs". When they change the playtest to something like what you describe above, I'll form a new opinion on that. Until then, I'm judging the game based on concrete evidence, that being the actual playtest which is mother-may-I up, down, and sideways.

It's a taste thing. I dislike mother-may-I intensely.

I think what he is saying is there is nothing stopping you from establing those rules on the existing system. They are just a list of things your group estabpishes before play. Dont need wotc for that

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544043I think what he is saying is there is nothing stopping you from establing those rules on the existing system. They are just a list of things your group estabpishes before play. Dont need wotc for that

Man, I hope an enthusiastic newcomer to the game never runs into someone like TCO; guys like him give D&D a bad name.  Kids will want to play the newest game that gives them the most options, and getting an earful from some neckbeard like TCO who does nothing but bitch and complain and tell people the game sucks and only the old, out-of-print, no longer supported versions are good harms the chance of getting new blood into the game.  Honestly, the hobby would be better off if guys like him who are holding the hobby back just quit playing altogether.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544041I don't really deal in "ifs". When they change the playtest to something like what you describe above, I'll form a new opinion on that. Until then, I'm judging the game based on concrete evidence, that being the actual playtest which is mother-may-I up, down, and sideways.

It's a taste thing. I dislike mother-may-I intensely.

You keep using this term, even when it's shown to be nothing more than a flimsly excuse.  Where do you draw the line?  Does 4e have a rule for every possible scenario?

What's 4e's rule when casting a fireball down a hallway covered in poisonous goo?  What's 4e's rule when your 1st level character wants to jump off his horse, tackle the opponent while in the same motion roll up in a tumble and attack the guy behind him?  What pages are these rules at?

It seems that every edition requires DM rulings at some point, so where exactly are you drawing the line?  Or are you just yet again resorting to hyperbole because your argument falls apart upon scrutiny?

I don't understand why people have so much vitriol for a DM being able to make calls.  They were originally called a referee for a reason, and are still called Dungeon Master for a reason you know.  Show me on the doll where the DM touched you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544043I think what he is saying is there is nothing stopping you from establing those rules on the existing system. They are just a list of things your group estabpishes before play. Dont need wotc for that

Why would I do something like that instead of just sticking with 4E? If I have to make major changes to 5E to make it tolerable, there just isn't any point. I have an edition of D&D I'm satisfied with, WotC needs to do better than that.