Action points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

Quote from: CalithenaAction points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

I get that too. I wouldn't call it a "flag" on my part, because I didn't mind them in the one campaign we played (Stargate) where we used them, but I do agree that it's a bigger change to how DnD works than changing the system for spell use/refreshment.

I have ran campaigns where spell memorization was discarded, but in retrospect I'm not sure the game was improved thereby.

Quote from: CalithenaAction points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

Ditto. Action points, etc., are just a bit over the meta-game line for me.  I know other folks like them and have fun with them and nothing should be taken as an intended insult in their direction.

Vancian magic, specifically, isn't really the issue - except for how they control the uber-power that is spells.  "Spell points" could be interesting.  So if you use them on high level spells you could only do a few a day, but if you magic missle with them, you could go off like a roman candle. And a real spell failure consequence would be cool - make magic not some plaything, but a real force to be repsected by both wielder and target.

Here's how I put it to the guys I played D&D with on Saturday - it's like somene looked around and said, "Look at how unbalanced this all is. Look how powerful [insert powerful class/combination] are now compared to [insert not-so-powerful class/combination]."

But instead of taking the former down to the level of the latter to fix this, they raised up that latter to match the former. This, of course, will have unforseen consequences which will render the latter more powerful compared to the former, and it will happen again.  It's a spiraling arms race now. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.  I'd like nothing more than to have yet another edition of D&D that I can play.

Quote from: CabI've come across several people, online, since the announcement of 4e who have said that. Haven't come across anyone previously who house ruled away from it (I know one bloke who used 2nd ed with the points system from skills and powers but thats it).

I've heard several people as well (way before the announcement and after)and my experience was similar to yours: most did not houserule it. There could be several reasons for that:

1-The system is perfectly fine as is, which is what I think you are alluding to. And of course, you are right. The system works.

2-They like the fact it is a common language. Being immediately able to play with strangers with little houseruling is a perk I still continue to experience to this day. I just hooked up with a totally new group of 5 I had never played with, was able to make my 8th level Bard from the comfort of my home with no help and get in the adventure quickly. And it's not just creating my character. Choosing my class was done by asking what everybody else was playing and knowing the dynamic of this particular group, based on my knowledge of 3e. With too many significant houserules, I might not understand how to best help this party and how to fit.

3-They suck at houseruling. Gamers are just like everybody else. Just because they enjoy an activity does not mean they know how it works internally. I might be able to go to a restaurant and tell you there's something missing in my fancy meal, but the fuck if I'm going to go to the kitchen and fix it. I'm just not a good cook. I've seen enough houserules and homebrews to realise most gamers suck at design.

4-D&D has evolved into an intricate beast. Some changes have repercussions pretty much everywhere. Even a fine houseruler will have to put in tons of work to fix this. You'd have to re-do the books and that's just a fucking pain in the arse. You're talking about core classes and then repercussions on feats and certain spells, as well as monsters and the way attributes work. I did try to houserule armor and gave up because it was too much work. Even if you do all that work, every time a new interesting supplement is released, you have to houserule those as well.

Anyway, I'm going to reserve further judgment but really hope the new spellcasting rules will be to my liking. So far, I kinda like what I hear about them. My two other concerns are armor and the time it takes to run a combat. I don't think those two will items will be addressed to my liking.

On the subject of boardgaming: Back in 3e, key people such as Dancey, Adkison, Cook and Tweet made it abundantly clear that this is what the game is about and what it does best (and they are right, IMO). Other games address other things very well and D&D should not try to be everything for everyone. You basically move around with cardboard personas, use tactics/strategies to kill things and take their stuff. Everything else is an afterthought. That's why they're going to refine things further toward combat and minis in this next edition. People who want something more abstract can play other games expressly designed for that.

Changing Vancian magic into something else, would make 4th edition the most thoroughly designed fantasy heartbreaker ever.

You naughty man.

Many great games starting re-doing fantasy rpging by changing what was "broken" in D&D.

Maybe 4th edition will just be such a game.

A new Runequest, or more fitting, a new Palladium Fantasy.

Oh, I see what you mean... well... I could get behind that. IF we're talking about a truly new game here, or one with its own distinct identity. Like the shift from 2E to 3.0. But is that what's happening?

We´ll see.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, I see what you mean... well... I could get behind that. IF we're talking about a truly new game here, or one with its own distinct identity. Like the shift from 2E to 3.0. But is that what's happening?

Doubtful. They've said as much in various interviews.

It will be much less drastic than 2e--->3e. They're keeping all the refinements that Jonathan Tweet and co. brought to the able and building on that.

Mike Mearls simply has never demonstrated he has what it takes to design a solid game from scratch and I just don't see him being too adventurous.

In most ways, this will just be a new D20 game. Hopefully a great one.

Quote from: Consonant Dude4-D&D has evolved into an intricate beast. Some changes have repercussions pretty much everywhere. Even a fine houseruler will have to put in tons of work to fix this. You'd have to re-do the books and that's just a fucking pain in the arse. You're talking about core classes and then repercussions on feats and certain spells, as well as monsters and the way attributes work. I did try to houserule armor and gave up because it was too much work. Even if you do all that work, every time a new interesting supplement is released, you have to houserule those as well.

You don't have to houserule each supplement, you just don't use them.

I dunno, I just don't see house ruling an alternative magic system as particularly difficult. Spell points, mana, spell level difficulty, none of that is complicated. And yet, I never encountered it.

QuoteOn the subject of boardgaming: Back in 3e, key people such as Dancey, Adkison, Cook and Tweet made it abundantly clear that this is what the game is about and what it does best (and they are right, IMO). Other games address other things very well and D&D should not try to be everything for everyone. You basically move around with cardboard personas, use tactics/strategies to kill things and take their stuff. Everything else is an afterthought. That's why they're going to refine things further toward combat and minis in this next edition. People who want something more abstract can play other games expressly designed for that.

I see that as a move away from role playing for D&D. And I hate it. Its the most negative feature of 3rd ed for me, the bit that basically took the progress D&D had made since Chainmail and went right back on it. And its a shame, because the basic engine of the 3rd ed system is sound (some tinkering to balance it is needed, but that isn't such a big deal).

D&D was designed to be more abstract than other games. I'm unconvinced that it gained anythign by forgetting that.

Quote from: CabYou don't have to houserule each supplement, you just don't use them.

I dunno, I just don't see house ruling an alternative magic system as particularly difficult. Spell points, mana, spell level difficulty, none of that is complicated.

It's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

You'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

Most gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

It would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

You'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

Most gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

It would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

This certainly has not been my experience at all. We have played using variant spell and combat systems, and even a houserule where we all got a feat every level (on "off" levels the feats had to be chosen from a specific list). Every one of these campaigns went smoothly and were very entertaining. We have played a campaign that included core books only, one with WotC books only, and several with any book anywhere. We've played where we used 3.5 rules, but with some spells reverted back to 3.0 (namely the stat-boosters and summoning spells). We tinker with DnD all the time and it pretty much always turns out fine.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

Some examples are...

• Quicken Metamagic with true strike (+20 to hit) which is so good, everyone does it. The game suffers because the same action is repeated over and over again with negligible cost and risk. (Designer's original intent: "1st level spells aren't that good.")


• Druid shape shift into an "animal." (Designer's original intent: "Cat, dog, mouse, crow, goldfish etc....")


• Ladders that increase in value when you chop them in half. (Designer's original intent: Ladders are dumb and cheap. Poles are useful and expensive. They're entirely different things.)

But in my experience, whenever I run a new magic system (or any system) the players figure out what's hot and what's not and things balance out. If invisibility is too cheap (Essentially a 'cantrip' in Ars Magica 4th edition) then everyone expects invisible foes and thus everyone in the world min/maxes against invisible attackers and therefore being invisible isn't so hot.

On the other hand, if invisibility is prohibitively expensive (Essentially a 9th level spell in Ars Magica 3rd edition) it's something that no one expects NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Even in D&D, when your party is missing a caster, you just work around it. No cleric? Use Device and wand of cure light wounds. Too many wizards? Obliterate everything before it gets too close. Too many goblins and no fireball? Everyone get great cleave. Everyone is psychic? etc... In all those cases, it's the players adjusting their style to achieve a new balance.