Quote from: WarthurAccording to this ENWorld post (which seems to be being regularly updated with edits) it's not all per-encounter stuff in the new edition: people's powers and spells and whatnot will be divided into three categories of increasing power - "at will", "per encounter" and "per day", with "per day" things being the most powerful. So careful resource handling should (hopefully) still be a factor.

Well, we'll see. I'm not convinced that changing Vancian magic was needed.

You can do a lot to D&D and its still D&D. Things like ascending armour class (didn't THAT upset some people!), Sorcerors, prestige classes, all of those things that got many old-schoolers up in arms but which had actually appeared in other versions of D&D before 3rd ed, in truth they're all trivialities. They're not big changes to how you play the game, they're window dressing. But dropping Vancian magic (saw one statement on the Wizards site saying that a mage who has cast his once per day spells might still be 80% effective, which would substantially mean that Vancian casting is gone)... Well, that really would be a big, big change to D&D, bigger than any of the changes brought in with 3rd ed (more so even than the 'unified' skill system). Its barely the same engine of the game (the same basic engine that goes right back to Men and Magic) any more if you do that. Yeah, I know, we've had optional spell point systems (noteably 2nd ed skills and powers) before, but that was never 'the' way to do it.

There's still a glimmer of hope.

Assume that:
1) 20% of character power is per-day and 80% is at will and per encounter (As promised by the developers)

2) Magic items have a very few uses per day. (Described as 'ideal game-design' in the Magic Item Compendium behind the curtains section)

3) Fewer magic items per character (Elimiating the so-called "Christmas tree effect")

One possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted. The strategic management shifts from preparing spells to managing per-day and one-use items wisely.

If items make up say... half of a character's power, then running out of resources leaves a character at 40%.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumOne possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted.

Whether its items or spells, this is a fundamental flaw in the argument for changing away from Vancian magic. Characters can't just rest wherever they choose; in a well run adventure the characters can only really rest in a defensible location, where it is safe to do so, where they can realistically 'rest', and at best a night spent in a wet cave or cold, dark woodland is going to be poor 'rest'!

The problem here is that some DMs seem to allow the PCs to dictate the pace of a story, and that reduces challenge for all involved. Fight, rest, fight, rest... How about fight, discover something, have to guard while you're working something out, have to fight again when something comes to see what the noise was, creep along to find somewhere secluded, THEN rest? You can't just drop camp anywhere you like in a dungeon, it makes no sense.

I've seen the argument that the game becomes too much about resource management and all about the mage casting his spells then resting over on the Wizards site, usually coupled with the claim that at high level mages are too powerful. Frankly thats really shoddy dungeon mastering, and it could best be changed by ripping most of the fluff out of the DMG and having a better section on practical DM'ing.

Don't worry Cab.  I'm sure that practical advice will be in the DMG II, or III, or maybe IV...

I'm going to wait for 4e to come out and generate my opinions based on what gets printed. Like Riki-Tiki-Traveller when it comes out - if I think that the game is crap, then by the Redeeming Power of the OGL, I shall rewrite what I think is fucked up and possibly sell that as a new system or supplement or adventure. Just like what has happened with 3.x disappointment being the driving force which gave us C&C, True20, Basic Fantasy RPG, and on and on and on...

jeff37923, not rushing to judgement and waiting for actual info is completely contrary to the spirit of internet debate!

Quote from: jeff37923I'm going to wait for 4e to come out and generate my opinions based on what gets printed. Like Riki-Tiki-Traveller when it comes out - if I think that the game is crap, then by the Redeeming Power of the OGL, I shall rewrite what I think is fucked up and possibly sell that as a new system or supplement or adventure. Just like what has happened with 3.x disappointment being the driving force which gave us C&C, True20, Basic Fantasy RPG, and on and on and on...

ah, the OGL.  our silver lining!  so i doubt the third of the incoming-new-edition-triumvirate (for me), BRP, will have its own OGL. . . .

Quote from: beeberah, the OGL.  our silver lining!  so i doubt the third of the incoming-new-edition-triumvirate (for me), BRP, will have its own OGL. . . .

It already does, in the form of the RQ OGL. As the GORE guys have shown, it's nigh-trivial to back-engineer the RQ OGL to get BRP.

Quote from: WarthurIt already does, in the form of the RQ OGL. As the GORE guys have shown, it's nigh-trivial to back-engineer the RQ OGL to get BRP.

ah, that's right. i'd forgotten about the MRQ OGL.

i think the freebie of GORE is a bit closer to BRP, but i get what you're saying.  they're close enough, for all intents and purposes.  

anyone remember how soon after 3.0 came out that the SRD became available?

Quote from: jrientsjeff37923, not rushing to judgement and waiting for actual info is completely contrary to the spirit of internet debate!

I know, I'm like those cavemen in the Geico commercials.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumThere's still a glimmer of hope.

Assume that:
1) 20% of character power is per-day and 80% is at will and per encounter (As promised by the developers)

2) Magic items have a very few uses per day. (Described as 'ideal game-design' in the Magic Item Compendium behind the curtains section)

3) Fewer magic items per character (Elimiating the so-called "Christmas tree effect")

One possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted. The strategic management shifts from preparing spells to managing per-day and one-use items wisely.

If items make up say... half of a character's power, then running out of resources leaves a character at 40%.

This is an excellent point! But don't forget the basic D&D currency: HPs.

If 4th edition brings us action points on top of that, like I've heard, you also get another ressource to manage as well.

Frankly, the Vancian magic system is one of the two features of D&D I really dislike. I think it sucks, just like armor. That 20% of spells per day will probably be made up of key effects, assuming balanced encounters/challenges.

But counting the number of times per day you can light your pipe with your finger as an archmage? That was just poor design. I'm speaking figuratively of course, but it might be great for a mage to pull off some minor magic (minor being relative to his level) pretty much at will. That sits well with me and my players.

This new system should not affect ressource management in tight situation. It should just give more roleplaying opportunities if done well. Now, I don't know yet if it will be done well but based on the information so far, nothing in there leads me to believe it's a mistake.

Quote from: Consonant DudeFrankly, the Vancian magic system is one of the two features of D&D I really dislike. I think it sucks, just like armor. That 20% of spells per day will probably be made up of key effects, assuming balanced encounters/challenges.

Yet it is something that has been present in every version of D&D. Barring none. Its definitive of the game. Its one of those aspects of the game that if you don't like, you probably don't really enjoy D&D, and if you change it you're fundamentally changing D&D in a way that no one ever has done. There comes a point where you have to ask whether or not you really should still call it D&D.

QuoteBut counting the number of times per day you can light your pipe with your finger as an archmage? That was just poor design. I'm speaking figuratively of course, but it might be great for a mage to pull off some minor magic (minor being relative to his level) pretty much at will. That sits well with me and my players.

And it sits with me and mine. I don't know where the idea first came from, but I've long since allowed 'cantrip' as a general skill in RC D&D. Skill check allows you to let off a tiny amount of energy from a memorised spell; cantrip death spell might kill a mosquito that lands on you. Cantrip fireball might light a pipe. Cantrip wizard lock might close a door thats ajar and rattling in the wind. That kind of thing. You can get over that 'flavour' aspect of the game without ditching something that has always defined what it is to play a spellcaster in D&D.

QuoteThis new system should not affect ressource management in tight situation. It should just give more roleplaying opportunities if done well. Now, I don't know yet if it will be done well but based on the information so far, nothing in there leads me to believe it's a mistake.

I'm very skeptical. I think that coupled with further emphasis on board gaming aspects, specificall computer generated board gaming, adding 'abilities at will' and all the time rings real alarm bells for me. I'm more and more reminded of the old computer game 'Gauntlet'.

Quote from: CabYet it is something that has been present in every version of D&D. Barring none. Its definitive of the game. Its one of those aspects of the game that if you don't like, you probably don't really enjoy D&D,

Dude. I've been playing D&D for 27 years. I'm also a big proponent of picking the right game for your taste and situation. Believe me when I say that if I didn't like D&D, I wouldn't play it, period.

Yet I'm coming off a 1e campaign and currently in two short 3e adventures.

I respect that you find Vancian casting definitive of the game. But that's a universal claim that simply doesn't apply to me and to many people.

Quote from: Caband if you change it you're fundamentally changing D&D in a way that no one ever has done.

Why would I buy into a new edition of D&D if they don't make significant changes? The books are built to last and I'm perfectly happy with most of the content. If WotC intend to draw me, they need to catch my attention with some significant changes that (hopefully) improve my experience. That's the small 10% of the experience that annoys me.  

That is the reason I didn't make the jump from 1e to 2e. There simply weren't enough significant changes to warrant the upgrade for my tastes, nor did I like what they changed.

Quote from: CabThere comes a point where you have to ask whether or not you really should still call it D&D.

Again, I can respect that if you're talking about yourself. I personally have sacred cows I would downright refuse to see go away. But every edition does bring new stuff and does away with other stuff. That's why I (and others) still play 1e campaigns: Because they offer a different experience from 3e.

Simply put, pick the edition that matches your tastes and run/play it.

Quote from: CabI'm very skeptical. I think that coupled with further emphasis on board gaming aspects, specificall computer generated board gaming, adding 'abilities at will' and all the time rings real alarm bells for me.

I respect your opinion. There is a very real possibility it won't work out well. In that case, it simply will disappear (or be refined) in the next revision or edition. Features disappear and reappear all the time in D&D editions.

As for the boardgaming aspects... well, it's D&D. That's part of the experience. There are other games who do other stuff better.

Quote from: Consonant DudeDude. I've been playing D&D for 27 years. I'm also a big proponent of picking the right game for your taste and situation. Believe me when I say that if I didn't like D&D, I wouldn't play it, period.

Yet I'm coming off a 1e campaign and currently in two short 3e adventures.

I respect that you find Vancian casting definitive of the game. But that's a universal claim that simply doesn't apply to me and to many people.

I'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).

So I'll remain skeptical; if something in a game system is dodgy then usually I'll encounter people house ruling away from it. Hasn't happened with Vancian magic.

QuoteWhy would I buy into a new edition of D&D if they don't make significant changes? The books are built to last and I'm perfectly happy with most of the content. If WotC intend to draw me, they need to catch my attention with some significant changes that (hopefully) improve my experience. That's the small 10% of the experience that annoys me.  

That is the reason I didn't make the jump from 1e to 2e. There simply weren't enough significant changes to warrant the upgrade for my tastes, nor did I like what they changed.

I can see that point, and I'd hold back from saying that there is any one thing you can't change or its not D&D... But Vancian magic has been in the game longer than some of the polyhedral dice, its more fundamental to playing some of the character classes than anything else I can think of. To call it an enormous change is an understatement.

QuoteAgain, I can respect that if you're talking about yourself. I personally have sacred cows I would downright refuse to see go away. But every edition does bring new stuff and does away with other stuff. That's why I (and others) still play 1e campaigns: Because they offer a different experience from 3e.

Simply put, pick the edition that matches your tastes and run/play it.

QuoteI respect your opinion. There is a very real possibility it won't work out well. In that case, it simply will disappear (or be refined) in the next revision or edition. Features disappear and reappear all the time in D&D editions.

As for the boardgaming aspects... well, it's D&D. That's part of the experience. There are other games who do other stuff better.

I don't think I am just talking about myself here.

D&D game from wargaming, which spat out Chainmail, which then had fantasy elements sucked into it, and then it became something other than a combat simulation, something other than creature versus creature fighting. The rules systems developed moved further and further away from minis, then came 3rd ed. and the new rise of the miniature. Its hard to deny that marketing and integration of minis in 3rd ed. is more defined and built in to the game system than in any game of the D&D lineage since Chainmail; in placing characters in square spaces and putting that right in to the core of the game it has almost gone further than that. 4th ed, with its virtual game board, with its virtual miniatures building on top of what 3rd ed has done, looks set to go further in that direction again. So you've got computerised maps with characters moving around on, most of the abilities being at will rather than carefully chosen and applied creatively because you have to make the most of what you have... For me it really smacks of a computer game. I'm willing to be convinced that it isn't going in that direction, but I can't form an argument against that myself.

Quote from: CabSo I'll remain skeptical; if something in a game system is dodgy then usually I'll encounter people house ruling away from it. Hasn't happened with Vancian magic.

The last two campaigns I've played in we used a spellpoint system. That is a departure from straight Vancian, so now you have heard of someone departing from Vancian in a DnD campaign. We also used Grim 'n Gritty for our combat rules. Those two variants changed our DnD experience big-time, yet it was still recognizable as DnD. At least it was for our group of 25 year+ DnD vets.