| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 18:52:33
Since WotC says that anyone playing in previous editions should be able to play in 5e, I'm curious as to which 4e concepts are worth keeping. To a great degree, I honestly do not see how previous editions can be meshed with 4e concepts without a total muck up. As for me, the only thing I can see worth keeping, rules wise, is Ritual Magic (although I do NOT like the fact that ANYONE can take a feat and cast ritual spells). |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 16:01:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Since WotC says that anyone playing in previous editions should be able to play in 5e, I'm curious as to which 4e concepts are worth keeping. To a great degree, I honestly do not see how previous editions can be meshed with 4e concepts without a total muck up. As for me, the only thing I can see worth keeping, rules wise, is Ritual Magic (although I do NOT like the fact that ANYONE can take a feat and cast ritual spells).
Hm, here's what I would like:
Ritual Caster: Spellcasters get it for free and use their spellbooks to cast them instead of having to memorize them. I have no problem with other characters using precious resources to obtain this ability since now Feats are 1). Optional and 2). FAR more rare than the last two editions. As per the newly released packet, feats are based on class-progression and at most the Fighter, who gets the most feats of any other class, gets about 7 from 4th through 20th level. And it's quite easy for DMs to just say "No, you can't use that option.". So, as of now, both of these are current options within the newest playtest since Ritual Caster is something ANYONE who casts spells can do and it takes quite a few feats to use by the lay-person.
At-Will Spells: Basically, feeling magical and doing wizardly things as opposed to spells/day and then....staff or dagger or crossbow which Wizards generally were crappy with. I don't ever want to play in a D&D which my Wizard sits out battles or "Aids Another" because using my spells is too costly of a price for 3 out of 5 or 6 encounters. Luckily, at-will magic is in for the spellcaters (Cleric, Druid, Mage) though they could tone down the damage they deal IMO.
Marking: Back when I played v3.5 on a regular basis a Fighter (or other melee/tank classes) needed a specific way to get enemies to engage them or the enemies grew pretty smart, avoided the big and slow but hard to kill guy with a sword and dropped the ones who were twiddling their fingers or healing the party because they were the strongest threats. After you cut them down (with bow fire, spell attacks, or just up and charge past the warrior) THEN you gang up on the fighter to finish them off. With Marking, a Warrior can engage an enemey and KEEP him there or suffer some pretty severe consequences. Luckily, this newest packet has a Feat for that and ANYONE who wants to Tank (be it a Cleric, Rogue, Fighter, or even Mage can do so) and I think that's pretty cool.
Non-magical healing/support: I know this is one of those really controversial issues but the ability to create a party and NOT be forced to relegate someone into the "Cleric" role was something I really enjoyed about 4E. Some people, for whatever reason, just don't like playing religious characters BUT they still want to take on the role of support or to buff allies. Up until 4E one could ONLY do this with magic (well there was the Marshal...) and I think that's a flaw. Further, just throwing more potions into the group doesn't fix this choice of no cleric either, espically if the game is set in a low- or no-magic world OR if magic is supposed to be powerful and mysterious. Sorta breaks immersion when a group goes into the general store of a town and has a bag full of Potion of Healing. So some sort of non-magical support should be in the game. I'd LIKE there to be the Warlord (or find a better name) class that does inspiration, non-magical stuff and I hope they work on a way to compromise with those who hold the belief that HP = Meat (which are the biggest holdouts for martial healing).
Balance (part 1): One of the biggest subjective elements in the game is how to put multiple classes that work on different chassis AND resource management work in concert with one another so that no one feels meaningless. As much as I love 4E, they did go a bit overboard with the balance in the form of errata, which I hated, but I think they just wanted to make the best game they could. What I DON'T want to go back to is after 13th level, non-magical classes being relegated to carrying the spellcasters things while they solve problems with magic. This, however, does not imply that I feel Fighters should be able to fly or turn invisible or have the swath of utilities that spellcasters can bring. It means that the game shouldn't assume that by X level, the only way to by-pass said obstacle is through magic. Magic should just be ONE Of a myrid of possible options and it's use should be beneficial in some circumstancs while NOT useful in others.
Balance (part 2): Basically the numbers should match up so that certain classes should be extreamly good at performing something while another class is good at performing something else. Spell can and have by-passed whole classes "schticks" before and it's something that I'd like to see NOT happen again. This was due mostly to the ease of which spellcasters could create scrolls, magical items, and other ways to incrase their function without relying on their daily spell limits. Also spell stacking was a HUGE problem too, which hopefully will be eliminated so that we don't have clerics donning Divine Power, Divine Might, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and Prayer 4/day to be a bigger, badder, and more utilized warrior than the same level Fighter in the party.
Alignment Restrictions: From the looks of the newest packet, these are more like suggestions than hard-coded rules implemented on classes, which I'm perfectly fine with. If people feel the need to place Lawful Good Only tags on Paladins, then I think that's awesome but I think it's on a table-by-table basis and not a decision the game should assume at the core level. Further, from my perspective, it's easier to add in those elements to classes rather than trying to strip them out and worry about what sort of problems arise from a balance approach. Plus it's more inclusive.
Round-by-round Options: What I don't want to see is the Fighter relegated to "I use my sword. I use my sword. I use my sword." in every single battle time and time again. That, to me, is boring. Giving the Fighter, rather every class, codified options (in some form or another) that are unique and fun and not repetitive is something that will maintain my interest in the game for a long while. For 3E, it was the HUGE amount of feats one could use and added elements like the Tome of Battle. In 4E it was the application of at-will/encounter powers with improvization that made our battles fun and engaging. With this next edition I hope they have options for people that enjoy playing a maneuver-based Fighter alongside those who prefer a simple Fighter. Same thing goes for magical classes too, some people want complex way in which to handle their Mage (wizard) and use their spells for unique effects and tricks and others just want to blast things and have a straighforward approach. The game should be able to handle both styles IMO. This also ties into resource management too.
Guidelines for and encouragement of Improvization: In my experience with 3E/v3.5 most people could attempt anything and there were rules or guidelines in place to codify the attempt, but there were often LAYERS upon LAYERS of penalties and road-blocks that practically said: "if you do this your chances of succeeding are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than someone who had magic or a feat that does something similiar". and that doesn't breed inspiration for attempting cool things for fear of near-failure. If I'm told I'm probably going to fail at trying something then I'm probably NOT going to do it because it's a waste of my turn. SO instead of stacking penalties and hampering such attempts, a more streamlined structure is needed. Guidelines on setting DCs for level-appropriate challenges should be included so that a player knows that attempting something might be more difficult if one isn't trained but isn't so hampered by the task that it's near impossible. I say this is a 4E thing because of page 42 in the DMG. It makes improv a REALLY easy thing and gives guidelines to the DM on how to adjucate complex situations in an easy manner.
Monsters: The moster stat-block should be easy to use and with near ZERO page reference. In v3.5 I had to constantly look up various immunities due to sub-type and spells they had access to. I don't need the evil NPC wizard with 15 different spells, all with different DCs and attack bonuses that I HAVE to figure out myself. Keep it simple. An NPC wizard maybe has a few on-hand magical spells he uses round-to-round and maybe an escape ability and maybe something that triggers a few times in the battle. I love the recharge mechanic because it's easy to implement and the combat going smoothly.
SO in all, there are a LOT of things I'd like to see carry over. Some of them have made it while others are still in the design/house-playtest process. I think the BIGGEST advantage D&D:Next has is that it's being pretty open about it's design goals and that it's attempting to put in a LOT of options for people to create the kind of game they enjoy. It's hopefully modular enough so that people who enjoy different styles can still sit down and play at the same table. Someone who likes Vancian magic can play next to someone who enjoys just encounter-based spellcasting OR if someone likes a unique and micro-managed Fighter (via maneuvers) can play next to someone who just like swinging for the fences on basic attacks all day long with some goodies every once in a while. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 15:59:54
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
As for me, the only thing I can see worth keeping, rules wise, is Ritual Magic (although I do NOT like the fact that ANYONE can take a feat and cast ritual spells).
I think non-spellcasting characters should be able to assist in magic item creation (something I houseruled into my 3.5 Realms campaigns) without a feat, but not necessarily in ritual spells, with or without a feat.
I think its an avenue better left open as a choice for spellcasters. Let players decide to take feats that let them draw on the energy of their fellow PCs for ritual magic purposes, or not, and maybe fashion the rules so that any spellcasting class can work with another spellcasting class on ritual castings.
Dragonborn and Genasi certainly have a place in the Realms, as do Tieflings. I'd like it if those Dragonborn left behind found a legacy or purpose in something Faerūn-related (like becoming militant Bahamut worshipers or something), and not in any ethos or belief system held over from Abeir.
I'd like it if some of the too-easy to heal up mechanics from 4E were jettisoned. I realize they were trying to speed the game along, but making healing that easy really kills the suspension of disbelief for me when I'm playing the game. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 08:18:27
On rules, I am in the 'retain ritual magic' camp - but only available to spellcasters. UNLESS...they introduce something along the lines of 'common' or 'household' magic, preferably no more powerful than cantrips/orisons. Once you lean a magic missile or cure light wounds, you're actually in spellcaster's territory.
I would also like them to retain the end of the annoying 'anyone can be anything' multiclassing nonsense - that was one of the things about Third Edition that I disliked immensely. A feat that lets you 'dabble' in another class but not to the full extent of it was one of the most wonderful things Fourth Edition D&D did. I would like to see that new rule retained.
On setting...
*High Imaskar. Keep it. This idea was (is) pure win.
*No more Anauroch Desert. Ugh...I was glad to see it go.
*Earthmotes: Keep them, at a fraction of their current numbers.
*Neverwinter: Don't change too much from 4th Edition, if at all.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but those things are what come to mind.
- OMH |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 06:30:04
woah wait, why does lantan have to be destroyed, that was a damn unique area of the realms, that no other portion could contribute to, and made very logical sense. An as far as actual changes to the realm, it was more flavor then world challenging. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 06:12:56
quote:
I was under the impression the original poster was asking about the 4E rules; that's a discussion I cannot contribute to.
Indeed, I was referring to 4e rules/concepts. I'm not opposed to expanding the conversation to setting changes so long as we don't devolve into bashing 4e Realms (plenty of threads for that already). Only thing is, I refused to play 4e version of the Realms so I won't be able to discuss it much. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 06:02:09
More or less with Markus on this. The same change or feature could be good or bad depending on the explanation given for it and the lore surrounding it.
Specifically I wouldn't mind some of the following elements if more was done with them:
- Earth Motes: potentially cool idea, bland execution.
- The Five Companies, but I too want Halruaa to return to something resembling its old status.
- Harpers remaining hidden, but a bit less miniscule would be nice. FR doesn't have many setting spanning organizations/networks, less for goodly PCs to join.
- The Underchasm: An interesting geological feature that could make for some interesting locales and adventures. Unfortunate we lost the Landrise.
- The drained sea of Fallen Stars: If WotC actually had the moxie to reflect the coast and city alterations as they should have been for all areas. The economic/social/political/cultural implications of this alone could have fuel several editions of adventure in the Realms.
- Lantan remaining "destroyed". Nimbral too. These really should have stayed mysterious.
- The Isle of Chult.
- Mystra remaining dead. I think this one is a bit played out, especially if she returns as incarnation #4. FR should try a different take on deity/deities of magic, something stranger, more wondrous.
- Plaguewrought lands. Change the awkward name, but I wouldn't mind some remnant of this remain. There is adventure potential here, regardless of it being a big Spellplague blemish.
- The Spellplague, the century jump, the Sundering, only if used as an opportunity and not an excuse.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 04:50:26
I was under the impression the original poster was asking about the 4E rules; that's a discussion I cannot contribute to.
But if he was referring to the setting, I think I'd like to see more done with the Five Companies. Sure, I want Halruaa back as it was before, but I also like the idea of mercenary mages operating out of flying ships. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 03:45:30
I really don't think we need to delve into toilet humour here.
Let's try and keep on-topic and focused on discussing actual elements of the 4e setting that we would like to see carried into the 5e Realms, eh?  |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 02:29:54
I wonder how much poop will be left behind. |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 02:12:26
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
and, oh yeah... there is this weird planet we never knew about thats 'pooping' all over the setting.
ROFL oh Markus, the way you worded this, made me giggle out loud.
Too funny! 
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 02:05:50
Its not so much as a 'what' for me, as it is a 'why'?
In other words, its not the changes themselves that bothered me so much, it was the hand-waving we got with most of it. You want to change things, FINE... explain it, and make it make sense within the framework of the existing setting and canon.
Don't say the 'goddess of magic died' (which has happened before), magic has run amok, and, oh yeah... there is this weird planet we never knew about thats 'pooping' all over the setting. The changes in-and-of-themselves could have been great, but they were never even given a chance, with that wishy-washy introduction.
So its not the lore itself (the 4e changes), but rather, PRESENTATION. It felt like we were just getting shoveled unedited ideas from some brain-storming meeting. New ideas are diamonds-in-the-rough; just make sure you polish them first before showing them to the public. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 01:25:01
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I would prefer the spellscars remain as well. How are these disappearing anyway?
As I understand the concept, as the spell plague fades away so do the spell scars which were a result of the disease. I saw the concept offered at WotC I believe, however not all concept ideas disappear or appear. |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 01:21:54
I don't think the odd races are necessarily disappearing, but the emphasis is going to be moved off of them. Also, most of the nations of Dragonborn and Tieflings are getting one way tickets back to Abeir. That just means that those races will be uncommon to rare again. The other races like Goliath, Warforged, shard mind etc are going to be left up to the group to incorporate. I imagine they will do it similar to how Darksun handled all the dead races in 4e. There was a DM sidebar that gave advice on how to incorporate them if your group wanted to. I would still expect all of the races from the 3ed player's guide to Faerun to be readily available in most realms campaigns(which would include planetouched). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 Aug 2013 : 00:55:03
You hit the nail on the head for my thoughts when you said keep ritual magic. That was the one piece of 4th edition that I looked at and said "wow, that makes sense and relatively elegant for a first attempt". Personally though, I'd like to see there being several options for mages... in 3rd edition, the attempt to have spells like rituals prepped was done via the scribe scroll feat. Then they came up with the ritual idea. Personally, I'd like to see them take these two to develop different types of mages. For instance, maybe there are "levels" of ability in each "line" of magery. For instance, those who get ritual magic for free gradually gain access to better rituals.... whereas those who focus on scroll making learn the ability to "store" magic more easily, such that maybe they can store extra spells in their wands or staves....
From another perspective, you could have wizards that use "at will" spells, but then there could be those wizards who simply can't channel that much magic and they make up for it with better militant ability (both should be able to memorize a lot of spells... the difference only being their ability to fire off constant magic missiles, versus the other having to rely on a bow or sword as backup, etc...). Some would say that the mage with the militant ability is just a warmage, but if you give him all the same spell selection as the wizard, he's so much more. You could still have the warmage as well, but boost the militant side of that class to make up for his lack of spell variety.
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 23:09:23
I have no problem with the classes and races staying around. Since we are keeping the time line it would seem kind of stupid to drop the new races anyway. I would prefer the spellscars remain as well. How are these disappearing anyway?
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 21:24:46
Well, I could see keeping some of the classes, likely all of them that were added. The introduced races of course could be kept as well.
The map does not matter, an earthquake can change the map again.
As to the rules, spellscars it appears are disappearing so even if kept in 5th, those powers would disappear soon as the spell plague fades from the Realms.
It has already been indicated that history will not change as far as the era of time passed during 4th Edition.
Are any of them worth keeping on some ways is a question that could start Edition basing and in some ways likely should be avoided. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 21:09:58
High magic = ritual magic .. in most ways.
Your 1-9 stuff is MOSTLY just I cast a spell in a few seconds and it does something. Now think of doing spells over a longer period of time and wonder how it happens? I mean look how mythals are made, how is that NOT ritual magic?
Also consider that mystra died, so we do not have the usual short cuts she created to make magic easier to use, so now some spells may need a ritual to produce. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 05 Aug 2013 : 19:51:32
I never saw that as that much of a problem.
When I read the rules about epic magic, I decided that the traditional spell levels 1-9 and epic magic where different ways to reach the same end.
When reading various lore books it mentioned that netheril spurned the elven teachings to follow other paths to power. I decided to make epic magic the elvish method, and the spell levels the other method.
All it needed was a feat to enable people to cast epic magic (which I changed the name of to ritual magic); lower the level requirement first, and then the skill points required limited what spells people could cast.
When 4th edition brought out ritual magic it wasn't that much of a shocker to my group (firstly because I didn't do 4th edition) but mostly because the system was already there.
When you read the novels and lore about wizards performing amazing spells, and then lower level wizards just customising or slightly altering spells it cant be done using the traditional spell levels 1-9, but with a bit of ritual casting you can do anything. |
|
|
