D&D 4th

[Curufea]

Re: D&D 4th

 

The level of role playing in or out of combat is directed by the players and the GM.

 

True. But roleplaying is incredibly rare in combat situations that I've ever observed or heard about. Either that, or it is so easily forgotten and unmemorable that all people are left with are flukey dice rolls and quotes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

True. But roleplaying is incredibly rare in combat situations that I've ever observed or heard about. Either that' date=' or it is so easily forgotten and unmemorable that all people are left with are flukey dice rolls and quotes.[/quote']

 

We have different experiences, then.

[Pokep]

Re: D&D 4th

 

True. But roleplaying is incredibly rare in combat situations that I've ever observed or heard about. Either that' date=' or it is so easily forgotten and unmemorable that all people are left with are flukey dice rolls and quotes.[/quote']

 

Ever play Champions? The combat is *all* about roleplaying. Overconfidence, Psych Lims, Rivalries . . . it's at the core of the game, and it all gets expressed in combat. If you still feel the way you do after playing Champions, you are definitely hanging with the wrong crowd.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well, if you did not have the problem that wizards became too powerful, your players are the anti-munchkins that I despise so much. Those players that go: "OMG, you cannot have Fireball!!!!!!111 That spell is munchkin and way too broken!" Look, it the rules say that Invisibility is a common, second level spell, then I will try to get it for my character at some point. And at that point, suddenly a rogues hide and move silently becomes quite moot. To translate into Hero: He has Stealth on 17- (9 points or so?), I have Invisiblity with no fringe or end cost (35 or 40 points?). Guess which one is better.

And then they get Stoneskin at level 4. And they get Fly at level 4. Oh, and Teleport at 5. And they do 10d6 damage per round without even braking a sweat (level 3 Fireball at level 10 does 10d6, and all the fourth and fifth level spells you can cast do even more). At that point, Wizards have the "I Can Do Anything"-Sthick, and everyone else does not have a Sthick anymore. If the other guy can do more damage, hide better, take more hits, talk better to people and has more other utility (lockpicking spells, teleport, ...), what does your guy do? You can still roleplay. But you will have less fun than if your character's powers had some meaning.

 

Multicasting Madness? Take a look at the Mystic Theurge Prestige Class. Basically you get the full spell repertoire from Wizard and Druid. Oh, or just any plain Druid. Shapeshift into some animal. You now got strength, dex and con of a fighter, but you keep your Int and Wis, you can still cast all your powerful spells. Or just turn into a elemental or Dire Ape (able to wield magical weapons and magical armor for bonuses to boot).

 

Quintessence: You don't have to try to break 3E to do it. If you pick the classes Druid, Wizard or Cleric, you are quite perfectly way more powerful than any barbarian, fighter or rogue could ever imagine to be. But if you want, you can do some seriously crazy multiclassing.

 

I only encounter two kinds people who play DnD. Those that play it RAW, and munchkin. That is fine in it's kind of way. You know, you can munchkin and still have a good roleplaying experience. It's like munchkinning a 375cp character so he is as powerful as a 1000cp one. You can also play a 1000cp one to start with. The game does not get worse (if *everyone* does it).

 

The other kind uses heavily modified rules (no multiclassing, no additional source books, no rule x, no spell y, ...........). You can still houserule 4, that system is not worse for it.

 

 

And I also played hero usually without a map. Yes, it works. No, it's not very tactical. Knockback works badly. So does Shove (Push) and Shift in 4E. But I'm sure you can still play it without a map. It's just a different game. 3.5 without a map is as bad as 4. Whom does your fireball hit? Who is close enough for Cleave? Everyone has AoE too, so that problem does not get worse in 4th. It's the same.

 

And then some things people write are really not on topic at all. "I prefer cool characters to cool ability sets." Now where does 5ER offer *any* cool character? Uh, it does not? Now that is astonishing! One might just think those books (4e php and 5er) are rulebooks, and not theatrical advice. A class is meant to be bland, so you can fill it with something. How boring would that be if every cleric was identical in looks and mindset to any other cleric? Really, that sentence was just flaming the book because you decided in advance you didn't like it. I play ADnD right now, and that group would NEVER EVER EVER switch to 4E. Because they decided months before the book was even published. That's called "Prejudice".

 

Roleplaying being part of combat or not: Depends on the group, not on the rules (although the rules can support either direction, 3E definitely was about rolls more than about roles, I feel 4E does this a lot better by making the choices clearer).

 

Ever play Champions? The combat is *all* about roleplaying. Overconfidence, Psych Lims, Rivalries . . . it's at the core of the game, and it all gets expressed in combat. If you still feel the way you do after playing Champions, you are definitely hanging with the wrong crowd.

This is the Champions Board? No, seriously, I hate the campyness. Even a overconfident character is not stupid. Sure "I don't dodge" is Overconfident, and that's ok. But when a Dragon is Move-Throughing you, even the most Overconfident fool will be afraid and not do silly things. "I don't dodge" is fine. "I dodge" is fine too if the character has already taken a hit or two and is not looking good. "I Move-Through too!" is not overconfident. That is plain suicide and the character KNOWS IT! That's like attacking a tank with bare fists. Nothing Overconfident there, only stupidity. So the battle can still be tactical AND heavy of roleplaying.

[Old Man]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I strongly suspect you haven't read many different roleplaying games if you think combat is an important aspect in all of them. Or even in most of them.

 

You are hopelessly wrong, of course. I've played far too many different systems, in fact. But when the source material is, for the most part, sword-and-sorcery, high fantasy, or superheroes, then it follows that combat tends to figure prominently in a majority of campaigns. I note that your "combat lite" list of games tends away from these genres, or focuses on very specialized subgenres therein.

 

How often does a player describe what their character is thinking or feeling when they attack in combat in your games?

 

Usually, at least in my games. (I guess it doesn't happen often in yours, which is really tragic.) I find combat is where roleplaying really begins for people who are new to RPGs. The rolling of the dice induces in the player some approximation of the fear, anger, apprehension, and intensity that the character would feel. This emotion helps to break people out of their shell and get them to emote as their characters would, even if it's little more than a battle cry.

[Old Man]

Re: D&D 4th

 

True. But roleplaying is incredibly rare in combat situations that I've ever observed or heard about. Either that' date=' or it is so easily forgotten and unmemorable that all people are left with are flukey dice rolls and quotes.[/quote']

 

Again, this is just pathetic. I feel sorry that you've been stuck with players of that caliber.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Well' date=' if you did not have the problem that wizards became too powerful, your players are the anti-munchkins that I despise so much. Those players that go: "OMG, you cannot have Fireball!!!!!!111 That spell is munchkin and way too broken!"[/quote']

 

Speaking for myself, I rarely if ever look to Fireball as a truly powerful spell. A good means for getting some damage on a group of opponents, definitely. But only if they graciously cluster close together, far enough away from our characters that I won't hurt anyone with friendly fire. And only X times per day, so use it wisely.

 

Perhaps there are two ways my group differs.

 

(a) A bit of realism in the thought process overrides gamism. In a game long ago, a new player noted we were low on spells and we should hole up and sleep. A veteran looked at him and said "We're in the middle of the giants' tribal home. That's like breaking into a guy's house, getting sleepy, so you take a nap on his couch." Our group expects a full day's activity, not "blow all your spells in the first encounter, then push the corpses to the side and go to sleep". This motivates a little restraint when resources are limited.

 

( They aren't in competition. If Charley can do significant damage to the opposition before they close, everyone wins. So let's maximize Charley's ability to do that damage.

 

In our first 3e game, someone ran a Sorceror with high CHA and average to poor "everything else". He was an eggshell with a hammer. Everyone in the group knew that those Magic Missiles and Slow spells had saved our bacon more than once. There was a word for someone (or thing) getting in melee range of the sorceror. It was "Suicide". If anything was in combat range of the sorceror, the next action from every other character was "drop everything, take an attack of opportunity if necessary and take out whatever is threatening the sorceror". He had his niche. We had ours.

 

By about 3rd level, my fighter's role had begin to evolve from "beat up the bad guys" to "suck up whatever it takes to get the rogue into a flanking position". He didn't do a ton of damage (especially compared to what I read on the boards), but he was maneuverable, and setting someone else up to add 2d6 (then 3, 4 and 5d6) was worth missing a shot now and then.

 

Look' date=' it the rules say that Invisibility is a common, second level spell, then I will try to get it for my character at some point. And at that point, suddenly a rogues hide and move silently becomes quite moot. To translate into Hero: He has Stealth on 17- (9 points or so?), I have Invisiblity with no fringe or end cost (35 or 40 points?). Guess which one is better.[/quote']

 

First, how did Move Silently become moot? You also need "Inaudible" for that. In HeroSpeak, you could get it, but Invisible does not equate to Inaudible in D&D. Second, once you attack, you're not invisible any more. The rogue can use Move Silently and Hide as many times as he wants. Third, in our group, the wizard will certainly learn to cast Invisibility. He'll likely cast it on the Rogue - the ability to move about undetected, even just until his first attack, is much more valuable to him then to the wizard.

 

In Hero, 9 points vs 35 - 40 points carries the day. The rogue has another 25-30 points to spend on other things. You have an invisible wizard.

 

And then they get Stoneskin at level 4. And they get Fly at level 4. Oh' date=' and Teleport at 5. And they do 10d6 damage per round without even braking a sweat (level 3 Fireball at level 10 does 10d6, and all the fourth and fifth level spells you can cast do even more). At that point, Wizards have the "I Can Do Anything"-Sthick, and everyone else does not have a Sthick anymore. If the other guy can do more damage, hide better, take more hits, talk better to people and has more other utility (lockpicking spells, teleport, ...), what does your guy do? You can still roleplay. But you will have less fun than if your character's powers had some meaning.[/quote']

 

I take it you have not read the Stoneskin spell recently. It's expensive and has pretty poor staying power. I've already hit the limited availability of spells. The wizard's advantage is versatility and high potency spells. His drawback is limited numbers of spells. If you run/play your game in a fashion that the wizard's limited number of spells is never a problem, they become a lot more powerful than they otherwise would be. If one of your Hero players makes all his powers 4 charges per day, and the game runs such that he never runs out of charges before he runs out of need for the powers, he'll also be overpowered. Munchkins have a much tougher time being successful munchkins if the rest of the group stops enabling them.

 

Multicasting Madness? Take a look at the Mystic Theurge Prestige Class. Basically you get the full spell repertoire from Wizard and Druid. Oh' date=' or just any plain Druid. Shapeshift into some animal. You now got strength, dex and con of a fighter, but you keep your Int and Wis, you can still cast all your powerful spells. Or just turn into a elemental or Dire Ape (able to wield magical weapons and magical armor for bonuses to boot).[/quote']

 

So is the Druid more powerful, or is it the Wizard? What about the Sorceror? More fireballs and invisibilities at the sacrifice of some versatility? My Cleric seems to do pretty well (and even better if you focus only on yourself, not the team, with buff spells and healing spells used only on yourself). But I can tell you we've never had a shortage of people wanting to play the fighter (or fighter-type) or the rogue. They've rarely, if ever, felt they got the short end of the stick.

 

I only encounter two kinds people who play DnD. Those that play it RAW, and munchkin. That is fine in it's kind of way. You know, you can munchkin and still have a good roleplaying experience. It's like munchkinning a 375cp character so he is as powerful as a 1000cp one. You can also play a 1000cp one to start with. The game does not get worse (if *everyone* does it).

 

The other kind uses heavily modified rules (no multiclassing, no additional source books, no rule x, no spell y, ...........). You can still houserule 4, that system is not worse for it.

 

First off, I would call RAW "no sourcebooks from third parties", and that is the manner in which we generally play. There's lots of options in WoTC material, and I'd consider the occasional addition from a third party, but only after vetting them. Open season on any third party materials you want is basically "change the rules at your whim". Hey, I can just self-publish the feat/prestige class/variant class I want.

 

Second, I doubt you'd see any different results dropping the same player groups into Hero. "I can do it under RAW" can easily be abused, and many people house rule items they consider abusive (Deadly Blow or stacking Combat Luck with armor anyone?) away.

 

Third, my sympathies for the playing groups you seem forced to deal with. The more I interact on the boards, the more convinced I am that I'm quite lucky to have my little circle of gamers.

 

And I also played hero usually without a map. Yes' date=' it works. No, it's not very tactical. Knockback works badly. So does Shove (Push) and Shift in 4E. But I'm sure you can still play it without a map. It's just a different game. 3.5 without a map is as bad as 4. Whom does your fireball hit? Who is close enough for Cleave? Everyone has AoE too, so that problem does not get worse in 4th. It's the same.[/quote']

 

I like to have the visual for both games. But then, I like to be able to see the choices my character might have available to him. Actually, what I'm very tempted to do (never set up for it) is run with no grid on the map. You decide what you want to do without being able to count the squares/hexes, and sometimes, your estimate will be off. That's a bit closer to what my character is faced with. "I'll rush the Sorceror's opponent. If I get there in a half move, I attack. If not, I'll Charge/Move Through."

 

And then some things people write are really not on topic at all. "I prefer cool characters to cool ability sets." Now where does 5ER offer *any* cool character? Uh' date=' it does not? Now that is astonishing! One might just think those books (4e php and 5er) are rulebooks, and not theatrical advice. A class is meant to be bland, so you can fill it with something.[/quote']

 

Yup. You can build a character around cool abilities, or you can build a cool character with the abilities he would logically have. Yes, my Rogue would be more powerful if he had access to Invisibility spells. But multiclassing out to Sorceror or Wizard for three levels to get it isn't in concept.

 

Really' date=' that sentence was just flaming the book because you decided in advance you didn't like it. I play ADnD right now, and that group would NEVER EVER EVER switch to 4E. Because they decided months before the book was even published. That's called "Prejudice".[/quote']

 

You can get the same result in 4e, 3e, 2e and 1e, or Hero, or any number of other games. The players decide whether the game will be based around "cool characters" with actual backgrounds and personalities, or "cool abilities" that exist only to make the best tactical decisions and "win the game".

 

Roleplaying being part of combat or not: Depends on the group' date=' not on the rules (although the rules can support either direction, 3E definitely was about rolls more than about roles, I feel 4E does this a lot better by making the choices clearer).[/quote']

 

Not having read 4e, I'm not sure which way it goes. I don't think either edition is a model of role playing advice. But "making the roles clearer" just sounds to me, from what I've seen so far, to be "making your job in combat clearer", not "making the character a living, breathing person, not just a set of the most powerful combat abilities tossed together with no rhyme or reason". 3e definitely suffered from the same issue, especially with the explosion of prestige classes. The original description in the DMG was very different from the end result.

 

This is the Champions Board? No' date=' seriously, I hate the campyness. Even a overconfident character is not stupid. Sure "I don't dodge" is Overconfident, and that's ok. But when a Dragon is Move-Throughing you, even the most Overconfident fool will be afraid and not do silly things. "I don't dodge" is fine. "I dodge" is fine too if the character has already taken a hit or two and is not looking good. "I Move-Through too!" is not overconfident. That is plain suicide and the character KNOWS IT! That's like attacking a tank with bare fists. Nothing Overconfident there, only stupidity. So the battle can still be tactical AND heavy of roleplaying.[/quote']

 

Whether one is Overconfident or not may already have determined who even set out to find the dragon, and who fled as soon as it passed overhead.

 

There is certainly a line to be drawn, but if you override your psychological limitations as soon as they actually become detrimental, they aren't really disadvantageous. One of the best portrayals of Overconfident I recall was a character whose player would roll an Ego roll to take a defensive action (and only if the character was in serious trouble). Yes, it's the tactically sound decision. But it's not the way the character thinks. He is truly (Totally level) secure in his (mistaken) belief that he cannot be defeated. He did actually Dodge once, that I recall. It bought him a few more phases fighting Firewing single handed (he issued the challenge).

 

Did he beat Firewing? No, he didn't. Did the player expect him to? Hell, no! Was it in character? Absolutely. Was it tactically sound? Well, good question. It did tie up Firewing for over a turn while the rest of the team went after the real problem - Firewing was as much a distraction as anything else, but a very powerful, very dangerous distraction.

 

And, to reinforce my point that the GM has to share the same mindset, what was the result. Firewing stood over his smoldering, unconscious foe, lowered his hands, and said "He fought well and honorably." And he vacated the area. Not the best tactical decision (he likely could have cleaned up the rest of the PC's if he wanted to). But it was in character.

 

And the player (the whole group, for that matter) remembers that fight when many more recent fights where they fought tactically and won are long forgotten.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Again' date=' this is just pathetic. I feel sorry that you've been stuck with players of that caliber.[/quote']

 

Quoted for truth and repp'ed - that about sums it up.

 

Unfortunately, hanging out on the Boards, I get the unfortunate sense that it's not that Curufea and Kdansky are unlucky, but that Old Man and I are the fortunate few. It makes me grateful for the group I game with.

[Susano]

Re: D&D 4th

 

In our first 3e game' date=' someone ran a Sorceror with high CHA and average to poor "everything else". He was an eggshell with a hammer. Everyone in the group knew that those Magic Missiles and Slow spells had saved our bacon more than once. There was a word for someone (or thing) getting in melee range of the sorceror. It was "Suicide". If anything was in combat range of the sorceror, the next action from every other character was "drop everything, take an attack of opportunity if necessary and take out whatever is threatening the sorceror". He had his niche. We had ours.[/quote']

 

We had a similar situation in our HERO Shadows Angelus campaign. The sorceress ended being highly important to the campaign resolution and also drew the direct attention of the BBEG. So while she wasn't defended to the extent your sorcerer was, the other PCs took a dim view to anyone threatening her. As the saying went: "Save the sorceress, save the world."

[teh bunneh]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Unfortunately' date=' hanging out on the Boards, I get the unfortunate sense that it's not that Curufea and Kdansky are unlucky, but that Old Man and I are the fortunate few. It makes me grateful for the group I game with.[/quote']

 

I've heard so many horror stories (here and elsewhere)... and even experienced my share, back in the day... that it makes me glad every single day that I have the opportunity to play with my gaming group.

[sbarron]

Re: D&D 4th

 

At that point' date=' Wizards have the "I Can Do Anything"-Sthick, and everyone else does not have a Sthick anymore. If the other guy can do more damage, hide better, take more hits, talk better to people and has more other utility (lockpicking spells, teleport, ...), what does your guy do? You can still roleplay. But you will have less fun than if your character's powers had some meaning.[/quote']I've experienced this over the years as well. But truly, I think it is more about the style of play than the game itself. I'll give an example...

 

Party of about 10, various races and classes, levels 5-6. We find a gnoll assassin's guild fortress hidden in a mountain. Probably a couple hundred gnolls, and then their human leadership. So, we basically stage a full scale invasion. We break in the front door, then start going from room-to-room, whopping-booty where we find it...until the spell-casters run out of spells. Hasty retreat out the way we came in? Nope. Savage battle to the last man in this den of evil? Hardly. The party decides to barricade ourselves in one of the rooms to provide the spell slingers time to rest up and get their spells back.

 

The GM allowed the plan to go off without a hitch. The gnolls never tried to break in the door, they didn't try to smoke us out, and they didn't even bother to make enough noise to prevent the spellcasters from studying and getting some sleep. Once we were rested and healed up, we kicked open the door, and started at it again. The gnolls had barricaded the next room against us, for all the good it did them.

 

Now, is it D&Ds fault that the DM allowed the party to take advantage of their spell rules in such a way? I don't think so. By letting the party basically set-up camp in the middle of an invasion of a fort, the GM allowed the party to go exactly as far as their spellcasters would take them. If I were the GM and the party came to me with that plan, the outcome would have been very different. And it would have been the fighters that won or lost the day, not the mages.

 

If you allow the combat situations to always play to the spell-casters strengths, then don't be surprised when the spell-casters tend to outshine the rest of the party.

[sbarron]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Oh, and I can't think of a single campaign I ever played in that made use of the material component rules for spell-casting. Get wet? No worries about powders being ruined. Need a diamond for that spell? That's expensive, don't worry about it. Rare component only found in Greenland. I'll just pick some up at the store?

[Old Man]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Unfortunately, hanging out on the Boards, I get the unfortunate sense that it's not that Curufea and Kdansky are unlucky, but that Old Man and I are the fortunate few. It makes me grateful for the group I game with.

 

That's... quite possible, actually. I hope I didn't come across as too snarky in my reply to Curufea; I just had a hard time picturing roleplayers not being able to roleplay a fight. To me, nothing could be easier. But while I've played lots and lots of game systems, as I said earlier, I might not have played with lots and lots of roleplayers. So perhaps that is where my sample size is small.

[Curufea]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Quoted for truth and repp'ed - that about sums it up.

 

Unfortunately, hanging out on the Boards, I get the unfortunate sense that it's not that Curufea and Kdansky are unlucky, but that Old Man and I are the fortunate few. It makes me grateful for the group I game with.

 

I think it's the age group/maturity as well. A lot of roleplayers when starting out just want to kill stuff and loot the bodies.

 

Like intelligence and stupidity - I think roleplaying ability is case-specific.

i.e. some folk are quick to learn computer, and slow to learn social skills. Some folk are quick to learn dancing, but slow to learn fencing.

ergo - some folk roleplay specific genres/circumstances better than others - they tend not to think that way in certain situations.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I can't think of a single campaign I ever played in that made use of the material component rules for spell-casting

 

Me either, but to be fair, I've only been in a few Hero campaigns where foci were much of factor, either. In fact a lot of disads get ignored in many games I believe.

[jtelson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Oh' date=' and I can't think of a single campaign I ever played in that made use of the material component rules for spell-casting. Get wet? No worries about powders being ruined. Need a diamond for that spell? That's expensive, don't worry about it. Rare component only found in Greenland. I'll just pick some up at the store?[/quote']

 

In most of the DnD campaigns I've played in the expensive materials were tricky to come by. The question of "How many 100gp pearls can we find in this town?" came up often followed closely by "How much do they actually cost a piece?".

 

As for the basic materials, I've played in one campaign where they had to be rigourously tracked. It was an incredible pain in the butt and I often ended up spending 30 minutes to an hour a session tracking my components. I don't recommend ever doing it, it absolutely sucks the life out of a session.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

As for the basic materials' date=' I've played in one campaign where they had to be rigourously tracked. It was an incredible pain in the butt and I often ended up spending 30 minutes to an hour a session tracking my components. I don't recommend ever doing it, it absolutely sucks the life out of a session.[/quote']

Which is why I use them but keep them from being expendable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

In most of the DnD campaigns I've played in the expensive materials were tricky to come by. The question of "How many 100gp pearls can we find in this town?" came up often followed closely by "How much do they actually cost a piece?".

 

As for the basic materials, I've played in one campaign where they had to be rigourously tracked. It was an incredible pain in the butt and I often ended up spending 30 minutes to an hour a session tracking my components. I don't recommend ever doing it, it absolutely sucks the life out of a session.

 

I like the 3e approach that, for basic materials, you have a component pouch, so these are an issue only if your pouch becomes unavailable, or if there's a plot reason some item is tough to come by.

 

Expensive items? These are more of a pain. How much gold to you have to spend on diamond dust? Whatever sits in your pack as diamond dust isn't available to buy other things. But once you're in the Vampire's Tomb, it's too late to run out and buy some more to fuel your Restoration spells.

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I like the 3e approach that, for basic materials, you have a component pouch, so these are an issue only if your pouch becomes unavailable, or if there's a plot reason some item is tough to come by.

 

Expensive items? These are more of a pain. How much gold to you have to spend on diamond dust? Whatever sits in your pack as diamond dust isn't available to buy other things. But once you're in the Vampire's Tomb, it's too late to run out and buy some more to fuel your Restoration spells.

 

That's pretty much our approach. Need bat guano or a strip of parchment? It's assumed you have some in your pouch. Need a fine, flat ivory figurine of the caster? You need to get one made and make sure you keep hold of it.

 

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I like the idea of components for spells but in practice it ends up a huge pain to keep track and let's be honest, nobody can carry the dumptruck of parts they'd need to explore even a small dungeon.

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I like the idea of components for spells but in practice it ends up a huge pain to keep track and let's be honest' date=' nobody can carry the dumptruck of parts they'd need to explore even a small dungeon.[/quote']Talking HERO here, but I always wanted to run "components" as some sort of minor Aid to the mojo. You didn't need to have the bat guano to cast Fireball, but having it adds a DC or two to the power. Never got around to defining any rules for it.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Conceptually, that's how my magic system works: the really powerful mages abandon gestures, incantation, foci, side effects and all that incrementally because they are becoming so powerful they don't need these aids to focus their power and concentration and just will the effects to happen. Magic is ultimately just wish fulfillment, but it takes unbelievable skill and willpower to reach that level of power.

[Markdoc]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Talking HERO here' date=' but I always wanted to run "components" as some sort of minor Aid to the mojo. You didn't need to have the bat guano to cast Fireball, but having it adds a DC or two to the power. Never got around to defining any rules for it.[/quote']

 

I do something like this in my current FH game, but simply use it as a bonus on the skill roll to cast, if you have the right components. They are not compulsory, simply "enhancers" - a "like calls to like" sort of thing, to make casting easier.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I do something like this in my current FH game, but simply use it as a bonus on the skill roll to cast, if you have the right components. They are not compulsory, simply "enhancers" - a "like calls to like" sort of thing, to make casting easier.

 

cheers, Mark

Skill roll bonuses work too. Maybe they could serve double duty and act as Magic Skill Levels. Adds to either Active Points or bonus to the casting roll. My mind is being fuzzy right now. Before I say something critically stupid, I'm going to bed.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Talking HERO here' date=' but I always wanted to run "components" as some sort of minor Aid to the mojo. You didn't need to have the bat guano to cast Fireball, but having it adds a DC or two to the power. Never got around to defining any rules for it.[/quote']

 

Rolemaster did this when they released the Essence Companion. It broke the Essence based spellcasters into further categories that specialized their components; Somaticist, Nomist, Corpist and Crystalist.

 

It was quite cool and Rolemaster being Rolemaster they had an EXTENSIVE breakdown for material component and how much "END" it would supply, etc.