Quote from: CRKrueger;361134It fails as an Immersive RPG, because it never tried to be.

It excels as a Tactical RPG, which was it's design focus.

Agree completely.

Quote from: CRKrueger;361134It fails as an Immersive RPG, because it never tried to be.

It excels as a Tactical RPG, which was it's design focus.

Soooo by that extension the evolution of D&D is to not be D&D anymore - fair enough.

Quote from: kryyst;361137Soooo by that extension the evolution of D&D is to not be D&D anymore - fair enough.

I don't particularly see myself using 4e for much, but saying it's "not D&D" or "not a RPG" is the kind of stuff that just causes shitstorms.  That's why I like sub-genres of RPG, it defines things better.

As far as 4e not being the same kind of RPG as earlier editions, I would generally agree, however, 3e had quite a bit of disconnect between setting cohesion and mechanics, particularly with the 150 splatclasses.  It just comes with trying to be the generic-fantasy-setting-neutral-game-that-somehow-still-works-with-all-the-published-settings.

Quote from: Drohem;361116

Quote from: WindjammerI mean, they'd probably call it Tenser's disk but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a +1 shuriken you can fire at-will.

And don't forget, that +1 shuriken will automatically return to your hand after every throw.  There's no need for multiple shurikens anymore.

Hey, I didn't leave out that "returning_" in my reference to the +1 shuriken by accident. Seriously, what's that crazy talk of rationalizing mechanics story-wise? Get off my 5E lawn NOW!!!!!


...quite exhausted from all this exasperation. "Tracking ammo isn't FUN" - did people not get that 4E memo?

Quote from: Thanlis;361068Or just go with some system that provides some kind of hero point mechanism. I picked up Barbarians of Lemuria recently, and it looks like it hits a sweet spot in terms of crunch vs. simplicity.

I am at the moment.

Quote from: Windjammer;361142Hey, I didn't leave out that "returning_" in my reference to the +1 shuriken by accident. Seriously, what's that crazy talk of rationalizing mechanics story-wise? Get off my 5E lawn NOW!!!!!

I'm still trying to figure out why my magic-user doesn't know how to build a keep until he hits level 11.

Quote from: Thanlis;361071Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

I answered the question. I would be fine with no "reserves" to be drawn upon. I am capable of visualizing that reserves have been drawn on, combined with a bit of good fortune, if I roll high on a damage roll, or crit even.

Quote from: StormBringer;361072I would prefer that the player draws on their reserves.  A clever tactic or desperate ploy keeps the DM on their toes as well, providing a challenge for everyone at the table.  Tracking which rule intersects with which situation is dreadfully boring to me.  It's a way of rewarding the rules lawyers, which I am generally against, in principle.

Besides, good planning means you won't need to muster the extra effort.  As Sun Tzu says, if you don't go into battle with the outcome already decided, you are going to lose.  

Also good points.

Quote from: StormBringer;361079And of course, Magic-Users were severely restricted in spell use, but those rules were often ignored.  Memorization times, when properly enforced, kept the casters precisely in line with the non-casters.  The amount of rest needed depended on the highest level of spell to be recovered, up to 12 hours if you needed your 9th level spells back.  In addition, it took 15mins of study per spell level for each spell.  Cast two fireballs today?  An hour and a half to get those back, after resting for 6hrs.

The problem, from what I can see, is that most groups didn't enforce the very rules that were meant to keep things more or less balanced.  Honestly, I can't recall any literature where the wizard was blasting things left and right.  Merlin was more of a diviner than anything, Gandalf didn't fireball his way through Moria, and even Robert Aspirin's humourous Myth series has pretty limited spell use, and that was a high magic milieu.  Similar to other humour books, like Discworld, it was a parody precisely because in serious literature, all the allegedly ultra-powerful wizards never cast spells.

The whole idea of wizards blasting everything in sight only came about after computer games with spell points, near as I can tell.  So I have to disagree that casting spells more often is an innovation or improvement.  I think the underlying idea for that came about as a failure to enforce the rules that were in place to begin with, as well as a misinterpretation of the role of spell casters.

In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

Quote from: Sigmund;361149In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

Minor magics or cantrips would add a good deal of flavour to magic users in any edition without vastly overpowering them.  There would have to be some pretty substantial limits, however, as ingenious players would find a way to abuse them if they weren't in the spirit of the game (see bag of rats and bag of sand).

Quote from: CRKrueger;361139I don't particularly see myself using 4e for much, but saying it's "not D&D" or "not a RPG" is the kind of stuff that just causes shitstorms.  That's why I like sub-genres of RPG, it defines things better.

As far as 4e not being the same kind of RPG as earlier editions, I would generally agree, however, 3e had quite a bit of disconnect between setting cohesion and mechanics, particularly with the 150 splatclasses.  It just comes with trying to be the generic-fantasy-setting-neutral-game-that-somehow-still-works-with-all-the-published-settings.

I'm so happy the groups I played 3.x with pretty much ignored almost all the splatbooks for 90% of our 3.x playing history. Only once in all these years have I played a class that came from outside the PHB. I believe I wouldn't have enjoyed it much if we had tried to bring in all that stuff.

Quote from: StormBringer;361151Minor magics or cantrips would add a good deal of flavour to magic users in any edition without vastly overpowering them.  There would have to be some pretty substantial limits, however, as ingenious players would find a way to abuse them if they weren't in the spirit of the game (see bag of rats and bag of sand).

True, although I think if I were to run some older editions containing those today I would make one or two spells that could be used any time, with no limit.

To the return to the actual thread title... (ironic, I know)...

While it perhaps doesn't qualify as an 'innovation' for everyone, one thing I like about 4E is the art direction. It's vastly more solidified, and the quality of the art is head and shoulders above 3E. Sure, some people might find the color scheme of the illustrations to err on the childish, but as far as a baseline quality and unity of vision goes, 4E books look splendid. I'm in the process of finalizing my review of Draconomicon 2, an absolutely gorgeous book. During these past days I've picked Races of Destiny and Unapproachable East off my shelves... Well, let's just say that they didn't fare the comparison with the 4E Draconomicon very well.

Seriously, 3E books lack a lot of charm that 2E had, and at the same time aren't as slick as 4E books. So they are the worst of both worlds, in a manner of speaking.* I think art direction in 4E improved over both of these. As an example, I love the first Monster Manual for 4E to bits. I even admit I bought the deluxe copy recently. See what a fanboy I am? (Apart from garnering geek cred, the deluxe copy also serves the secondary purpose of player punishment: harder bookcover equals more SMACK power!)

On a more general note, I also think that the layout of the rules is vastly improved and one of 4E's best innovations. The Pathfinder RPG is a beautiful book, but I wish I had taken heed a bit more of the layout lessons that informed the 4E books. I seriously drool over those 4E monster stat blocks. They haven't just simplified the content, they've improved the presentation by miles and miles and miles.

Whatever shape 5E will take, I hope it takes these things as seriously and does them as well as 4E did.

PS. So yeah, I hope I didn't offend anyone's sensitivities in extending the term 'innovation' beyond the game-mechanical.

* I'll later post my cover design 'improvements' to my copies of the 3.5 core books by editing them into this post. So stay tuned.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;361130Translation: "I'm a nerd playing at internet tough guy."

Sorry, no.  That isn't even remotely what that is, as I didn't threaten to "kick his ass" or anything similar.

Brush up on your internet arguments and take a quick spin through the logical fallacy section while you are there.  You will be better able to employ those devices once you know what they are.

Quote from: Windjammer;361154On a more general note, I also think that the layout of the rules is vastly improved and one of 4E's best innovations. The Pathfinder RPG is a beautiful book, but I wish I had taken heed a bit more of the layout lessons that informed the 4E books. I seriously drool over those 4E monster stat blocks. They haven't just simplified the content, they've improved the presentation by miles and miles and miles.

If one uses particular books often enough, the artwork and layout quality falls into the background after awhile.  Anybody who has DM'ed numerous 1E AD&D games, will know this from first hand experience.  :pundit: