D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Mort]

Anyway, this whole debate of what constitutes a flaw has become rather pointless. Those that don't like the system see flaws in the things they don't like, while those that do like the system don't see them as flaws, instead seeing flaws in things they don't like about other systems. What does it matter if you're playing a version of the game you like?

I'll agree with Hussar here. I like 3.5 and have had a lot of fun in a 3.5 campaign. That doesn't mean I should just ignore flaws. For example introducing Bo9S for the fighting classes leveled the playing field a bit - at least in combat (though it didn't really address the versatility outside it).

 

[Keith Robinson]

Hang on a sec though.

Sorry, that point was aimed at the 'wand of knock' is a flaw posts. Should have been clearer.

I'm pointing out a flaw with the game that I play.

Well, I guess we're just talking semantics. The world 'flaw' is loaded, I guess, and something that doesn't work for you, but which works for others, isn't a flaw for them.

 

[Jhaelen]

Maybe some skills should have a power source option. Rogues take Open Lock (Martial). Wizards take Open Lock (Magic).

Yup, or even simpler: let these spells just give a bonus on skill checks. I also loved the 'Lorecall' spells from 'Complete Adventurer'. Improving a spell's effectiveness by having a good skill score (or even better a good skill check result) is a so much better idea than automatic effects!

Actually, I think, automatic successes are a relic from older editions of the game that didn't have a skill system. With rare exceptions the spell system up to and including 3E simply didn't acknowledge the existence of a spell system and vice versa.

 

[Spatula]

Maybe my group plays strangely, but I've never had an issue with spellcasters overshadowing rogues, without banning any spells. In my experience, even though they could potentially be super-rogues, my wizard players would much rather spend their spell slots on more useful/fun things, particular combat spells.

In 3e, you can do both. Scrolls & wands are easy to make or buy, ill-suited to combat magic (because of caster level & DC), and perfect for utility spells that you'll never know when you need it. So you prepare combat spells and put the rest into consumables.

 

[AllisterH]

Yup, or even simpler: let these spells just give a bonus on skill checks. I also loved the 'Lorecall' spells from 'Complete Adventurer'. Improving a spell's effectiveness by having a good skill score (or even better a good skill check result) is a so much better idea than automatic effects!

Actually, I think, automatic successes are a relic from older editions of the game that didn't have a skill system. With rare exceptions the spell system up to and including 3E simply didn't acknowledge the existence of a spell system and vice versa.

Well, keep in mind that KNOCK was created BEFORE the addition of the rogue. THe spell system in D&D was actually designed BEFORE we even added the rogue/thief class.

Naturally, the spells kind of don't work with the skill system since they were designed pre-skill system.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Well, I guess we're just talking semantics. The world 'flaw' is loaded, I guess, and something that doesn't work for you, but which works for others, isn't a flaw for them.

I understand what you're saying, but this kind of thing is what drives me nuts about forums. He's saying it's a flaw in his experience -- therefore it is a flaw in his experience. If he wanted to call it a ferbizzle or a kflumph instead of a flaw, either way, you have to figure out what he meant from context. In his context he makes it pretty clear this is just his own experience.

That doesn't carry a "loaded" connotation about how the game will play for other people. We can take it as a granted that nobody can dictate that their experiences are universal.

Understanding what somebody means and agreeing with it are separate things, and we all do well to remember that.

Sorry, not picking on you in particular -- that's been happening for the last few pages and I was just quoting the post that most directly referenced it.

 

[Imp]

Going by 3rd edition RAW, crafting charged magic items isn't just cheap, it's crazily cheap.

A mage can make an item that will allow him to, for example, understand any language in the world, and the cost for doing so, and probably the time expenditure involved, is less than it is to go out and buy a mundane sword.

So of course things are tilted towards magic-users.

 

[AllisterH]

Going by 3rd edition RAW, crafting charged magic items isn't just cheap, it's crazily cheap.

A mage can make an item that will allow him to, for example, understand any language in the world, and the cost for doing so, and probably the time expenditure involved, is less than it is to go out and buy a mundane sword.

So of course things are tilted towards magic-users.

Heh..What's the point in even investing skill points into languages?

Still, the real tricky part is that you can't even fudge with those numbers since the non-spellcasters actually depend MORE on the charged items/buffs than the actual spellcasters.

Isn't that a kick in the pants that Mord's Disjunction will make a fighter cry yet a spellcaster is only slowed down?

 

[BryonD]

Going by 3rd edition RAW, crafting charged magic items isn't just cheap, it's crazily cheap.

A mage can make an item that will allow him to, for example, understand any language in the world, and the cost for doing so, and probably the time expenditure involved, is less than it is to go out and buy a mundane sword.

So of course things are tilted towards magic-users.

A fighter can go out and buy a sword that will work forever without even having to spend a feat on it, while a wizard has to spend a feat and a day of work just to understand an orc ONCE. So of course things are tilted towards fighters.



I don't think either case is a very reasonable representation.

 

[Mort]

A fighter can go out and buy a sword that will work forever without even having to spend a feat on it, while a wizard has to spend a feat and a day of work just to understand an orc ONCE. So of course things are tilted towards fighters.



I don't think either case is a very reasonable representation.

Actually no - wizards get scribe scroll for free at 1st level - so no feat required there.

And sorry, if you don't think the versatility of scribing scrolls is problematic - you haven't seen enough mages in play.