Anyone else wonder why they didn't combine the 3.5 spell system and the 4th edition..

[Psion]

Ok, again, how often was your wizard ever "tapped out"?

Occasionally. Once every 2 or 3 rest cycles. Just enough that I could get the casters to "play conservative".

And, even with immunities, don't your wizards simply rely on buffs and summonings? Direct damage is generally the poorest choice for wizards.

Argue with the people upthread about that, who tell me that the wizards just rain down death spells.

Buffs and summons aren't precisely cutting the fighter types out of the picture now, are they? Summons of a given level are generally incapable of matching the damage output of the fighter. They do supplement the group's fighters, give the rogues flanking opportunities, and guard the caster. This sort of play is a "good thing".

Nonetheless, direct damage has its place. See: swarms and hordes.

 

[ascendance]

That's not a problem with the 3e "magic system." It is a problem with one class that makes use of the system.

But all of the 3e magic classes were broken... at least all of the primary casters. People are ragging on Wizards in this thread, but CoDzillas were in every way as bad.

Also, I think what Psion is talking about is throwing in lots of SR monsters, dispels, and anti-magic fields, but that just makes for an annoying and frustrating arms race for both sides.

 

[Psion]

I just don't see it. When the mages ran out - chances are the clerics were out too - and if the clerics were out the fighters simply did not want to press on. Sure they have unlimited swings of their weapon etc. but try telling that to the fighter at 20% HP and no cleric back up.

Already answered this.

As for resistant or immune to magic:

Most mages could overcome spell resistance easily

Spoken like someone who never had their wizard player swear at failed spell penetration rolls.

-either by spells that simply were not subject to it (e.g. the entire conjuration school) or

Incidentally, making the orbs SR-proof in 3.5 was a poor decision IMO. That said the rest of the conjuration school seems pretty reasonable.

indirect effects such as walls and buffing the rest of the party.

As mentioned above, helping and buffing the rest of the party isn't exactly cutting the rest of the party out of the picture.

As said previously direct damage was at best a poor back up.

Sure. But at high levels, some direct damage gets pretty impressive especially at wiping out hordes and mobs. Further, it's not just direct damage that is affected by SR and immunity. Effects that kill or immobilize creatures outright become common at levels were SR comes to the fore.

And high level monsters (and other challenges) that could be overcome without the direct aid of magic?

AFAIAC, a properly designed encounter shouldn't be easily overcome without the direct aid of fighters, either. The wizards were too vulnerable to do their jobs without fighters putting pressure on the enemies.

Unless you introduced things such as the Bo9S I remain unconvinced.

Unconvinced of what? That my games actually happened? My highest level games were 3.0. This was long before B09S.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Book of Nine Swords. It was the first attempt to get "martial powers" into the game and bring some interesting variety. Consider picking up that, and you're set for 3E. It was, of course, inspired by the 4E mechanics that were in the process of being created, and was a first test-bed for them.

Well, actually...

First, apologies for not reading every post in this thread.

So I have my name on the cover of Bo9S. Is it like the book that I wrote? Yes and no. The truth is that WOTC feels free (as they should, since they own the property) to "rip the arms off your baby, but it's ok, we'll give it new robotic arms that are much better" when you turn in your work as a freelancer. The quote is from Mearls, I believe, at a Gen Con 2006 or 2007 WOTC freelancers-only seminar.

The truth is that, speaking only for myself and not Rich Baker (who is great) or anyone else, I was trying to do with Bo9S exactly what the OP is talking about. Namely, work on a new melee power system that would function with the existing 3.5 spell system. The new power system would, I hoped, make melee characters more interesting and less overshadowed by casters, especially at high levels. It's neat that that system wound up being seen by most as very similar to and having influence on the 4e power system. But I didn't know anything about 4th-edition at the time.

So, Mustrum, when you say Bo9S was inspired by 4E mechanics, all I can say is that for me, it was not. On the other hand, at the time I started working on Bo9S, Rich already had a basic power system in place. Maybe he took that from internal 4e testing. I don't know. Also, maybe after my final turnover, the devs took it and decided, "Hey, let's run this through the 4e-ifier!" After all, as I said above, the final book is different in significant ways from the book I helped to write. All I can say is that from my point of view, the work I did on Bo9S was not inspired by 4e at all.

It was, however, inspired by exactly the sort of idea that the OP is talking about.

Edit: I'll also add that I think the 3.x combat/magic system was ok without Bo9S. That is, it was possible to balance fighters and wizards, for example, in the same party and in the same adventures. We certainly did in all my games, and it sounds like Psion did too. But my hope was that Bo9S would make it easier and more interesting to do so.

 

[Mort]

Already answered this.

Kind of, you just said it doesn't happen in your game - I just have to take that as truth.

Spoken like someone who never had their wizard player swear at failed spell penetration rolls.

Hardly. Spoken like someone who's seen wizards and played wizards who knew how to get around spell resistance.

Incidentally, making the orbs SR-proof in 3.5 was a poor decision IMO. That said the rest of the conjuration school seems pretty reasonable.

Yes, taking a good school and putting it over the top was a poor decision.

As mentioned above, helping and buffing the rest of the party isn't exactly cutting the rest of the party out of the picture.

True, support roles are fine but being able to support and dominate is a bit over the top for me.

Sure. But at high levels, some direct damage gets pretty impressive especially at wiping out hordes and mobs. Further, it's not just direct damage that is affected by SR and immunity. Effects that kill or immobilize creatures outright become common at levels were SR comes to the fore.

That's not exactly an argument for spellcasters not dominating. If your argument is that SR is an equalizer or a constraint then, again, there are way too many ways around it.

AFAIAC, a properly designed encounter shouldn't be easily overcome without the direct aid of fighters, either. The wizards were too vulnerable to do their jobs without fighters putting pressure on the enemies.

True, and as I've been saying it is much harder to design an encounter where fighters don't play 2nd fiddle to the mages; certainly not impossible but the system hinders rather than helping you.

Unconvinced of what? That my games actually happened? My highest level games were 3.0. This was long before B09S.

I ran a 3e game where the fighters had loads of fun too, but I had to go out of my way to make sure of that rather than the system making it easy for me.

I then played in a game where the DM did not go out of his way, I actually felt guilty playing a caster because the bias was so obvious to me, that's where my current opinion truly solidified itself.

 

[Psion]

True, support roles are fine but being able to support and dominate is a bit over the top for me.

That's not exactly an argument for spellcasters not dominating. If your argument is that SR is an equalizer or a constraint then, again, there are way too many ways around it.

Ways around it that play to a more team-oriented combat model. If that's what SR and immunities achieve withing taking the charm out of magic, I say they have done their job.

True, and as I've been saying it is much harder to design an encounter where fighters don't play 2nd fiddle to the mages;

I don't find it to be so. If you do, then by all means find a different system that works better for you. But this badgering me, and trying to demonstrate my experience is somehow "invalid" isn't really accomplishing anything.

 

[Mort]

I don't find it to be so. If you do, then by all means find a different system that works better for you. But this badgering me, and trying to demonstrate my experience is somehow "invalid" isn't really accomplishing anything.

I did no badgering and I would appreciate if you stop with the accusations. I have merely stated how my experience differs from yours significantly and asked a few questions to clarify the relative positions. (and been more careful than most in stating it was my observation and my opinion as opposed to fact.)

 

[The Highway Man]

All "evidence"? Okay. Meantime, what I am hearing is that I must have been hallucinating during all those games where 1) everyone could contribute meaningfully to the game, and 2) I could reasonably balance the challenge to the party. 1 and 2 are, to me, the primary indicators/goals of balance, so AFAIAC, balance is served.

1) and 2) were definitely "served" in my 3.X games as well. I would wager you're far from being the only one in this case.

 

[3catcircus]

What's with a DM and party that are actually not interested in running such scenarios? Maybe their adventures involve a lot of non-combat activities that don't require spells, making one combat encounter per day a reasonable assumption?

If you only have one combat per day, then there is no problem since everyone can blow their wad without consequences.

Bag of Holding / Portable Hole. Magic solves all your problems. Especially the magical ones.

You have exactly a 1% chance of either of these being found randomly in treasure (per DMG). Any DM who allows players to just buy magical anything other than scrolls and potions is asking for trouble. Additionally, a lucky sword blow (heck even a pair of scissors) can ruin either of these items quickly.

Every time. (Unless I am using Greater Teleport). Astoundingly, it never failed.

Most of the time, I've never seen anyone use said table.

So, exactly the kind of spells that give the fighters a chance to shine more are those that have been restricted in value.
And why should they catch their breath if there is no mechanical to do so - kill your enemies first, loot afterwards. The Bull Strength spell has a duration of 1 hour per level (3.0) or 1 minute per level (3.5). Unlike in 4E, spells usually didn't last "until the end of the encounter".

And looting takes at least 10 minutes - therefore the buffs go away as soon as they set off down the dungeon hallway.

So, you mean 4E is actually doing the right thing? Removing those problematic spells from the spell list?

If I am given a rulebook with a lot of nice toys, why should I not be allowed to use them? I could accept this reasoning if their was a general note in the PHB or DMG "Some spells can render non-spellcasters meaningless. In campaigns where the party contains a few non-spellcasters, consider restricting the access to such spells, and inform your players about this decision." But there is no such rule or advice. The closest is Rule-Zero, which is meaningless. I can always rule out problematic stuff. But I prefer not to, since Rule Zero doesn't tell me how it affects game balance or playability.

Just because it is in the book doesn't mean you automatically should have access to it. Rule Zero is *not* meaningless if the DM applies it judiciously. More importantly, when a spell or rule is subject to abuse, the DM *has* to provide a ruling that reigns in the abuse (Phantom Steed, I'm looking at you).

 

[Fifth Element]

That's giving sente to the party. That's what random and unexpected encounters and putting PC on the clock is for.

And that's what rope trick is for.