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

[Obryn]

Now I think I'm starting to understand why we had a slightly different experience when I think about the sorts of things that can happen with spells like Rope Trick and the other rest spells is either there were hazards in those other planes (those spaces existed somewhere, and things live in somewhere) or where we are in may not be available (no co-termenous etheral/astral).

And that was assuming that rest was an option. I should probably mention we tend to start between 8-10.

Right, and that's a fine way to handle Rope Trick, but sadly there's nothing in 3e's rules which would suggest that this could happen.

In short, that's a house-ruled solution to the Rope Trick problem. A quite good one - but it's still a work-around.

Heck, per RAW in 3.x, your rope trick space doesn't even blow up when you bring a bag of holding and/or a portable hole into it.

-O

 

[hectorse]

saying the classes play the same way in 4e is ludicrous.


Brute Strike
Martial Daily Reliable Weapon
Std Action Melee one Target
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: do 4[w] + str

Expeditious Retreat
Daily Arcane
Move action Personal
Effect: Shift up to twice your speed

The attacks differentiate the classes and even the races pretty well. Fighters and Paladins try to keep melee with rogues trying to get combat advantage and clerics hitting and healing at the same time (they don't hit as hard though). Wizards cast AoE's, warlords provide combat bonuses and also can hit quite a punch, rangers do a tons of damage but are very frail and warlocks drain the hell out of an enemy's HP.

Even Eladrin teleport and Halfling Second Chance differentiate a halfling paladin from an eladrin paladin.

 

[Psion]

Heck, per RAW in 3.x, your rope trick space doesn't even blow up when you bring a bag of holding and/or a portable hole into it.

Well. Sort of.

The rules text says "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one." Of course, they don't say how it's hazardous. I guess they are relying on our history with the game to guide us here.

 

[LostSoul]

Well. Sort of.

The rules text says "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one." Of course, they don't say how it's hazardous. I guess they are relying on our history with the game to guide us here.

A bag of holding is a non-dimensional space, not extradimensional.

 

[LostSoul]

No, it doesn't. But for some folks, it's to be envied.

(Insert shrug icon here...)

What's to be envied is the Wizard when you're playing errand-boy to him. When the Wizard is playing errand-boy to you, I guess he envies you.

What would be better, in my opinion, is when no one's playing errand-boy to anyone else.

 

[Psion]

A bag of holding is a non-dimensional space, not extradimensional.

Oh, I remember this argument now, from RPGnet.

This strikes me as the uttermost rules-lawyer hair splitting, and wouldn't fly in my game.

 

[Mort]

Well. Sort of.

The rules text says "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one." Of course, they don't say how it's hazardous. I guess they are relying on our history with the game to guide us here.

Perhaps.
It's also one of the few times in 3e where the rules essentially say "it's up to the DM to decide how much he chooses to affect the players." Usually the 3e rules take a firmer more defined approach (this is not a bad thing merely the design choice prevalent in 3e).

 

[LostSoul]

Oh, I remember this argument now, from RPGnet.

This strikes me as the uttermost rules-lawyer hair splitting, and wouldn't fly in my game.

And having all your stuff blow up, or some other hazardous thing happen, because you want to use Rope Trick seems like adversarial DMing and wouldn't fly in my game.

 

[Mort]

And having all your stuff blow up, or some other hazardous thing happen, because you want to use Rope Trick seems like adversarial DMing and wouldn't fly in my game.

It's not adversarial if the players know the consequences or potential consequences but choose to do it anyway.

 

[Psion]

And having all your stuff blow up, or some other hazardous thing happen, because you want to use Rope Trick seems like adversarial DMing and wouldn't fly in my game.

There's a difference between a GM messing with a player just because he can and a GM making a ruling on a clause that is designed to provide a limit on a spell that is widely held to be too powerful for its level in a manner that meets that intent rather than the "accidental" intent of poor wording.