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

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Ah, the everlasting search for the holy grail in game design. Ultimate flexibility with ultimate playability...

True seekers are aware that the search for perfection is the important part, not the result.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Personally? I don't like the new 'magic' system. It doesn't feel like magic. I've avoided playing 4e spellcasters, and will continue to do so. (With the exception of the Warlock, for various reasons - the biggest being that the 4e magic system actually fits the flavor of the class very well.)

But I didn't personally like 3e's magic system (or 2e's, for that matter) much better. It was terribly complicated, required a lot of book-keeping, and in some ways restrictive and/or nonsensical (you must get X amount of rest - gods forbid you get attacked in the middle of the night, once you cast a spell you forget it until the next day, etc).

Personally, I love point-buy magic, such as True Sorcery by Green Ronin. Unfortunately, it was just as complicated, if not more (nothing like busting out calculus in the middle of a fight to figure out your spell). But the freedom - I loved that. But it would have in no way, shape or form meshed with 4e.

So... I am disappointed, yes, and wishing I could figure out an alternate magic system. Unfortunately, I haven't come up with anything yet.

I'm in the same boat as you. I never liked Vancian magic. I wanted to make every caster into a sorceror for spellcasting and a wizard for spell choice. I figured the limiting factor would have been the cost to expand your spell list. I did this for a while, but it was too hard to work into the existing game. Too much work for too little payoff as I had to redo every caster in every module.

That would give me closer to the feel I liked about literary fantasy wizards. Where they just learned a ton of spells and cast to their limits every day.

I like GURPS magic system quite a bit. Spells are like skills and once you know them, you can cast them. Only thing I didn' like is that GURPS was too low fantasy for my tastes, but the mechanics very nice.

 

[radferth]

I'm reading these 4th edition books and just wondering how could Andy Collins and his creative team be so ignorant of how casters like myself played the game.

They weren't ignorant, they decided to discontinue that game.

Was I so far out there with my creative use of spells that I fall near the far outlier of normal spell use for the game?

I'd say top 5 or 10%.

Were there so few high casters that creatively used the 3.5 spell system that we were not enough of a market share to bother to please?

You wouldn't have to be so few, just not as big as the target market. Having the streamlined combat and character options they wanted and having nuanced spell use such as you (and myself, and many others) enjoy were mutually exclusive.

Was I one of the only people readying counterspells?

Very nearly.

Was I one of the only people using Wall of Force to split the battlefield?

No, although I usually went for cheaper options.

Was I one of the only people designing adventures that required the use of hold spells for kidnappings or capturing beasts with force cages for transport back to a particular buyer?

No, but this implies a certain power level and commonality of magic that would be specific to only a certain percentage of campaigns.

Did not many people use illusions for drawing out ambushes?

I'm sure many did. I used them to fake ambushes myself.

Or Anticipate Teleport for giving your party time before that horde of demons appears?

Once again, campaign specific, and thus probably fairly uncommon.

After reading the 4th edition magic system, I just get the feel that it was not designed with me in mind at all.

It was not.

I'm left wondering why couldn't they have kept a varied, powerful, play/counterplay spell system while integrating new and interesting powers for the melee classes?

Their goal was not to keep the same system while adding options for non-spellcasters. It was to redesign the game into something much more streamlined.

Anyone else feeling this same way?

A few, I am sure.

4e wasn't designed to support the type of campaign play you are used to. You can still do it, there just is limited rules support for it. I'd personally be happier if the default/supported RPG system (i.e. the current version of D&D) supported the type of campaigns I enjoy, but WotC has not obligation to seek my approval for there game system. I expect they are going to a more streamlined, combat/miniatures based system for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

 

[Mallus]

I DM a group with 4 13th level, full-progression spell casters. I am very, very happy with the changes to the 4e spell system.

As for removing options... that's more or less nonsense. It removed options from some classes and distributed among all the others. Also, skills (both character-supplied and player-supplied) now mean something, seeing as 'problem-solving' now involves more that 'which spell do I use?'.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I totally get what the OP is saying, even though I myself really like 4e. It definately has done a lot for non-casters.

I've been considering letting spells stay in spellbooks (no disapearing ink for me) and then let the wizard select any spell he wishes from his book using the level for each slot dictate the maximum level of the spell memorized. Sure... it makes sense that most of the time he'll be using his highest level spells for each slot, but he has the choice. I've also considered letting arcane casters scribe spells (of a level they can cast) from found spellbooks. That would give them a larger selection of powers, and it would wreck retraining a little, but it makes sense enough to me that it might be worth it.

I think we will see lots of interesting spells that can be used creatively as time goes on. I hope so. I was no fan of vancian magic, but I did enjoy creative spell casting.

I might do something similar. I want to get a feel for the 4th edition system before I start writing too many house rules.

I like alot of things about it. I like that there aren't multiple attacks. I know melee didn't have a alot of "magic" powers like they do now, but they could do truckloads of damage quick. The gods forbid they get a crit while power attacking with a great axe or great spear.

All these melees that complain about casters must not have been playing high level two-hander melee guys with power attack and cleave. Those walking DM nightmares were not complaining much about their melees.

They were smiling at their respective DMs with blood and guts all over their plate armor drinking an ale after mowing down a horde of giants.

In my groups, two hander melees and archers did truckloads of damage. If there were DPS meters, they would have been on top over the course of an entire adventure.

In one third edition campaign I'm dealing with a martial artist/armored puglisit with 250 hit points at lvl 14. She is a walking nightmare that hits like a truck and takes hits like a truck.

Melees are more interesting in 4th edition, but they don't do anywhere near as much damage. Not that I'm complaining because it always sucked to have that melee get a lucky crit with his great axe that derailed your well-planned encounter. I'm not going to miss that aspect of the game.

In 4th edition it seems like the monsters can take a good, sound beating for a few rounds and dish it out just the same.

 

[Celtavian]

re

As opposed to 3.5, where a wizard could essentially overshadow every other member of the party? It might have been fun for the guy playing the wizard, but it certainly wasn't fun for the guys playing the other classes.

That wasn't how it was in our campaigns. I provided alot of party support such as haste and resist energy and sealed off our fighters with Walls of force so they weren't flanked. I also gave them fly spells so they could engage flying enemies. I wasn't a caster that just let my melees twiddle their thumbs while I launched nuke spells.

The best damage a caster can do is to boost his comrades.

Recently, my priest separated a group of giants using blade barrier, so that our fighter could take them on piecemeal.

Design the encounters right and your wizard shouldn't be able to sit back and do all the damage and get all the glory. All he'll end up doing is getting himself killed.

With the DM I play with, it would have been stupid of me to try to hog the glory. This DM is a guy who three 3.5 edition Balors into the room with our lvl 18 party and forgot to read what blasphemy did until he started using it on us. Half the party survived, the the other half not so lucky.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Short answer? no. I have to admit that I like the new system. I also realize that to put in every spell from 3.5 into the current edition's core books would have increased the size dramatically to the point where the wizard alone would have taken up a good 100 pages on powers.

I do agree that I miss some of the spells from 3.5. I also wish there were at least more rituals in the PHB. I understand that there will be more out in the future, but its a bit of a shock to go from volumes of spells/powers down to 3 books again. So I can see where you are coming from here.

We've rarely used the counterspell abilities. While interesting on paper it was easier in the end to just unleash a thermal nuclear assault in the first few rounds that would kill the enemy spellcasters than bother letting them try to cast in the first place.

There's also the problem that might arise that if you brought every other class up to par with what the 3.5 spell system allowed wizards and clerics to do (and to a lesser extent psions/sorcerers/etc) then you may as well have just made a classless system, and opened the spells/prayers/powers to everyone (Not that it wouldn't have been an interesting way to go, mind you).

I admit that without the breadth of spells fully available, certain things (Like the hold person kidnapping) would have to be resolved with good old fashioned elbow grease from the whole party or NPC group instead of being resolved with a solitary spell alone. Certain functions do still exist though for quiet subterfuge. Sleep for example. Other than that its up to DM's currently as to if the group can sneak up to knock out a guard/grab the NPC and toss them into a cart/ etc.

I personally don't like the 'dumbed down' argument, as I've never had to put a helmet and mittens on and clap like an imbecile to effectively use any powers in 4e, but to each his own I guess.

But this is just my opinion on the matter since the question was posed. I think the previous suggestions were indeed pretty good. Bo9S and the PHBII are about as close as one could get to upping the martial classes fun levels to those of spellcasters.

Simplified and direct is more accurate a statement regarding 4th edition.

From reading this thread, I get the feel that most wizards were allowed to unleash on someone for immense damage and end it. That never seemed to work so well except on high hit point enemy fighter types.

The wizards always seemed to be read with resist energy, spell resistance death ward and like buffs prior to our arrival. If our rogue wasn't a good scout, and we didn't enter the encounter buffed and prepared, we usually got our butts handed to us.

I guess our DM was a particularly vicious guy. I'm thankful for it too because I really had to think to survive in the campaigns he ran.

I like to think he learned his tactics from playing in my games (though a few of them he just made up himself like an artifact chair that killed half our party in 2nd edition DnD he just threw together). I've always been a ruthless DM. My players like playing in my campaigns because I make them earn it and I keep combat fast and fun. That's essentially how it should be.

If 4th edition makes it easier for more players to have fast, fun, and challenging combats to higher levels, then I guess it is better for them. I wasn't having trouble with 3.5. My melees had plenty to do, and so did my casters. If they didn't work together, they weren't going to survive. I hope that hasn't changed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The way I run verbal components would never compare to a beat down necessary to do subdual damage. Did you play high level DnD? It's real hard to beat down a high level character with subdual damage in a few rounds.




We'll see. What I saw was recycled mechanics and the same do 1dSomething damage and something else. Putting a new name on a different mechanc is not creativity, it's like South Park said about Shymalan and his penchant for twisting old plots.




I'll see how this plays out. I didn't notice the complexity so far. To me complexity is like chess...play/counterplay.

This game seems very direct and lacking in complexity, by design.

You mean the complexity of 4E is like chess, or you mean 3E was like that? Well, I'd probably agree with both, but in different ways. Or maybe it's more Rock-Paper-Scissors in 3E? (Spell vs Counterspell?). But isn't it also in 4E (Defender vs Skirmisher, Controller vs Minion etc.pp.)? It are probably elements of both.

The chess-action happens on the game-board, not in the spells chapter.

Strange. For me the mechanics helped my story telling. I was able to think up stories that revolved around particular spell uses.

I am not so much a fan of creating an adventure around a spell use. It is interesting for individual encounters, but the adventure should focus on things happening - cultists performing a nasty ritual, murders happen, Goblins attack villages, or what-you-have. The rituals came closest to basing something around a spell, but they are usually plot mechanics, not real game mechanics that are used there. (Since most spells do not offer the complexity of a ritual)

I started an adventure recently by imprisoning the fighter and forcing the party to do what the imprisoner asked to get him to release the fighter. I loved thinking of new ways to use spells to trick my players.

Like the old tactic in Ravenloft where Strahd has the party wasting spells and time on an illusion before he actually attacks. Caster versatility did alot to spice up my campaigns.

But I admit this was somewhat unfair to melee players. That is why I like what they did for melees in 4th edition.

The scenario you described doesn't seem to be helped much by the new mechanics of 4E. Even if I can have a Brute Strike daily, if I am getting imprisonised in a 3E like forcecage spell, I can't do anything about it.

I did alot of monster adaptation in terms of skills and abilities. 3rd edition wasn't perfect, but it got my creative juices flowing in a good way. It left alot of open ground and no mechanic was too strange to work in it.

I didn't have problems tracking durations either. So not sure why they got rid of spell durations for the most part.

You could get far with the durations by handwaving. "10th level character, 1/round per level? Okay, that lasts the full encounter. 1/minute per level, let's say 2. 10 minutes per level? Ah, if you make a larger travel, it will be off) and so on. But this hand-waving can be done easier without people getting trapped in the details. Also, it makes things a little less predictable (without hurting the game much) for some powers - everything that works with "save ends" is interesting. And it keeps players affected by them busy...

When I say lacking creativity, I mean more on the player side of things. As in I find that looking at my character, I have a very few, simple things I can do. I just do them and hope they work. There isn't much interplay between spells like their used to be.

Like the old Cloudkill imprison in Wall of Stone tactic. Or Enervate followed by dominate monster/i].

Actually, all this is still there, but it is often not your single character doing the combinations, it is the entire group. (Basically, you provide the Enervate, the next character casts Dominate Person.)
Wizard casts cloud of daggers, damages target. On its turn, target takes damage from cloud, shifts and whacks Fighter. Fighter tide-of-irons enemy back into cloud. Wizard uses Orb power to extend duration by one round. On its turn, target takes damage again and drops dead/is injured further. Shifts away.
This is the most primitive example (and I am using the rules from memory, there might be things that make this particular example not work), I suppose, using only at-wills. There are a lot of more combinations, and some only arising due to the specific battlefield you're using (you said you liked using terrain...)

I'm not sure if you played much high level DnD. But high lvl 3rd edition DnD was very interesting if you put your work in. But it wasn't so good for a group that wanted to run stock modules.

Interesting it was, no doubt. It just got a little hard to DM and sometimes even play. (Though I would still play 3E, no doubts about that. Even a high level Fighter. )

True seekers are aware that the search for perfection is the important part, not the result.

Yes. So, don't give up. But remember, sometimes you have to produce results, and "Good Enough" has to suffice. But afterwards, continue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Funny. I'd rather play 3.5 with the 4e spell system. To each his own.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For every person who thought the 3.x magic system was a well of options, you can find a person who thought 3.x magic was a gaint bag of exploits.

There's always Pathfinder...