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

[Hussar]

That's probably true, but the powers that seemed to be most in question are the ones that "steal" other classes spot light (Unseen Servant as cheap trap detector, Knock to remove open lock) - or that are simply not nerfed in these ways. The Save or Die spells for example. (Regarding Hold Person: where there coup-de-grace mechanics in 2e against victims of hold person? If not, Hold Person/Monster still seems more powerful...)

Hold Person in 2e was absolutely vile. It lasted tens of minutes and you can kill any helpless person in one round in 2e. Casted against a single target, they got a -4 on their saves to boot.

Ultimate party killing spell.

Hell, Sleep had no saving throw, affected 2d4 hit dice worth of targets up to 4+1 hit dice and a casting time of 1 segment. Nice having a 1st level death spell.

The balancing factor here, of course, was the fact that you couldn't craft scrolls easily (at least until about 6th level for clerics, I forget for wizards - 9th?) and you have very, very few spell slots per day. Add to this very slow leveling in 2e (no xp for gp) and you were generally playing wizards from 1st to about 10th most of the time.

It does work, after a fashion. But, it also tends to mean that wizards spend a lot of time watching fights, particularly at lower levels.

 

[Parlan]

I can certainly understand your point of view - and can understand that some people might not like that - but its not really something that has had any bearing on our game in a negative way. Maybe one day that will turn out not to be the case, but certainly it's not something I've encountered.

Thanks for recognizing our POV.

Just to be clear, I liked 3.x and still do. I'd certainly play it if given the chance, and I'd even consider running it.

That said, I did have the problem of feeling like my character role was totally usurped at higher levels. The other players were not trying to do that on purpose, but still were able to. I found it very frustrating.

As a hypothetical GM, the thing that would concern me is the ole Scrye n' Fry. How do you avoid having every BBEG assassinated the moment he lets his guard down? I've read various proposed solutions over the years, but all of them struck me as straining the bounds of verisimilitude.

Re the Ftr, the thing that bothered me most wasn't how they got out classed by the Wizard or CoDzilla, but how they were just hard to create a good rp concept for. The skill list was crap.

 

[BryonD]

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

 

[BryonD]

I guess it is opinion, but, I prefer games that don't "feature" elements that make another character redundant.

Yep. This is simply a major point of difference in preference.
To me it is about magic being magic. Magic should be able to unlock locks. The presence or absence of mudane means of unlocking locks without the key is a total non-issue in that consideration. It gets back to the simple simulation / gamism debate.
If a system becomes designed for meta-reasons like that, then I've simply got no interest in that experience.

 

[CleverNickName]

I guess it is opinion, but, I prefer games that don't "feature" elements that make another character redundant. Knock is a perfect example. Mage hand is a zero level spell and makes trap detection much, much faster and easier. Heck, Unseen Servant makes trap detection and removal pretty much a given.

Wand of Unseen Servant and you've just removed the need for a trap finder.

Wand of Knock.

Arcane Eye.

There, no more need of the rogue.

I haven't read this entire thread, so if this has already been mentioned I apologize for flogging a dead horse...

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I just wanted to remind everyone that if a particular spell, magic item, or ability is disrupting the game, the DM can remove it. In fact, the DM should be encouraged to do so. Talk it over with your players and find a solution that everyone agrees with.

If mage hand, unseen servant, knock, arcane eye, detect traps, etc. are making the game less fun for the rogue in the group, the DM should ask the other players to cross the offending spells off of their lists.

These spells are handy, though, for gaming groups that don't want to feel like they "need" a rogue in the group. Not every group has a rouge in it. Just like healing potions and scrolls of halt undead, disrupt undead, detect undead etc. are perfect for groups that don't want to "need" a cleric. It's nice to have the option.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I just wanted to remind everyone that if a particular spell, magic item, or ability is disrupting the game, the DM can remove it. In fact, the DM should be encouraged to do so. Talk it over with your players and find a solution that everyone agrees with.

Yup. The ability of a group to look over something and excise portions they don't like is invaluable. In many, many cases, the ability for the DM to say No to something can change a ho-hum game into something really enjoyable!

 

[Hussar]

But, wouldn't removing the element from the game be the same as saying "This element is problematic"?

We're not discussing how to solve the problem, we're apparently discussing whether the problem actually exists in the first place. Some feel that, despite evidence to the contrary, there actually is no problem. That magic can never overshadow the rogue.

Although, saying that, this from BryonD

Yep. This is simply a major point of difference in preference.
To me it is about magic being magic. Magic should be able to unlock locks. The presence or absence of mudane means of unlocking locks without the key is a total non-issue in that consideration. It gets back to the simple simulation / gamism debate.
If a system becomes designed for meta-reasons like that, then I've simply got no interest in that experience.

points in the direction that he recognises that it could be an issue, but, he ignores it in favor of some sort of simulationist exercise.

Which doesn't change the fact that the problem exists, just that he chooses to ignore it.

But, Clevernickname, the real issue is, how much would you have to ban to stop mages from overshadowing rogues? There are a lot of spells which aren't specifically designed to make rogues redundant, they just do that as a side effect.

Invisibility is a good example. It's a good spell. It works in combat, it works out of combat. Great utility (to borrow a 4e ism). But, it also puts the rogue out of work. Mage Hand as well.

Some, like Knock, sure, you could axe that. That's pretty specifically stepping on the rogue's toes. But, others, like Overland Flight, Etherealness, Blink, for example, aren't so cut and dried.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yup. The ability of a group to look over something and excise portions they don't like is invaluable. In many, many cases, the ability for the DM to say No to something can change a ho-hum game into something really enjoyable!

Sometimes changing the system is even easier then mucking around with the one your ho-hum about.

And if enough people say "no" to certain aspects of the game (or would do so if they felt it a valid option - which not everyone does), one might even want to say it is flawed - of course, only for them.
Maybe flaws are just a subjective matter in the end. (I'd never play Rifts, after the descriptions I heard, but some people apparently do. Does this mean the game is flawless?)

Yep. This is simply a major point of difference in preference.
To me it is about magic being magic. Magic should be able to unlock locks. The presence or absence of mudane means of unlocking locks without the key is a total non-issue in that consideration. It gets back to the simple simulation / gamism debate.
If a system becomes designed for meta-reasons like that, then I've simply got no interest in that experience.

Really, does it? Shadowrun magic doesn't allow Teleportation. Is it therefore no longer "simulationist"?
The world of Harry Potter includes a spell / curse that is guaranteed to kill your opponent, barring highly specific circumstances that resulted in the 7 book epos we all came to love and hate. And everyone mage could use it, you don't even have to advance 15 levels.

Magic can do everything you want it do - the question is: What do you want it do in this specific campaign, world, setting or game.

 

[CleverNickName]

But, wouldn't removing the element from the game be the same as saying "This element is problematic"?

(snip)

But, Clevernickname, the real issue is, how much would you have to ban to stop mages from overshadowing rogues? There are a lot of spells which aren't specifically designed to make rogues redundant, they just do that as a side effect.

Ah. I see what you are talking about, and I really don't have an answer. In fact, I don't think a suitable answer exists.

Is it a problem to be able to replace a rouge with spells? Well, if there is a rogue in your party who is feeling obsolete, I'd say yes, it is a problem. But if your group does not have a rogue in it, I'd say no, these spells are essential for game balance.

It's hard to say if this is a problem or not. I guess it depends on how you play.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree that the spells moving to 3E caused an imbalance. Many spells were much more powerful in 2E.

I don't know if this was the real rule, or just what we played with, but: when we played pre-3e D&D, if you got hit and took damage during the round, you could not cast your spell.

One of the most common things we did was to cast Magic Missile at all the bad casters (splitting the missiles so they'd each hit different targets) so they'd be ineffective for the round.