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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Or what you play? What if the party composition changes? The Bard dies, and is replaced by the Rogue - do the Knock spell scrolls used by Wizard and Bard suddenly disappear from the game world? What if a Rogue dies, and is replaced by a Bard? Can the Wizard now suddenly learn Knock?

All things being equal, I would prefer a game system that doesn't make me want to retroactively change the game world to accommodate different players.

Of course, all things are never equal. Some trade-offs will probably be required.

Maybe some skills should have a power source option. Rogues take Open Lock (Martial). Wizards take Open Lock (Magic). Rogue is tinkering with his Thief Tools and uses MW THief Tools to get a bonus, the Wizard casts a spell and uses a Wand to get the MW bonus. Game result is the same, but the Rogue doesn't feel outshined by a simple 300 gp scroll or one of dozens or hundreds of spell entries in the wizards spellbooks.

Some games do in fact go this route, if I am not mistaken.

 

[d6Danny]

From 4e back to Sundrah

I have played 4e and find the characters to be a little simplistic and limiting. It may just be because I am a dedicated Dark Fantasy of Sundrah Player (You know, lots of choices.) Don't get me wrong, simple is fun but I think there are a lot of games out there besides D&D. I just personally don't like limits. It will be interesting to see how 4e grows.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Or what you play? What if the party composition changes? The Bard dies, and is replaced by the Rogue - do the Knock spell scrolls used by Wizard and Bard suddenly disappear from the game world? What if a Rogue dies, and is replaced by a Bard? Can the Wizard now suddenly learn Knock?

All things being equal, I would prefer a game system that doesn't make me want to retroactively change the game world to accommodate different players

Er, why would you do any of that? So, just because one character class leaves the game and is replaced by an altogether different one, then you need to change all the rules of your game?

I've never seen anyone do that.

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?

 

[AllisterH]

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.

.

No, the actual rule was somewhat similar.

Every round you rolled for initiative and you added either your weapon speed or casting time to the roll and that was when you got to act during the round.

For spellcasters, it was tough since the rule was that ANY attack that did damage from the start of the round till their turn came up disrupted any spellcasting since spellcasting started from the beginning of the round.

Hold person ha a CT of 5 (priest spells were usually 3+spell level CT, while wizards had a CT equal to their spell level).

Weapon speeds for a longsword was 4 while a dagger was 1 and I think magic weapons lowered said speed for every plus they had.

This was ANOTHER way magic was kept in check in pre-3e. It simply wasn't easy to get off those big gun spells as they took too long to get off

 

[resistor]

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.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Hang on a sec though. I'm pointing out a flaw with the game that I play. I still play 3.5. I LIKE 3.5. I just happen not to like this one element of it. I think it's a weakness in the ruleset.

That doesn't mean that I want to play a different ruleset, or I hate 3.5 or anything like that. It means that I see what I consider to be a weakness in the ruleset.

Liking a game does not mean I have to like every single element of it. I'm not sure how to change it honestly. My next campaign features a wizard and two scouts. It's very likely that this issue will come up in my game. Should I sit back and let the players work it out? Should I ban spells up front? Should I get involved at all? Do I need to? How serious is this problem? When does this problem become an issue?

These are all relevant questions to me. I think that the campaign will go to epic levels. If this issue doesn't come up until then, I'm not going to worry about it. However, if after five levels, both scout players come to me and say, "Hey, Hussar, umm, can we change characters because we're feeling pretty much like 5th wheels here", then I have a problem.

 

[LostSoul]

Hold person ha a CT of 5 (priest spells were usually 3+spell level CT, while wizards had a CT equal to their spell level).

I remember Magic Missile having a low casting time - 1 or 2. That made it a great spell to mess up casters - multiple targets, auto-hit. We knew the power of Hold Person (though we played that held creatures took max damage, not auto-kill) so we usually Magic Missile-d and shot arrows at any Clerics until they were dead.

 

[AllisterH]

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.

Which is an aspect of system mastery.

A smartly played *party* creates/buys scrolls/wands of all those utility spells and long buff spells while leaving the actual spell slots for action smackdown.

 

[BryonD]

Although, saying that, this from BryonD

...

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.

Nope. I don't accept that description of my game.
The desire for simualtion and the fact that it isn't a problem are two different issues that are independent but both required.
The game must be "easy enough" to play and must also meet standards of simulation.
I'm not ignoring any problems.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Er, why would you do any of that? So, just because one character class leaves the game and is replaced by an altogether different one, then you need to change all the rules of your game?

I've never seen anyone do that.

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 was refering to CleverNicknames post, who said it would only be a problem in those groups that actually have both a Rogue and a Wizard, and there you would restrict some spells. But I pointed out that the assumption that the group will always have the Rogue and one Wizard, or never have one is wrong in my experience.