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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Um, Hussar, that's money you are throwing away.

Is it? You could replace that Rogue with a more effective character in other situations - maybe another Fighter, or even better - yet another Wizard. (Might even lessen the pressure to buy certain scrolls or wands. One Wizard bans Illusion and Enchantment and specializes in Evocations, the other specializes in Divination and bans Evocations.

 

[Hussar]

At 5th level, the party has IIRC about 9000 gp in wealth each. Wand of Knock is 4500 gp. Each PC chips in a grand and you're gold.

But, yes, the problem becomes MUCH worse at higher levels.

I would point out, however, that this is only really a problem if you have a wizard in the party. Sorcerers don't have enough slots in their known spells to waste on this. It's the wizzies, with their ever expanding spell book, cheap wands and scrolls, that make this an issue.

 

[Psion]

Is it?

If there is a rogue in the party, yes you are.

You could replace that Rogue with a more effective character in other situations - maybe another Fighter, or even better - yet another Wizard. (Might even lessen the pressure to buy certain scrolls or wands. One Wizard bans Illusion and Enchantment and specializes in Evocations, the other specializes in Divination and bans Evocations.

Last I checked in any game I played or ran in, what people play is dictated more by what they like playing than some zero-sum "grand winning strategy", though I know that there are some groups that are this way. If that's the way you want to run, you can give it a go. I expect you will find your rogue-less group has certain strengths... and certain weaknesses. The dual mages will probably both find themselves perturbed at the same time by magic-countermeasures.

 

[Psion]

At 5th level, the party has IIRC about 9000 gp in wealth each. Wand of Knock is 4500 gp. Each PC chips in a grand and you're gold.

So assuming this was liquid (not a safe assumption in the games I run, but it seems to prevail with my current DM, so we'll fly with it), that'd be 2 2nd level powers I could put in a wand.

So (at the risk of repeating myself, but just so my point gets across here) of all the powers/spell I could put in a wand, if there's a rogue in the party, knock is not going to rate the top 2.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So (at the risk of repeating myself, but just so my point gets across here) of all the powers/spell I could put in a wand, if there's a rogue in the party, knock is not going to rate the top 2.

Absolutely right. Spending that kind of money on a Knock wand is a luxury.

That's why it's more cost effective to just keep, say, five scrolls of Knock, and replenish them between adventures.

Unless of course you're assaulting the Iron Vault of the Infernal Locksmith.

 

[AllisterH]

You know, Wulf Rathbane raises an interesting point.

In a typical adventure, how often does the rogue actually have to use his lock-picking skills?

Its been a while, but I'm honestly blanking on a typical adventure where one would actually run through 5 scrolls of KNOCK before you would level?

Am I totally mistaken or is Wulf Rathbane on something here?

I KNOW for example, Comprehend Languages/Tongues does invalidate taking skill points in languages and you only need a couple of scrolls for that in a typical adventure...

You know, if we go through the "utility" spells, I think you'll find that a lot of them you can have a few copies yet they'll last a LONG time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Absolutely right. Spending that kind of money on a Knock wand is a luxury.

That's why it's more cost effective to just keep, say, five scrolls of Knock, and replenish them between adventures.

Or use this dirty trick: Buy used Wands. Buy wands with 10 charges of Knock - 1/5th the price of the fully charged one.

I mean, PCs consistently find used Wands and sell them - who is buying them back? I tell you: The smarter PCs!

 

[Spatula]

Chimes of opening (10 charges of knock) are a pretty popular item in my group. Knock is just silly good. It removes two barriers to opening a door for one action, is automatic, and can open stuff that skills simply cannot - barred or arcane locked doors, for example.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

Personally I enjoy that the playing field is leveled in 4e... our 20th level fighter or 20th level wizard are roughly equal in effectiveness (albeit in different areas), whereas in 3e that wouldn't be the case... once you got past a certain point it was the spellcasters who'd rule the day, making fighters almost useless.

Any spell caster without front line fighter support is probably toast. It's the party, the combination of characters and abilities, that makes an effective group, not just one class or another. Fighters are an important, integral part of the whole and will never be useless no matter how powerful a wizard alone becomes.

 

[Goumindong]

Any spell caster without front line fighter support is probably toast. It's the party, the combination of characters and abilities, that makes an effective group, not just one class or another. Fighters are an important, integral part of the whole and will never be useless no matter how powerful a wizard alone becomes.

Not in 3e. Since fighters had no ability to actually keep those monsters from moving around them and smashing the wizard(who was likely better defended anyway).

It required DM's purposefully playing their intelligent monsters like fools in order to give fighters value. And even then, the Wizard was still simply way too powerful.

What a fighter and wizard could accomplish, two wizards could do just as well.