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

[pemerton]

As for me balance wise the problem really wasn't the spells but charged items. A wand of knock was lame.

I think this is AllisterH's point (and also that, in AD&D, the GM rather than the player got to choose what spells a wizard learned).

Now in my games it was not an issue since no one played item creators, and the only time I saw a wand of knock was when i was playing and I made a rogue/wizard character with the rogue/wizard prestige class that came out early on in 3e.

A wizard casting knock once a day is not a big deal, a wizard popping every door is.

I think that this point runs Hussar and AllisterH's way - if the rules only work when the players don't take advantage of some of their options, that's a reason to think that the rules have a flaw in them.

 

[Xris Robin]

I think that this point runs Hussar and AllisterH's way - if the rules only work when the players don't take advantage of some of their options, that's a reason to think that the rules have a flaw in them.

Hm, it's like Final Fantasy. (No wait, don't run away yet.) Do you know how many of those have had a item duplication glitch? Yet just because I've never used, or even encountered said glitch does not make it cease to exist.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm simply pointing out that me, and many others, are not having the problem. If it was an intrinsic problem, that would not be possible.

That's not true.

 

[Keith Robinson]

As for me balance wise the problem really wasn't the spells but charged items. A wand of knock was lame. Now in my games it was not an issue since no one played item creators, and the only time I saw a wand of knock was when i was playing and I made a rogue/wizard character with the rogue/wizard prestige class that came out early on in 3e.

A wizard casting knock once a day is not a big deal, a wizard popping every door is.

But these aren't 'bugs' - they're features of the game that you don't like. I think they're fine and make the game more enjoyable.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm, I'm sure you were trying to say something, but I just stopped listening. It wasn't worth the effort. Neither are you.

What a wonderful thing the ignore list is

eh?

Anyone care to explain this one?

 

[AllisterH]

I think this is AllisterH's point (and also that, in AD&D, the GM rather than the player got to choose what spells a wizard learned).

.

Thank you. I thought I was being clear.

Many of the spells in 1e/2e were designed under a paradigm when they were either VERY limited in casting (even at 20th level, a mage would only have 5 2nd level slots to cast knock and thanks to item acquisition being not under the player control, this couldn't be trumped)

OR

they were based on the paradigm that players would almost always succeed on their saving throw. By 10th level for example, even my 2E fighter would only fail any charm spell on a 4 or lower and by the teens it wasn't hard to only fail on a 1.

The Kyngdoms might think this was a feature but to many of us, it WAS a bug. Basicaly, they used spells designed for another system in 3E.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you. I thought I was being clear.

You were (at least to me)! I remember you saying the same thing on another recent edition-comparison thread. I think I posted an agreement then, and I still think it's a good point that hasn't received the consideration it deserves.

 

[Ahglock]

I think this is AllisterH's point (and also that, in AD&D, the GM rather than the player got to choose what spells a wizard learned).

I do not disagree with that point, I just think that the bigger flaw is the item creation feats especially the charged items ones.

Out of spells themselves the big problem IMO was the save or die changes. In 2e and previous editions other than the sleep spell save or dies usually came around when people had a 50% or better chance at making there saves. In 3e the targets have a 50% or worse to make there saves. Further more Magic resistance in 2e and earlier hit much harder than it does in 3e.

I have to say 3e gave me something I was asking for the ability for higher level mages to have an easier time effecting lower level targets with magic resistance. They just did it poorly IMO so MR became a virtual non-issue. Take a feat or two and nowyou have to roll like a 5 at the worst in order to overcome a targets SR. I think I'd rather have my 14th level wizard have a hard time effecting a level 1 Drow fighter, than my 14th level wizard have a easy time penetrating a ancient dragons SR.

I think there was eventually an optional rule in 2e that gave me what I wanted for every level you had on a monsters level or HD you dropped there SR by 5%. Dragon still hard to get past there SR, 1st level mook its easy.

I think that this point runs Hussar and AllisterH's way - if the rules only work when the players don't take advantage of some of their options, that's a reason to think that the rules have a flaw in them.

And yes I think the charged item creation feats were flawed, I was agreeing that it is a rule flaw, just one that never happened in my games. I think it is a big obvious flaw, just because it works in some games does not make it less of a flaw.

Obvious exploits that you have to make agreements not to abuse or just get lucky and everyone avoids are flaws, whether or not they crop up in your game. Sure it is still playable and can be enjoyed, but it could be better. For fans of 3e I suspect they would of preferred fixes over the removal of the various flaws.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never liked having the combination of Spell Resistance and Saves. I think it would have been better if Spell Resistance was modifying saves and AC against spells. Maybe give a bonus, and if the save is normal only for a partial effect, a spell resistant creature takes no effect. (Like evasion, but applying to all spells - but only spells, not extraordinary or supernatural effects)

 

[Ahglock]

I never liked having the combination of Spell Resistance and Saves. I think it would have been better if Spell Resistance was modifying saves and AC against spells. Maybe give a bonus, and if the save is normal only for a partial effect, a spell resistant creature takes no effect. (Like evasion, but applying to all spells - but only spells, not extraordinary or supernatural effects)

That would have been much smoother at least. 1 Roll is better than 2 and if the bonus if high enough many creatures basically become immune. Heck they can even add an exception that they do not auto-fail a save on a one.