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

[Celtavian]

melee system?

The biggest reason I don't want to upgrade to 4th edition is that the spell system lacks variation and the play/counterplay of previous editions. It is watered down and dumbed down to the point of requiring no knowledge or intuitive understanding of the dynamics of a how a certain spell is affecting an encounter and thus coming up with the best possible means to counter it. For a player like myself, this really ruins my enjoyment of the game.

I love what 4th edition did for the melee classes. Creative, interesting, and made melee classes much more fun to play.

I hate what 4th edition did to the caster classes and magic system. Watered down, lacking in creativity, and the entire play/counterplay of the spell system is gone.

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. 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? 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?

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

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? Did not many people use illusions for drawing out ambushes? Or Anticipate Teleport for giving your party time before that horde of demons appears?

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

I read the 4th edition system for melees and I feel like they did a great job of answering many of the complaints of the folks who liked to play melee characters.

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?

Very confusing to me. I feel out of sorts with this new edition. On the one hand I want to try it because the melee classes look like such fun. On the other hand, I want to ignore it because my beloved wizards and priests have been changed into uninteresting and very limited shadows of their former selves.

Anyone else feeling this same way?

 

[Steely Dan]

No, I'm just so happy they finally ditched that overpowered, cryptic, pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian magic/spell system.

My biggest disappointment with 3rd Ed was that they practically cut & pasted it from previous editions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

melee system?

The biggest reason I don't want to upgrade to 4th edition is that the spell system lacks variation and the play/counterplay of previous editions. It is watered down and dumbed down to the point of requiring no knowledge or intuitive understanding of the dynamics of a how a certain spell is affecting an encounter and thus coming up with the best possible means to counter it. For a player like myself, this really ruins my enjoyment of the game.

I love what 4th edition did for the melee classes. Creative, interesting, and made melee classes much more fun to play.

Book of Nine Swords. It was the first attempt to get "martial powers" into the game and bring some interesting variety. Consider picking up that, and you're set for 3E. It was, of course, inspired by the 4E mechanics that were in the process of being created, and was a first test-bed for them.

I hate what 4th edition did to the caster classes and magic system. Watered down, lacking in creativity, and the entire play/counterplay of the spell system is gone.

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. 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? 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?

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

Counterspells? Very likely. Offense was usually far better then hoping to negate some spell. Wall of Force? No, I think that was used more, and is still part of the 4E Wizard shtick.

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? Did not many people use illusions for drawing out ambushes? Or Anticipate Teleport for giving your party time before that horde of demons appears?

We usually used more nonlethal damage to subdue foes. And I don't like having to use magic for every problem thrown at the players or their enemies.

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

That is possible. They definitely focused more on two aspects:
- Balancing powers/spells to ensure that every class is important, thus hopefully contributing to overall "fun" for all participants.
- Playability. Learn the simple basic rules. Then, everything you need to know about a power is written into its description. Complex interactions, including most counter-spell aspects (like Anticipate Teleport) have been removed or simplied for the sake of clarity (like Dispel Magic - using the Zone and Conjuration descriptions powers are dispelled, nothing else)

There is still an interaction at work, but it happens on the battle map "If I push the opponent into the square with the Cloud of Daggers, he gains damage again"... As such, it is more or less visible to the naked eye and doesn't require referencing the game book on how the effects interact.

I read the 4th edition system for melees and I feel like they did a great job of answering many of the complaints of the folks who liked to play melee characters.

I forget to mention above: PHB II can also help.
So, PHB II and Book of Nine Swords. You might want to add a class or a discipline for ranged combatants (I think there are some home brew available in the 3E House Rules forum).

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?

Ultimately, because there was no (for the designers) satisfying way to balance the "old" system with the new one.

Very confusing to me. I feel out of sorts with this new edition. On the one hand I want to try it because the melee classes look like such fun. On the other hand, I want to ignore it because my beloved wizards and priests have been changed into uninteresting and very limited shadows of their former selves.

Anyone else feeling this same way?

Sure, there are a few. But not me.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The mere fact that you don't have to worry about which dozens of different spells you are going to pick every day is a huge advantage over 3.X - that made running high-level spellcasters a huge drag. So the smaller selection is fine by me.

However, I would have liked to see a much larger collection of rituals - right now, the rituals are pitifully few in number.

 

[Celtavian]

Counterspells? Very likely. Offense was usually far better then hoping to negate some spell.

I didn't find that to be the case. Some spells could devastate a party. Then again, I didn't use stock villains. I designed them with harsh spells taken into account and with an awareness of how easily they could affect my part.

Wall of Force? No, I think that was used more, and is still part of the 4E Wizard shtick.

Didn't see a wall of force spell.

We usually used more nonlethal damage to subdue foes. And I don't like having to use magic for every problem thrown at the players or their enemies.

Subdual damage is messy and loud. Hold magic is quiet and controlled. It works quite well against most people save those with high will saves. Kidnappings generally required subtelty and magic can be very subtle...at least in previous editions. Not so much now.

That is possible. They definitely focused more on two aspects:
- Balancing powers/spells to ensure that every class is important, thus hopefully contributing to overall "fun" for all participants.

Don't understand why this couldn't have been accomplished with a more variable and interesting spell system.

- Playability. Learn the simple basic rules. Then, everything you need to know about a power is written into its description. Complex interactions, including most counter-spell aspects (like Anticipate Teleport) have been removed or simplied for the sake of clarity (like Dispel Magic - using the Zone and Conjuration descriptions powers are dispelled, nothing else)

This is going to limit them in the long run. It may be great for ground floor, but there is a reason they made the rules more complex. Because it enhances creative thinking for mechanic creation. This is very limited mechanically from either 2nd or 3rd edition.

There is still an interaction at work, but it happens on the battle map "If I push the opponent into the square with the Cloud of Daggers, he gains damage again"... As such, it is more or less visible to the naked eye and doesn't require referencing the game book on how the effects interact.

This is true. And more people are visual thinkers.

I forget to mention above: PHB II can also help.
So, PHB II and Book of Nine Swords. You might want to add a class or a discipline for ranged combatants (I think there are some home brew available in the 3E House Rules forum).

I have this book. It did do some nice things for the melee classes.

Ultimately, because there was no (for the designers) satisfying way to balance the "old" system with the new one.

Sad that this was the case. This is another version of Dnd where I like quite a bit of it, but dislike an almost equal amount. I dislike more than I like at the moment because I was a caster orietned player. This turns me into Conan the Caster...just another dumbed-down damage dealer with a few nifty tricks. Just like everyone else.

My friends want to run it, so I'll play it. But my days of DMing and buying DnD products are done. Fourth edition was a backwards step in creativity and game mechanics. I wish they had moved forward rather than simplified.

But then again, the market for games with advanced mechanics is small. I look at the game and think I might have liked it when I was a kid and just wanted to whack things. But as an adult that prefers intricate story telling, it's just too limited for what I like to do. First edition of DnD that has made me feel this way as an adult.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The mere fact that you don't have to worry about which dozens of different spells you are going to pick every day is a huge advantage over 3.X - that made running high-level spellcasters a huge drag. So the smaller selection is fine by me.

However, I would have liked to see a much larger collection of rituals - right now, the rituals are pitifully few in number.

On top of that, they aren't useful in combat. Their casting times are so long as to only be useful during long periods of downtime.

And I still to this day, for both 3rd and 4th edition wish they would do something other than charge a flat gold piece amount for spell components. How about designing the option of tracking down your own components? I'd love to see that included in the actual rules, rather than having to house rule it as I have done.

 

[Staffan]

Didn't see a wall of force spell.

Wall of Force isn't there, but Wall of Ice is, and can still be used to divide the battlefield. I think Wall of Ice is better for the game, since it's "beatable" - you can spend some actions in order to make a hole in it (50 hp per square), but will probably take some damage in the process (4d6+Int per round: 2d6+Int for being adjacent to the wall, and 2d6 for making an attack against it).

 

[Heselbine]

Was I one of the only people readying counterspells?

This is pretty interesting. I played/DMed 3rd edition on a regular basis since the day it was released to the day 4th edition was released. No-one in all those years made a single attempt at counterspelling. Counterspelling rarely seems to be worthwhile.

If you found useful ways of using it, then I'm impressed. However, the truth of the matter is that nearly everyone else didn't, so there's little point in it appearing in 4e. For me, it was kind of a good idea, and I remember being excited about it at first, but I think it was just totally broken in implementation.

A question: were you playing it as written, or did you houserule it in any way?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Didn't see a wall of force spell.

The idea of splitting the enemy groups is still there - but it's possible, that we only have the Ice wall spell at the moment. I haven't memorized (ha!) all spells yet.

Subdual damage is messy and loud. Hold magic is quiet and controlled. It works quite well against most people save those with high will saves. Kidnappings generally required subtelty and magic can be very subtle...at least in previous editions. Not so much now.

Spells usually have verbal components - and are thus not more silent then subdual damage. You could use Silent Spell metamagic feat - or cast Silence...

Don't understand why this couldn't have been accomplished with a more variable and interesting spell system.

Well, I can only assume they tried to do it and didn't find a way that really worked. Using different subsystems to manage the same aspect of a game (Combat, in this case) hardly ever works.

This is going to limit them in the long run. It may be great for ground floor, but there is a reason they made the rules more complex. Because it enhances creative thinking for mechanic creation. This is very limited mechanically from either 2nd or 3rd edition.

I disagree that it will limit them. There is still a ton left to explore. The PHB is what - 288 pages? And still people have ideas for more powers that _are_ different. And it's not like they can't add some new tricks. (Look at the Artificer play-test preview in Dragon - a new keyword is added, and a new way to "activate" powers is introduced...).

Sad that this was the case. This is another version of Dnd where I like quite a bit of it, but dislike an almost equal amount. I dislike more than I like at the moment because I was a caster orietned player. This turns me into Conan the Caster...just another dumbed-down damage dealer with a few nifty tricks. Just like everyone else.

Word of advice: Avoid the words "dumbed down". It is to easily misconstrued as an insult against the designers or the players (especially those that like the "dumbed down" rules), and nobody likes being called dumb.

The trick with all classes is that they require intelligence to play them effectively in the group. How do the unique tricks that the Wizard brings to the table helpful to the party? How do they work in concert with the other unique tricks of the party members? There is a lot of emergent complexity in the interaction of the powers and the battlefield.

My friends want to run it, so I'll play it. But my days of DMing and buying DnD products are done. Fourth edition was a backwards step in creativity and game mechanics. I wish they had moved forward rather than simplified.

I must say, my creativity from the DM and tinkerer point of view was sparked by the new system. The creation of new powers, and even more so the creation of new monsters is very interesting. The fundamental rules are really simple, but this gives you only the "shell" of the power or monster.
For monsters, for example, you have the basic numbers jotted down, but then the real design process begins -what makes this monster unique? What powers do I give it (and what powers do I make up in the process) to give it the right feel?

But then again, the market for games with advanced mechanics is small. I look at the game and think I might have liked it when I was a kid and just wanted to whack things. But as an adult that prefers intricate story telling, it's just too limited for what I like to do. First edition of DnD that has made me feel this way as an adult.

In my experience, advanced mechanics got always in the way of my store-telling. When I was making an adventure for 3E, Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes, I spend a lot of time creating the monsters or NPCs statistics, instead of spending time on crafting the story. Once I found the Iron Heroes "Villain Classes", things got a lot easier...

I know some people use existing monster statistics and try to spin an adventure from that (especially from the spell-like abilities not relevant in encounters), but this method did rarely work out so well for me. It didn't help me craft the real details of the story, especially if the abilities that sparked my idea would require other aspects from the monster that it lacked...

 

[zoroaster100]

So far I like the new spell system. I haven't seen it in action through high levels, so I reserve final judgment, but I'm glad they were willing to try a new system.