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

[Hussar]

/snip

In one third edition campaign I'm dealing with a martial artist/armored puglisit with 250 hit points at lvl 14. She is a walking nightmare that hits like a truck and takes hits like a truck.
/snip

How?

How does a 14th level character have close to 20 hp's per level?

The difference is that earlier editions fighters and rogues could use their "powers" pretty much whenever they wanted to while wizards and clerics were limited in their "powers" to a few times per day. The martial classes had the ability exercise their chosen options more frequently.

Weapon specialization? You could use it in every combat. Want to specialize in mace too (per your example), take a feat at the next available level (which for fighters happens fairly quickly). Rogue who specialized in diplomacy and now needs to invest in disable device? Yep - next skill level add points. Or buy masterwork tools or magic items. The wizard and cleric were stuck with x amount of spell slots. Their options are their choice in spells and the ability to switch them out each day./snip

What? You didn't have wands, scrolls or potions in your game? Limited by slots? Not after about 9th level. What else does a wizard have to spend his money on? Heck, the cleric, after he's got some shiny armor, might as well bulk up on the same. Most of the really juicy spells are under 4th level anyway.

 

[Hussar]

I think part of the problem with the size of the list in 3.x is the assumption that many players had that every single spell was available.

All it takes is a little restraint on the part of the DM. Heck - even something as simple as enforcing the Spellcraft check to see if you can learn the spell.

Clerics gain every spell on the list, so, spellcraft and whatnot does not restrain clerics.

Wizards gain 2 spells EVERY level. 4 spells of every spell level, for free. No chance of failure. You don't have to go into splats and whatnot to have incredibly powerful spells. Spells that were effectively save or die occur at every level. Color Spray, Web, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Black Tentacles, take your pick.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

I'm desperately trying to figure how this isn't regarded an edition wars thread by this point.

Lots of accusatory language about how to 'do it right' by both sides of the fence. I was hoping to read through tonight and see a few suggestions on how to actually meld the two systems or even work 4e melee types into a 3e system effectively.

Ah well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E is like chess, at least the spell system is. The melee system never has been. 4E melee system an improvement for melees, 4E spell system a reduction for casters.



Happened that way in 3E too. Funny you don't think a player has to watch the gameboard in 3E to know where people are standing before he casts a spell. I always had to track location to see what spells would be most effective at a given time whether it was maximising number of targets or determining where best to lay out the wall spell.

The board is become more important in 4E. Which isn't always a plus, but there is just more activity now - not just determining the area of the spell and how many enemies you can get in your Fireball, but also where to push/pull/slide your enemy (from a Wizards perspective. Non-spellcasters focus more on where to move to get combat advantage or block the maximum number of enemies, or where to move to keep out of trouble)

Since I knew my spell lists prior to playing, I didn't need to bury my head in the books too often. No idea why you feel that was the case. Maybe the guys in your campaign didn't read the books prior to play.I did. I was always prepared and knew what the spells on my list did.

There is no long-term imprisonment spell. So I can't even do the scenario without making something up. See above as to what I think about making stuff up to screw with players. I don't much care for it.

Long-term is not required. A single combat can be enough. 3 rounds can be enough.

This is more a matter of how you like to do encounters. I was never a fan of punctuated encounters that occur according to points on the map.

I ran encounters that were like domino's falling. Once things reached a certain point, you would be fighting one huge knock down drag out battle against a horde of enemies with the big bad there as well. I did not like the idea of monsters in linked complexes staying in their own rooms waiting to die.

I lumped a ton of the monsters together into climactic encounters. So it might go guard room, alert goes out, get ready for a continuous series of non-stop battles with nary a rest period.

I made a point of keeping the tension ramped up as though they were in the middle of a war.

Might be hard to do in 4th edition, but I haven't tested it. So we'll see how that goes. I'm not sure when encounters cut off.

I know the way I ran it, one room of baddies would merely touch off a long and drawn out encounter that was meant to destroy the considerable resources of a high level 3rd edition party. They were either going to succeed, flee, or die.

4E will not support a very long string of encounters, but the individual encounters will be far bigger. The toughest fight we played so far was a 4-player party against a level 6 encounter, consisting out of like 17 enemies (including the BBEG and his "lieutenant", coming in two waves (the second wave 3 rounds after the first). The encounter was too tough, to be honest, but the party still survived (barely, with the last one standing being the Dwarven Wizard.)

I noticed that terrain is still useable.

And as I said, I like what they did for melees. But magic doesn't seem like magic anymore.
[
It will encourage interplay of a certain kind, just not as diverse as 3rd edition in terms of what magic could do. It's nice that the fighter can knock the enemy into my cloud of daggers, but that isn't magic to me.

No, it's teamwork. And that's were the fun lies. Well, at least for a lot of gamers.

 

[Najo]

My 2 cents:

Wizards in 4e are full of creativity. The cantrips alone give our wizard in the party tons of creative things to do. I think they successfully tonned down the 3.x wizard's god llike answer to everything while keeping the appeal it has to smart players.

With cantrips, cool controller like powers, ritual casting and the ability of spell books to allow wizards to change out their utility and daily powers, wizards are pretty flexible still without being over powered.

Anyone who feels otherwise should at least play 4e (and play a wizard at that) before passing judgement. I think they would be surprised.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm desperately trying to figure how this isn't regarded an edition wars thread by this point.

Lots of accusatory language about how to 'do it right' by both sides of the fence. I was hoping to read through tonight and see a few suggestions on how to actually meld the two systems or even work 4e melee types into a 3e system effectively.

Ah well.

Hey, this isn't House Rules!

The best suggestion is pick up Bo9S and play 3E.
Though maybe the reverse is actually more interesting, from a "4E math is fixed" point of view?

 

[CountPopeula]

Constructively, albeit perhaps repetitiously: while there's now no easy "starter" class ("Never played D&D before? Grab the fighter, that's fairly easy to drive!"), I'm very far from taking this as a bad thing.

I always hated this idea that we needed a "starter" class for new people. My first 2e character was a Bard, arguably one of the more complex classes, what with spells and thief skills and what not. I didn't have any problem learning to play the game, and I'm not so sure I'm so smart that I'm a D&D prodigy or something. I just think the complexity and the learning curve is over-rated.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The idea that fighters were the "newbie" class and that wizards were "too complex" typically came from people who demanded that all spells in all books be allowed.

These same people will go to 4e.

Honestly, edition isn't an issue as far as they're concerned, so you can't pin them on either one.

 

[Jhaelen]

To the OP: I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're missing having a spell for every possible problem. I think the 4E wizard is fine. It's still the most flexible class in 4E. Their spell book allows them to have twice (or with a single feat thrice) as many daily and utility powers in their arsenal as everyone else.

And it's a good thing that casting a spell is no longer the answer to every problem.
To Psion: I think you're wrong about skills not being overshadowed by spells. Consciously restricting yourself to only choose spells that don't steal anyone else's spotlight is not a solution. It's a sure sign of a flawed system.

Interestingly, even rpg systems like Ars Magica where everyone is a wizard never had that problem. Spells that improve your skill checks are fine, spells that make skills obsolete aren't.

It's also an improvement they got rid of rarely used skills. You want a character who was a carpenter before his adventuring career? No problem: Just mention it in his background. IIRC, the 4E PHB even encourages doing things like this.

It's not important to know exactly just how good a character is at carpentry since it will never be important in a life-or-death situation when time is running short.

Edit: While it may not apply to anyone in this thread, I believe the people that are most unhappy about the changes in 4E are those with a high degree of 'system mastery'. 4E is pretty transparent and good tactics are more important than tricky character builds.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Consciously restricting yourself to only choose spells that don't steal anyone else's spotlight is not a solution. It's a sure sign of a flawed system.

Interestingly, even rpg systems like Ars Magica where everyone is a wizard never had that problem. Spells that improve your skill checks are fine, spells that make skills obsolete aren't.

This is why I loved the Mage system from White Wolf. Skills were actually part of casting your spells. Having high skill smade those spells mroe effective. Of course their freeform magic system had some other problems.

Edit: While it may not apply to anyone in this thread, I believe the people that are most unhappy about the changes in 4E are those with a high degree of 'system mastery'. 4E is pretty transparent and good tactics are more important than tricky character builds.

I've notived this too, actually. In my group the one who complains most about the changes is the guy who has an uncanny ability to master gaming systems in no time...