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

[Psion]

At which point the party rests, to allow the wizard to regain his best spells.

That's giving sente to the party. That's what random and unexpected encounters and putting PC on the clock is for.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes.



All "evidence"? Okay. Meantime, what I am hearing is that I must have been hallucinating during all those games where 1) everyone could contribute meaningfully to the game, and 2) I could reasonably balance the challenge to the party. 1 and 2 are, to me, the primary indicators/goals of balance, so AFAIAC, balance is served.

So, am I hallucinating that I did not have problems with the overpowered nature of certain classes that made the game less enjoyable for me or members of my group?

If we have so different perceptions on the thing, maybe it's not a fault of the system but a "fault" of our expectations from a game system and how it is to be played?

Well, it most likely is. 3E might be the right game for you, and 4E might be the right game for me.

 

[Mort]

And I thought it was merely part of the game.

I never considered it a good part of the game. I always like multiple solutions to a problem; not simply, well, you have to cast x spell.

If playing magical chess is your bag, it seems to me the thing to do is to be a caster. I found that my players who were playing fighters played them because they liked hitting things. And they got plenty of opportunity to do so.

The problem for me was that the casters could easily interfere in the non-caster roles if the chose, dominating in and out of combat. Non casters could not similarly play any part with the caster roles; this kind of one way door bugs me.

I noticed this while both DMing and playing

 

[Psion]

So, am I hallucinating that I did not have problems with the overpowered nature of certain classes that made the game less enjoyable for me or members of my group?

Nope. I didn't claim you did. Indeed, I have said (this is time #3 in this thread now), that if 4e works better for your group and playstyle, then that is what you should be playing.

I was specifically responding to Mort's invalid use of the term evidence, as if there were one true way to play.

Well, it most likely is. 3E might be the right game for you, and 4E might be the right game for me.

Just so.

 

[Psion]

The problem for me was that the casters could easily interfere in the non-caster roles if the chose, dominating in and out of combat. Non casters could not similarly play any part with the caster roles; this kind of one way door bugs me.

Repeating myself, but I found that the warriors types got plenty of chance to strut their stuff when the wizard was tapped out and when the party was faced with challenges that were resistant or immune to magic. The high level creature selection is peppered with such challenges.

 

[DandD]

And you think that by creating situations where the magician sucks because said encounter is impervious to magic, so that the mundane characters might finally shine, when before, they all sucked and did nothing is really a good idea?

I think the goal to make everybody be able to contribute all the time, constantly, without forcing one or the other to sit out is far more comendable for everybody at the table. We will see if D&D 4th edition does manage its set goal, but its intent is good, better than that of prior edition.

 

[Hussar]

Yes.



All "evidence"? Okay. Meantime, what I am hearing is that I must have been hallucinating during all those games where 1) everyone could contribute meaningfully to the game, and 2) I could reasonably balance the challenge to the party. 1 and 2 are, to me, the primary indicators/goals of balance, so AFAIAC, balance is served.

And, kudos to you for doing what, apparently, the VAST MAJORITY of people were unable to. Hey, I could make the EL system work too. That doesn't make it a great system. It just means that I could make it work for me.

But, just because it works for me doesn't mean that it isn't broken.

Tell you what, take a look through every module you have. How many are time based? How many drive the party? Compare that to the numbers where the party has more or less unlimited time. You'll find that time based adventures are a tiny minority.

Why is that?

Could it be that time based adventures are harder to write? That's possible. Or, is it because time based adventures in 3.5 are extremely difficult to execute because combat is so lethal that going into any fight without full hit points and your biggest healing was a death sentence?

One kill EVERY three sessions. And that's letting the party rest. If I drove the party, I'd TPK them every time.

So, I'm still trying to figure out how you reduced the lethality of D&D combat. If you managed it, kudos. I certainly couldn't. My next 3.5 campaign, even before 4e was announced, gives all sorts of bonuses to the PC's, including using Action Points to prevent death because of this.

How are you doing it?

 

[Hussar]

Repeating myself, but I found that the warriors types got plenty of chance to strut their stuff when the wizard was tapped out and when the party was faced with challenges that were resistant or immune to magic. The high level creature selection is peppered with such challenges.

Ok, again, how often was your wizard ever "tapped out"?

And, even with immunities, don't your wizards simply rely on buffs and summonings? Direct damage is generally the poorest choice for wizards.

 

[Mort]

Repeating myself, but I found that the warriors types got plenty of chance to strut their stuff when the wizard was tapped out and when the party was faced with challenges that were resistant or immune to magic. The high level creature selection is peppered with such challenges.

I just don't see it. When the mages ran out - chances are the clerics were out too - and if the clerics were out the fighters simply did not want to press on. Sure they have unlimited swings of their weapon etc. but try telling that to the fighter at 20% HP and no cleric back up.

As for resistant or immune to magic:

Most mages could overcome spell resistance easily -either by spells that simply were not subject to it (e.g. the entire conjuration school) or

indirect effects such as walls and buffing the rest of the party. As said previously direct damage was at best a poor back up.

And high level monsters (and other challenges) that could be overcome without the direct aid of magic? Unless you introduced things such as the Bo9S I remain unconvinced.

 

[Psion]

Tell you what, take a look through every module you have. How many are time based? How many drive the party? Compare that to the numbers where the party has more or less unlimited time. You'll find that time based adventures are a tiny minority.

I really can't be arsed to bother. As modules constituted a tiny minority of my play experience anyways, I can only say that if this is true, I put the blame on the adventure writers.

Could it be that time based adventures are harder to write? That's possible. Or, is it because time based adventures in 3.5 are extremely difficult to execute because combat is so lethal that going into any fight without full hit points and your biggest healing was a death sentence?

Any fight? Again, my experience with D&D sounds like a totally different reality that the one the 3.5 bashers are asserting here. The only sorts of encounters that ever ran like this were the ones in which EL >> party level. Which are supposed to be the minority.

One kill EVERY three sessions. And that's letting the party rest. If I drove the party, I'd TPK them every time.

So, I'm still trying to figure out how you reduced the lethality of D&D combat. If you managed it, kudos. I certainly couldn't. My next 3.5 campaign, even before 4e was announced, gives all sorts of bonuses to the PC's, including using Action Points to prevent death because of this.

I do like action points, because they let you push the PCs more without risking death.

How are you doing it?

I really didn't think I was doing anything that wouldn't already be in the arsenal of any experienced GM who is willing to observe how fights (and other challenges) play out and compensate. If the wizard is hogging the glory, put some challenges in less vulnerable to magic. If the warriors are hogging the glory, go for more high AC/DR, low SR/save challenges.