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

[jdrakeh]

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.

This. While the new spell systems isn't the old spell system, it isn't by any means a worse spell system, unless you want a spell system that is full of exploitable loopholes or pays homage to the now absent Vancian magic system of past D&D editions. If you're looking for either of those things, yeah, I can see the new spell system being a drag. Otherwise, it seems like a huge improvement, to me.

 

[mlund]

Ultimately, the way I used to play Clerics an Wizards in AD&D through 3rd Edition D&D was badwrongfun.

Seriously, the martial classes were just glorified henchmen at anything but the lowest levels of play. I was the main character with awesome powers doing all the damage and McGuyvering spells so that not only where the martial abilities doing irrelevant damage, but their skill sets were equally pointless. My spell slots determined when the party had to rest, for Pete's sake. All the non-casters were nothing but damage sponges in the grand scheme of things - not teammates or partners.

In retrospect, I see now that it was badwrongfun, and I'm not sorry it is over.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mallus]

Meaning that you now cater to one middle of the road player type, instead of having options for both ends of the decision-intensity playscale.

In this context I'm not sure what you mean by 'middle-of-the-road' player type. I'm assuming that most players are of the type that want to make meaningful decisions/contributions during the course of an adventure. I suppose there are players who prefer to make/take 'all' and 'none' of the significant decisions/actions... the flat end of the bell curve, so to speak. 4e will leave them out in the cold, I'm afraid.

Er, and skills didn't mean something before.

They meant much less. Utility spells made most of the skill list irrelevant by mid-level.

Considering problem scenarios like removal of craft skills, I think they actually mean less.

Craft is irrelevant when you're talking about common adventure-related tasks (barring odd corner cases). Skills like Thievery, Stealth, Athletics, Diplomancy and Bluff (ie, the ones you're likely to use while adventuring) are more important in 4e because it's harder to replace them with magic.

A poster on another thread was lamenting that infiltration/espionage adventures weren't possible under 4e because of the changes to the magic system. The idea that characters could be sneaky through actual sneaking and guile didn't occur to him. Hopefully 4e will serve as a corrective to that mindset.

 

[Insight]

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?

4th ed seems far better designed to allow for something like counterspelling, since you can now have a power called 'Counterspell' or something like that, and make it an Immediate Interrupt. The rules already exist to do this, and they are already better than the 3rd ed attempt. I don't think the 'Counterspell' power exists right now but that doesn't mean it won't ever exist.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Seconded

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.

You can make things as easy to drive or as hard to drive as you like simply by using more or less strategy in how you use the powers available; now everyone can be the fighter ("relatively ineffective in the hands on a nonexpert player") by using just their at-wills, or squandering their /encounters or /dailys; and everyone can be the wizard ("power/effectiveness exponentially related to the amount of system mastery achieved") with attention to teamwork & tactics.

Score!

The beginner class for D&D 4 is 1st Level.
For the first time, you have enough hit points to survive even a very lucky attack from your enemy. You have two at-wills, one encounter and one daily to manage. That is all pretty easy (until you begin to grasp the tactics involved with them).

With admittedly some hyperbole: Fighters are a beginner-trap in 3E.
They look simple, but seeing a beginner managing his attack bonus with Power Attack or Combat Expertise or later multiple iterative attacks with different bonuses can be painful. It's not the math that's the problem (well, sometimes it is), is also keeping straight which modifiers are currently applying for what task.
And moreover, playing the Fighter in his typical "Defender" role can be harder then it seems (but probably not really harder then in 4E, admittedly). And then you can really screw your character by picking all the wrong feats... Of course, the latter can be avoided if there are experienced players around (probably the default case).

 

[Psion]

Ultimately, the way I used to play Clerics an Wizards in AD&D through 3rd Edition D&D was badwrongfun.

You know that term has implications; it's usually used by folks mocking those who are intolerant of those who get something different out of gaming. It sounds like you are mocking yourself.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know that term has implications; it's usually used by folks mocking those who are intolerant who get something different out of gaming. It sounds like you are mocking yourself.

He's using the term in an interesting way, indeed.

I take it as this: "I had fun playing my wizards. But the rest, not so much. And I didn't notice or care immediately". That's maybe the only definition of badwrongfun that is not a kind of mock or insult.

 

[mlund]

You know that term has implications; it's usually used by folks mocking those who are intolerant who get something different out of gaming. It sounds like you are mocking yourself.

Sometimes being obtuse gets people to think about an issue a little more than speaking clearly.

- Marty Lund

 

[Vayden]

Sometimes being obtuse gets people to think about an issue a little more than speaking clearly.

- Marty Lund

Since I have no idea where you are currently registering on the sarcasm meter, I'm just going to go ahead and say that your first post, whether you were sincere or not, is basically 100% correct, is shared by the players who used to play full casters in my groups, and is definitely shared by those of us who didn't play casters.

 

[Psion]

In this context I'm not sure what you mean by 'middle-of-the-road' player type.

Someone who has a natural/enjoyable play experience with a moderate amount of strategic decisions, as opposed to one who likes a light or heavy amount.

They meant much less. Utility spells made most of the skill list irrelevant by mid-level.

I've not found it to be so, considering:

1) the limited number of uses for spells as opposed to unlimited skill usage.
2) the tight definition of spells compared to skills, which really have broader, more open definitions
3) magic has limitations in a properly designed setting that intelligently considers the implications of the D&D rules that creates opportunities for skill users.

I've run multiple campaigns above mid level, one to the 22nd, and the rogue and the monk had plenty to do with their skills.

Craft is irrelevant when you're talking about common adventure-related tasks (barring odd corner cases).

I see a few problems with this statement. First off, I'm not sold on the pure-gamist philosophy that seems to drive 4e. If I think my character would know a craft, then I give them ranks in craft, and not worry too much about the fact that it might cost my jump a few ranks. (The one problem I do have with 3e on this score is that I think it is way too stingy with points and class skills to be used this way.)

Second, I find this to be a problem with the "set scenario" mindset of adventure design. I think it's faulty thinking to consider only a limited set of skills when entertaining solutions to a problem. Further, it's inflexible on the GMs part to not consider the tasks which a character would be good out when designing adventures. If a character is good at carpentry, someone would seek them out for a task related to that skill. (No, that does not mean that the adventure will be all about that, but conceiving how it might be useful to an adventure is usually not too difficult unless you are talking underwater basket weaving. Heck, even that suggests a mission where the players deal with merfolk traders being plagued by sahaugin...)

Finally, the player should be proactive in thinking of ways that they can leverage their unique skills in creative ways to help the group achieve success.

These techniques are really old hat for skill based games that don't fall into this "common adventure skills" mental trap. Too bad the designers didn't care to learn more from those they were imitating.