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

[Mort]

One man's junk another man's treasure...

I can't imagine playing a wizard in 4e because they seem so dull by comparison.

Of course they seem dull by comparison - it's always exciting to be top dog and big man on campus - not much fun for the rest of the group though.

 

[Psion]

Of course they seem dull by comparison - it's always exciting to be top dog and big man on campus - not much fun for the rest of the group though.

You are ascribing motives to me now? I've already addressed this elsewhere, but I don't agree with this assessment and find it to be little more than 4e boosterism with little substance.

FYI, I principally GM, so obliquely blaming me for being wooed by the charms of the much ballyhooed wizard's power is off target. In my GMing, I find that as the campaign progresses, I've had to plan to counter warriors more than mages; the game comes with built in counters for mages.

 

[Psion]

The real limitation is the number of meaningful opportunities to use spells/skills. Saying a thief can pick a lock an unlimited number of time per day is meaningless unless the party encounters an unlimited number of doors during the adventure.

Hyperbole.

He doesn't have to encounter an unlimited number of locks. Just more than the wizard is willing to prepare knock spells. In a standard dungeon: not outlandish at all.

My experience is the exact opposite: it was far more common to see spells used in creative/non-standard ways.

Well, I think its safe to say our experience differs, but I think it's safe to say your experience is at odds with the fundamental philosophy of the game. Sure, there is the possibility of creative spell use, but rules-wise, spells are limited. Skills were constantly being subjected to batches of "new uses". But like you needed new uses. It was clear to me from the beginning that skills could be applies anywhere where it would logically apply.

Trying to the keep all of that in balance is frankly, a pain in the ass. The Magical Arms Race of measures and countermeasures (even reading about play like that in SepulchraveII's terrific Wyre Story Hours was too much for me).

Whereas I found Sep's story hour a wonderful example of the way a game should be run (with one exception...)

I prefer a system that makes my job as DM easier, not harder.

If you find it difficult and find 4e suits you better, then by all means, play 4e.

I find it natural, and better, a very compelling way to run a game.

Recognizing that there are a core set of heavily used skills isn't faulty thinking.

I'm talking about adventure design, not "recognizing" anything, so I'm not sure what you are on about here.

Agreed, but that isn't what we're talking about. We discussing whether the magic system should render the skill system obsolete, and if it does.

No, actually, at this point, we are not. I addressed the issue of magic vs. skills following my last quoted point. In the point you are replying to now, I was responding to the issue of why I think that 4e narrowed the scope of skills and made them less significant. If you don't wish to address my point, then by all means don't. Don't tell me what I can talk about.

I'm sure this comes up a lot in Jesus Christ Superstar d20 (and I would so play a campaign of that). And again, we're not debating whether carpentry has a place in the game, we're debating if it's made useless by the existence of the Fabricate spell.

If that's what you are debating about, you are out in left field. In 3e, fabricate gives you speed, not crafting skill:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Dennis the Player: Now we see the brokenness inherent in 3e! Help! Help! I'm being repressed by too many options!

 

[Brennin Magalus]

People in this thread are talking about the problems with the 3e spell system; those problems are much more prominent with a wizard than a sorcerer.

Heck the 4e wizard is essentially what a 3e sorcerer was - except with ritual casting to take on non-combat applications.

Then drop the wizard. Objection answered.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Seriously - I much preferred the flexibility of deciding from a huge arsenal of spells. "Today, we are going into Dundrak the Dead's crypt. I'll pick spells that'll help protect against undead attacks and help us in the event someone gets drained." "Tomorrow, we are invading the Elemental Plane of Goo. I'll pick spells that'll get us there and back in one piece."

Didn't matter whether you were Arcane or Divine, you had an arsenal to choose from. Now, you get a set amount. And if you don't like one or find it is not useful, you can't trade it out until hitting certain levels.

That having been said, I do like the idea of rituals. Perhaps a hybrid - standard 3.x rules for most spells, with ones that feel like they should be rituals using a modified 4e rule within 3.x?

 

[Gundark]

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 stopped reading after the first paragraph....sorry if this means I misunderstand you...after playing 4e now for about a month...(8 sessions) what you stated above just isn't the case.

 

[DandD]

After having played Shadowrun, or the Dark Eye, the D&D-magic system pre-4th edition was always the worst thing that offended me on a mental level.
Heck, not even Wizardry used the crap-tastic D&D-wannabe-vancian-gygax-abominable-freak-system, and Wizardry was basically D&D on PC. This edition is doing so many things right.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

After having played Shadowrun, or the Dark Eye, the D&D-magic system pre-4th edition was always the worst thing that offended me on a mental level.
Heck, not even Wizardry used the crap-tastic D&D-wannabe-vancian-gygax-abominable-freak-system, and Wizardry was basically D&D on PC. This edition is doing so many things right.

That's not a problem with the 3e "magic system." It is a problem with one class that makes use of the system.

 

[Remathilis]

That's a feature, not a bug.

Seriously - I much preferred the flexibility of deciding from a huge arsenal of spells. "Today, we are going into Dundrak the Dead's crypt. I'll pick spells that'll help protect against undead attacks and help us in the event someone gets drained." "Tomorrow, we are invading the Elemental Plane of Goo. I'll pick spells that'll get us there and back in one piece."

Didn't matter whether you were Arcane or Divine, you had an arsenal to choose from. Now, you get a set amount. And if you don't like one or find it is not useful, you can't trade it out until hitting certain levels.

That having been said, I do like the idea of rituals. Perhaps a hybrid - standard 3.x rules for most spells, with ones that feel like they should be rituals using a modified 4e rule within 3.x?

Honestly, that's what I DIDN'T like about earlier spellcasters. If you knew you were going into Dundrak the Dead's crypt, the wizard and cleric could tailor their abilities to suit the encounter. However, the fighter couldn't change his weapon specialization from longsword to mace to beat the undead's DR. The rogue couldn't take those skill points he invested in diplomacy to spend them in disable device (to thwart Dundrak's traps) or the ranger could change FE: goblinoids to FE: Undead because they were going cryptdiving. Yet there is the wizard and cleric, tailoring their spells to make them V.I.P.s by choosing the spells that give them the best results in a given situation.

I prefer the fact that a wizard might go against an undead without being stacked on radiant spells. Or a cleric's only offensive magic spell is fire based and there is the red dragon coming down the pipeline. I LIKE the fact not every problem is (at most) 12 hours and one spell away from negation, and that skills and problem solving need to be used. (You can't even rely on rituals, thanks to time and money costs).

So count me in the group who likes that wizards and clerics got some versatility culled from them; it makes them less all powerful and allows others to shine as well.