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

[ryryguy]

4e definitely reigned in and tightened up the scope of wizardly combat magic a lot. That's obvious.

mid to high3e magic, through the use of "creative combos", could create a lot of shut-down, "I win" sorts of effects. I think that the designers of 4e probably viewed this as undesirable. 4e's more limited magic helps to prevent those.

Now, to the OP, 3e magic's shut-down techniques were a feature, not a bug. His group's play revolved around both the players and the opposition anticipating those techniques, preparing countermeasures, inventing new techniques as counter-countermeasures, and so forth. Sort of a magical arms race, in effect.

I think it's great that his group has had so much fun with that kind of game. However, I also think that the level of rules mastery required to support that style of play is extremely high. This, if nothing else, limits the number of groups who are willing and able to play in that mode.

As mentioned already, this style also emphasizes preparation before the encounter as well. That requires lots more work on the part of the group (as the OP has acknowledged). Again, while it's great that his group found this so enjoyable, it's not hard to imagine why there are probably many more players who aren't so keen about having to "work hard" for the sake of a game.

The OP was wondering if his style was rare; in short, I think the answer is yes.

That is not the end of the story, though. I think that there is a countervailing trend in 4e that promotes creativity and freer play which the OP may have missed. 4e's tighter constraints around combat magic/powers have also opened up a lot more space for free and unstructured play around it. 3e's deep and detailed magic (not to mention various other subsystems, not all of which involved combat) provides so many fiddly bits and levels and rules for resolving tasks that it gets harder to do stuff without using it. It's a really big box, but it's harder to see outside it.

What I'm talking about is a bit fuzzy, a matter of philosophy and feel, more than specific things I can point to. There are a few things, though - the DMG's emphasis on the DM "saying yes"; the DC and damage expression by level chart; the wide-open ritual system where the effects of individual rituals sometimes intentionally seem to be left a little bit vague.

Basically, as a DM, I feel better about letting players try crazy stuff with their powers and abilities that might not be fully supported by the rules on the page. The greater simplicity and transparency of the underlying math helps to guide me; the more constrained, modular nature of the individual spells makes me more confident that I'm not accidentally going to allow some "I win!" exploit that everyone will regret later on.

 

[Mort]

Then drop the wizard. Objection answered.

That's pretty much all 4e did - well that and limit the spell selection a bit. This was perhaps the biggest slaughtered sacred cow - and the objections and indignation have been proportionate to the size of the change.

 

[Mallus]

Hyperbole.

Funny, I feel the same way when people use the word 'unlimited' to describe skill uses or sword swings...

Just more than the wizard is willing to prepare knock spells.

Or purchase Knock scrolls. Speaking of, can you put Knock in a wand?

In a standard dungeon: not outlandish at all.

To be honest, most of my DM (and play, for that matter) experience doesn't involve the standard dungeon.

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.

I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking praxis.

Sure, there is the possibility of creative spell use, but rules-wise, spells are limited.

Prior to 3e this wasn't the case. Even post 3e, most DM's I know, including myself, tended to allow, how shall I put it... interesting spell use. I think there's a natural bias towards wahoo in D&D. Not that that's a bad thing.

It was clear to me from the beginning that skills could be applies anywhere where it would logically apply.

For what it's worth, sure.

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

Oh, me too. I could just never do it. My talents lie in other directions.

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

What I'm on about is that the fact that 4e removes some skills, like Craft and Profession, is something of a red herring when discussing the utility of the 4e skill system.

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.

Changes to the 4e magic system made the skills present more useful/valuable. When invisible flight isn't an reconnaissance option, then skill-based solutions like Stealth not only become more attractive, they become the method for accomplishing those tasks. The removal of a few skills that were essentially modeling tools ("I was a cooper in my former, non-violent life") and non-essential during the bulk of play doesn't change that. Plus, 4e encourages DM's to allow ability checks and skill stunts to resolve actions not explicitly covered.

Don't tell me what I can talk about.

Can I ask you nicely to be less sensitive?

In 3e, fabricate gives you speed, not crafting skill:

My mistake. I was thinking of a spell(s) in previous editions that created finished goods.

 

[Mort]

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.

And yet most of the time the wizard had enough for the job - if he doesn't have a knock he has a passwall - or at 13+ level the wizard catchall of limited wish (which at the 350 xp per shot was more than a bargain). Again the DM has to try pretty hard to stymie the wizard - and it's usually easier to stymie the rogue.

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.

My experience matches with Mallus - after around mid levels skills played (at best) 2nd fiddle to spells. When was the last time someone in 3e used the climb skill past around level 5?

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

I love Sep's story hour - but it is the very epitome of high level magic and magical effects eclipsing skill usage.

All that said we're drifting from the point a bit so I have a question. In 3e/3.5e would you claim that, all else being equal, a mid/high level non-caster is on the same power level as a 3e/3.5e caster?

 

[3catcircus]

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.

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.

In 4e, martial classes have the same options as the caster classes - pick your powers each level. The difference is that martial classes are more versatile than casters. They can still just plain old attack with a reasonable degree of success. The at-will wizard's Magic Missile is no longer a guaranteed hit. What does he get to do if he keeps missing? Waste his encounter and daily powers - those aren't guaranteed successes either.

In my very first try of 4e (Tuesday night), I played a cleric. It pretty much consisted of me attempting to use Sacred Flame every round. Because now, everything has been least common denominatored into attack vs. defense. The fighter uses strength to attack. The cleric uses wisdom to attack.

No longer do we have a situation where everyone was somewhat useful in combat with the fighter-types being most useful and everyone except the fighter being somewhat useful out of combat.

I don't mean to sound negative, but 3.5 spells provided many more options outside of combat than 4e does - due to the versatility of picking a day's worth of spells from a huge cache available to you.

 

[Mallus]

The martial classes had the ability exercise their chosen options more frequently.

True, but they usually exercised those abilities during fights. But when the spell casters ran out spells, most groups tried to stay out of fights until the casters had a nap.

I don't mean to sound negative, but 3.5 spells provided many more options outside of combat than 4e does - due to the versatility of picking a day's worth of spells from a huge cache available to you.

Absolutely. And that's precisely what some people find so problematic; casters having a huge number of options compared to non-casters.

Options are terrific... when everyone has the same access to them (like in supers systems like M&M or Champions). Plentiful options for some and not for others is a recipe for a headache for the person running the game.

 

[Psion]

All that said we're drifting from the point a bit so I have a question. In 3e/3.5e would you claim that, all else being equal, a mid/high level non-caster is on the same power level as a 3e/3.5e caster?

I think I've defined my stance on the issue pretty well. "Power level" sounds pretty vague and sounds like bait.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You mean the complexity of 4E is like chess, or you mean 3E was like that? Well, I'd probably agree with both, but in different ways. Or maybe it's more Rock-Paper-Scissors in 3E? (Spell vs Counterspell?). But isn't it also in 4E (Defender vs Skirmisher, Controller vs Minion etc.pp.)? It are probably elements of both.

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.

The chess-action happens on the game-board, not in the spells chapter.

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.

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.

I am not so much a fan of creating an adventure around a spell use. It is interesting for individual encounters, but the adventure should focus on things happening - cultists performing a nasty ritual, murders happen, Goblins attack villages, or what-you-have. The rituals came closest to basing something around a spell, but they are usually plot mechanics, not real game mechanics that are used there. (Since most spells do not offer the complexity of a ritual)

I was not a fan of making up things players couldn't use. I liked to be able to take the same spells that players can use and construct an adventure around them or a successful enemy. I didn't design the adventure goal around a spell, but I designed strategies and tactics for the enemies that revolved around spells useable by the players.

I always felt cheap giving abilities to enemies the players couldn't use in the case of classed NPCs. A well-designed, well-played NPC group should give the party a nice run for their money.

PHB and supplement spells should be able to be used to fuel adventures whether kidnappings, imprisonment, teleport assaults, and the like.

The scenario you described doesn't seem to be helped much by the new mechanics of 4E. Even if I can have a Brute Strike daily, if I am getting imprisonised in a 3E like forcecage spell, I can't do anything about it.

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.

You could get far with the durations by handwaving. "10th level character, 1/round per level? Okay, that lasts the full encounter. 1/minute per level, let's say 2. 10 minutes per level? Ah, if you make a larger travel, it will be off) and so on. But this hand-waving can be done easier without people getting trapped in the details. Also, it makes things a little less predictable (without hurting the game much) for some powers - everything that works with "save ends" is interesting. And it keeps players affected by them busy...

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.

Actually, all this is still there, but it is often not your single character doing the combinations, it is the entire group. (Basically, you provide the Enervate, the next character casts Dominate Person.)
Wizard casts cloud of daggers, damages target. On its turn, target takes damage from cloud, shifts and whacks Fighter. Fighter tide-of-irons enemy back into cloud. Wizard uses Orb power to extend duration by one round. On its turn, target takes damage again and drops dead/is injured further. Shifts away.
This is the most primitive example (and I am using the rules from memory, there might be things that make this particular example not work), I suppose, using only at-wills. There are a lot of more combinations, and some only arising due to the specific battlefield you're using (you said you liked using terrain...)

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.

Yes. So, don't give up. But remember, sometimes you have to produce results, and "Good Enough" has to suffice. But afterwards, continue.

I'm giving it a try with friends. I just told them I don't intend on buying the books and such.

For 3rd edition, I and another friend bought the majority of books. If these guys are so hot on 4th edition, they can supply the books this time around. I'm not spending a ton of dough for a game I don't much care for. I'll just use theirs like they used mine. I'm not motivated enough about this edition to buy the books.

I hope in the future they manage to bring the old versatility of the wizard and priest back while making melees as interesting as they are in 4th edition. That would be an edition I would pay for.

But Andy Collins stated dislike of death magic, hold magic, and similar magic that I find interesting is going to prevent a version of DND being made that I like as long as he is a primary influence over design. Give me back Monte Cooke or the 3rd edition designers that knew how to make magic powerful and interesting rather than egalitarian and limited. Magic is like living in a communist society now, and that is not how it is in the fantasy books I read. I like my fantasy game to simulate books. I don't see why you can't give the wizard more power (not necessarily damaging power), while making a fighter feel like one heckuva a bad to the bone killer with weapons.

It doesn't conflict one bit in my eyes. Fantasy games should be about balancing usefulness, not power.

Wizards are fairly weak in 4th edition. I'd like to run a few one on one battles against melees to see if the balance has gone the other way. I noticed that wizards don't have powerful defense or utility spells to make up for their lack of hit points. Even Mirror Image is a mere armor class bonus. I'd like to see how it works.

No one will fear wizards now that is for certain. They are just some wandering class in the game no more or less powerful than anyone else. Though that might be fine for some, for me as a story teller that is disappointing.

 

[Celtavian]

Other than the "tricking my players" bit (I hope the fighter's player didn't sit around the whole game unable to play at all!)

No. He was paroled for the adventure. I wouldn't do that to my player.

I'm seeing ways that 4e can spark adventure ideas all on their own. A couple for example:

1. Someone noted that it is implied in the Cleric entry that the Cleric gets their power from their ordination, moreso than from their god. This opens a whole kettle of worms with rogue evil clerics besmirching the names of good gods, and the churches taking efforts to put down these rogue elements. It could also imply that when a god bestows power, they can't necessarily take it away, which has fascinating campaign effects.
   
2. The very nature of rituals means that you can have customized rituals to put in-game effects into play that could not ordinarily be accomplished with 3e by-the-book spells. Undead Armies, Flying Castles, etc? All ritual, which may or may not be available to the PCs to find, AND even if they find them they may not be able to cast them (that flying castle? Requires the hearts of 10 lawful good virgins, whose sinlessness makes their spirits integral to the essence of a lighter-than-air castle. That Undead Army? Requires condemning the souls of every corpse you raise to the Hells.)

You could make up things like this in 3E. So this isn't centered around spells. Just some stuff you read which existed in 3E if you wanted it to exist.

I did not notice that rituals could be combat effective. So we'll see in what form they bring back creature summoning and the like that can be a combat effect.

As far as creating rituals that players can't use that give a huge advantage, that was done a ton of times in every edition of DnD. That is a plot hook and a tried and true tradition of DND. Design the "special ritual to summon such and such god" or "give the big bad a powerful army no one else can use". That is nothing new.

As for the play and counter-play, that seems to go on more on the battlefied than it ever did in 3e, whereas in 3e it was more about being prepared before you even get to the battlefield. Example: Your counterspelling. Unless you wanted to take a risk with dispel magic, counterspelling meant you had to know the exact spell being cast (or given certain feats in splatbooks, at the very least you had to know the school it was). If you didn't go into battle with it prepped, you were out of luck. With 4e, there was an excellent example in the video podcast recently where a mind flayer was digging into a PC's brain, and the other PCs had various ways to help:
One conjured tentacles to beat up on the mind flayer before he could succeed.
One tried to use an Otiluke's sphere to separate the two (but failed his roll);
One was using her paladin powers to take damage from one of the minions attacking the poor victim.

If you consider knocking folks around play and interplay, then I concur. Alot of powers cause changes in movement. I would prefer other options available like outright killing or a defensive spell like freedom of movement. We'll see how the options play out.

In many 4e scenarios, it's as much about teamwork as it is about the wizard being a one-man show, with his walls of force, his dominate spells, the vortexes of teeth, the evervations and avasculations, his SR-defeating orbs of energy, etc.

Wizards should be able to bring it. There big limiting factor was always having a limited spell selection and amount of spell power. The melees biggest advantage was no limitations on damage.

The melee system needed an upgrade as far being more interesting. But over the course of an adventure, they were the primary source of damage in our campaigns.

As a wizard, I supported my melees in fights. I guess that wasn't the case in alot of groups. It was a necessity in my group. Which is why I did it. If I unleashed on the big bad, he would unleash on me. Since he was tougher than me, I would be dead.

It's more about getting the enemy into position by swapping places with him, or knocking him out with sleep long enough to take care of some of the forces without retaliation, or forming defensive lines so that the skirmishers can't get around the defenders to wail on the softer members, etc. Where 3e improved on making characters move on the battlefield, 4e improves on that even more.

I did notice improved movement rules, which I like. The shift and such was a nice idea.

I will miss my Vancian magic, but I'll not miss triple the prep time for a 3e adveture as I am for a 4e one, nor will I miss trying to run a published monster with a whole-page stat block, or figuring out how to trim my homebrew monsters down to a managable stat block for one person to manage 5 separate ones of.

Yeah, if the prep time is cut down, I'll like that. It was a big pain prepping casters for adventures. It took me alot of time to prepare an end encounter. It wasn't hard making it challenging, but the prep time was difficult at high level.

I didn't much care if cannon fodder went down. I made them tough enough to last a round or two. But the big bad encounter took alot of detail work to ensure that it was a serious fight.

And I won't miss magic item inflation. I didn't much care for previous editions need to stack a ton of a magic items to be effective. I'm hoping this new edition makes it so that a few key magic items are all one needs to make it as an adventure.

A 3rd edition character wandering around stacked from head to toe in magic items just wasn't my idea of a fantasy character. It was one of the major flaws I didn't care for in my DnD game.

 

[Psion]

Funny, I feel the same way when people use the word 'unlimited' to describe skill uses or sword swings...

The same thing applies there. You don't have to get your party in infinite fights to make the fighter shine, just enough to tap the wizards out of his best spells.

Or purchase Knock scrolls. Speaking of, can you put Knock in a wand?

Sure you can. If I had a rogue in the party though, I wouldn't. I might put one on a scroll for if we got in a pickle.

To be fair, though, I think SKR has something of a point about knock. It's a bit too absolute for a low level spell.

To be honest, most of my DM (and play, for that matter) experience doesn't involve the standard dungeon.

Mine either, which is why I don't precisely follow your formula of the "most used adventuring skills".

But then, pick lock is pretty useful in city games.

I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking praxis.

An engineering company based in VA?

I'm just sayin. I can tell you all day about how I do things, but the fact that the books expanded on what you could do with skills on a whim should have set a precedent for their utility.

Prior to 3e this wasn't the case. Even post 3e, most DM's I know, including myself, tended to allow, how shall I put it... interesting spell use. I think there's a natural bias towards wahoo in D&D. Not that that's a bad thing.

Prior to 3e, there wasn't much of a skill system.

But as to magic... the fact we are having this discussion should be an indication that reading spells too loosely might be too much to ask. A find traps spell finds traps, in a certain area, for a certain time period, period. If you don't such limit it, it becomes a replacement for search.

Oh, me to. I could just never do it. My talents lie in other directions.

And that's fair enough. I'm not here to tell anyone else how there game should or will run; they have a better idea about that than I do. But by the same token, when I hear cries about how such and such were impossible or unplayable when my experience differs, I think it's fair for me to say so.

Changes to the 4e magic system made the skills present more useful/valuable. When invisible flight isn't an reconnaissance option, then skill-based solutions like Stealth not only become more attractive, they become the method for accomplishing those tasks.

I agree. But here's where I think I may differ from you. I think that making invisible flight not an option is a situational thing in the campaign in 3e. Where magic can do such things, any ruler who hopes to remain such for long gets paranoid and puts up divinations and protections that make things hazardous for a lone wizard.

And due to the balance of the wizard, when things are hazardous, they are very hazardous indeed.