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

[SSquirrel]

And I still to this day, for both 3rd and 4th edition wish they would do something other than charge a flat gold piece amount for spell components. How about designing the option of tracking down your own components? I'd love to see that included in the actual rules, rather than having to house rule it as I have done.

You see, this is exactly the kind of minutia from earlier editions that I wanted to get rid of. We never paid attention to spell components. If they want to list bat guano and what not for fireball cool, if not I don't care.

 

[Celtavian]

re

And the abstraction is: the conditions for a maneuver are only right once per encounter, or once per day (or perhaps more if the power is reliable).

Having read extensively on fighting myself, this does not do a very good job of simulating combat maneuvers.

Though 3rd edition wasn't a great combat simulation either, it at least created fighting styles.

I like rule mechanics that simulate fighting in as realistic a fashion as possible. That means when the conditions are right, I want to be able to throw a sidekick or uppercut whenever the conditions are right. A boxer doesn't go, "I already threw my uppercut. I can't do that again for some reason."

Feats like Manyshot which is very similar to Split the Tree can be done whenever the 3rd edition melee feels like doing it. Where as Split the Tree is once per encounter as though there is some inherent imaginary reason why this skilled archer can't do such a feat again.

It doesn't sit well with me. It seems like they actually thought about the idea of fighting styles in 3rd edition, whereas they though more along the lines of "This is a too powerful to be an at will, we'll make this a daily or encounter". That isn't at all thinking about fighting styles.

If it suits you, cool. But don't try to tell me it simulates a fighting style well. It's just another daily or encounter power that has been arbitrarily limited for no other reason than game balance. Not because there is a good reason for it to be limited in such a way, it's just for balance reasons. Period.

I'm not saying that's the case with all encounters and dailies. Just that I think there should have been a different way of thinking about magic powers compared to melee powers. Melee powers should be based on fighting styles, not arbitrarily limited maneuvers that can be done once per encounter or once per day. That is not a good simulation of fighting prowess.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You see, this is exactly the kind of minutia from earlier editions that I wanted to get rid of. We never paid attention to spell components. If they want to list bat guano and what not for fireball cool, if not I don't care.

I'm not talking about bat guano. I'm talking about expensive components, not your sleep dust or rose petals. I was happy they just incorporated the spell component pouch for most spells.

For example, we house ruled all the ressurection line of spells to have to be an equal gold piece value of items valuable to your god. You couldn't toss out 10,000 gold pieces worth of diamonds for Ilmater or Kord. They don't like the same things. You had to track down what your god valued.

I would have liked the option to either purchase or a some kind of skill roll to forage an expensive component yourself. Same thing with magic item creation.

 

[SSquirrel]

Like I said, completely the opposite of what I wanted to see in the game. Like my favorite computer magazine Maximum PC. Their motto is "MaximumPC, Minimum BS". Glad you enjoy that aspect, I never did in 21 years of D&D

 

[hong]

At which point the party rests, to allow the wizard to regain his best spells. Or at least do everything within their power to avoid fights until the wizard recharges.

Heck, that's the POINT of the 4 encounters/day paradigm.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

I'll see how true this is when I start playing. But from what I have read, it seems to be the case.

You will only really understand what I am talking about if you have played a high level caster in DnD. If all you have played is high level melee, then I can understand your sentiment.

If you have never played much above 10th or so level in 3rd edition, then I completley understand your viewpoint aswell. You wouldn't see the inherent differences.

Since I don't know your level of experience with DnD, nor do I have enough experience with 4th edition, I can't answer your statement. I know I liked options and spent alot of time picking spell themes for my characters much like melees picked fighting styles.

I know with absolutely certainty that I cannot do this with the spell system in 4th edition. That right out of the gate limits my creativity.

As I stated I made adventures and encounter challenges around complex spell schemes that kept my wizards and priests on their toes. That does not seem possible in 4th edition from what I read for a variety of reasons ranging from spells have too short a duration to spells having too limited an effect.

Given that your play experience differs from mine, I can understand why you might not see it. I can only say that if you had played in our campagns, you would see clearly what I'm talking about.

Because all my friends that have played with me for some time agree that I personally will be very limited by 4th edition. They know what I can do with a wizard or priest, and they know I won't be able to do anywhere near the same things with a 4th edition wizard or priest.

I know it. They know it. I see no reason to believe otherwise. DnD 4th edition is a more limited game system for the caster classes, and less limited for the melee classes. So high level players who mostly played casters will have a completely different viewpoint from high level players who mostly played melee.

I can see why just reading the 4th edition game.

 

[3catcircus]

Wizards are of little use to me (I prefer sorcerers) but I think pruning spells from the wizard list is a viable option in 3e for those who want to keep wizards.

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.

 

[Toras]

You know, speaking as someone who primarly played melee characters in 3e. I think I played 1 Cleric during the entire time we were playing 3e. I am currently playing a monk with a vow requiring not to accept benefical magic in return for a greater resistance and other benefits. (Proto-Jordain)

My longest running character was a Mercurial Greatsword wielding half-celestial fighter. Honestly I never felt that I was hurting for spotlight and most rounds I'm throwing more damage at a single opponent than the Wizard (who kicked ass in his own right). I will admit to going outside the rules a bit with him, with the help of some friendly gnomes (gnomish inventions) and alchemy. Or using a caltrop to close a beholder's main eye so we could rush it with fly. But it was fun, and honestly between Dead Magic Zones, Golemns, Rakashasi, and a half dozen other things, I would have shined even if I wasn't a Walking Murder Machine.

I think our group was similar Celtavian. Counterspelling has been used often, as was buffing. After our wizard picked up the feat that turned a counter spell, it was actually a pretty standard tactic to make the villians make their own saves.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

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.

Right. Despite what some players think, the DM is free to exclude certain spells if they wreck his game or otherwise do not fit. He can also raise (or lower) the level of spells.

 

[Hussar]

After reading through this thread, I am getting the following.

A good number of players, quite possibly the majority, had the following conditions occurring:

1. You had a bad priest or no priest: It seems like the melee weren't getting healed and buffed by the neighborhood priest. I don't hear much about priests in the 3.5 campaigns.

Mostly because you asked about wizards.

2. Wizards did what they wanted: Melees were left to their own devices while the wizard flew around the battlefield dropping nukes like it was going out of style.

We actually have a player who tries to do this. He ends up having to run the majority of the time and having to be saved by the priest. Sad thing is he almost gives up on the encounter if he can't nuke the enemy down. I get the feeling that a great many wizard players from 3.5 would have been very disappointed playing in our 3.5 campaigns because overnuking or coming right out with a death spell was like signing a warrant for your destruction.

How? Unless you specifically target the wizard with anti-wizard creatures, the vast majority of creatures cannot do anything to the flying, improved invisiblity wizard.

Besides the fact, direct damage is the least problem. It's all the save or die effects that wizards get right from first level - sleep, color spray, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Web, etc. All of those are "bang I win" spells.

3. Encounters were not designed with the wizard in mind: Your DMs weren't taking into account what the wizard could do and designing encounters to make it so that going off and nuking was a death sentence.

I'll be honest. You could not play regular modules without boosting hit points and tailoring NPCs to fight against the standard power of wizards. For that reason I don't fault the majority of players for their dislike of the 3.5 wizard. That is a fault of the game designers for tossing out overpowered spells like Avasculate and Solipsis and Prc classes like the Archmage that required a complete rethinking of encounter challenges that might have been fine for a PHB version of the wizard, but were not fine when taking into account a wizard with a Prc and access to other spellbooks.

So, you admit that designing adventures as per the suggested guidelines results in cakewalks for the wizard, but, you solution is to leave the wizard where he is and change the guidelines? How do you do that without screwing the non-casters? Anything that blats the wizard usually works pretty darn well on the fighter.

So ultimately I can see why alot of people do like 4th edition. Thinking back on it, it did take alot of work designing encounters and quite a few house rules to make high level DnD challenging.

For example, we gave feats to Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians one every five levels. Fighters and rogues were more often multi-classed with a Prc than a straight class. Almost no one ran a straight class rogue, though Scout was one of the best designed single class rogue-types in 3rd edition and that was the most attractive single-class rogue type to run.

This is why I completely understand and like what 4th edition did with melee classes. I give them big props for finally giving melee classes interesting powers. I just wish they had not had to rip the heart out of wizards and priests in 4th edition.

But that's the trick isn't it? You cannot simply bump the fighter types up to the power of the wizards and clerics. No other class had save or die effects at 1st level. Heck, some of the spells are just die, no save. Never mind all the ways that open ended spells, like illusions, can pretty much negate the need for non-caster classes. Need a scout? Arcane Eye. Need to find traps? Summon Monster. Need to talk to someone? Charm and/or Dominate. And that's completely ignoring the fact that clerics can pretty much make all knowledge checks superfluous.

I include priests because I enjoyed being a priest that my melee classes loved. I liked being the priest that had that remove paralysis ready when a fighter missed his will save. I liked having restorations prepped so that the poisoned rogue or the unlucky melee that was ambushed by spectres could get his levels back. I liked having death ward so my melee comrades could wade into a battle against an army of wraiths. I liked having the big heals when the melee was going toe to toe against the dragon. I liked playing a priest and creating a spell strategy for keeping my party alive and protected as well as occasionally throwing down against undead.

Take Death Ward as a poster child. What ability do non-casters get to take a deadly encounter with something like an army of bodaks, and make it a cake-walk? The Bodak, without its death gaze, isn't much stronger than an ogre. Yet it's five or six CR's higher.

Alot of that is lost now. Priests can heal a few times a day not including healing word. I'm going to miss it in 4th edition.

You mean I can finally have a group without forcing someone to play the cleric and that's a bad thing?

A well-played priest and wizard was a thing of beauty. I don't mean just nuking, but also helping those melees on the battlefield as they threw down with the powerful stuff we were fighting. You could actually pull off fighting a horde of demons if your cleric and wizard supported their best damage source (the melee classes) rather than trying to do all the damage themselves. That made for some epic encounters I will remember that I don't think will happen with per encounter and daily powers.

We used to sit on the majority of our spell power until we reached one big encounter that would require we spend just about all of it one big, epic battle that took everything we had to win.

Now, most players will blow their encounter powers every, well, encounter. Dailies will be the only decision we have to make when to blow them off. Before you had to think about when to use your magic power. Those that blew it off willy, nilly didn't have it when it was needed much to the detriment of their group.

That last bit is a myth that really, really needs busting. No, you didn't run out of spells to the detriment of your group. As soon as you could, you rested. The second the cleric uses his highest level healing, you rested. There are many, many ways to break the system you are talking about. Not all adventures can have a forced timeline. High level scry/buff/teleport completely negates what you are talking about.

But as I said, this kind of encounter challenge took alot of work at high level. That is almost always a negative factor when it comes to entertainment. People don't play games to feel like their working. So I guess I understand the sentiment towards simplification, power reduction, and power scaling.

And regardless of whether I miss the old spell system or not, as long as my DM can still make it fun, I'll play. I like getting together with my buddies and throwing down against some baddies. Heck, I've played simpler game systems and enjoyed them like Boot Hill and Aliens. I'll just look at this as another game system to try out with my buddies.

Having played a /encounter caster (binder) for the past couple of years, all I can say is that you really need to try it before you come to any conclusions.