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

[Dice4Hire]

Goig back to the OP's question, how to meld, I was looking at reserve feats from Complete mage. I love the things, that power every round for no cost, and have used them a lot.

And guess what, they don't change the game hardly at all.

So would getting encounter powers, or daily powers or such straight form 4E be that unbalancing? Even at wills?

Honestly I do not think so, and I think that is how my group is going to go (face to face) We like prestige classes, and such, but 4E ahs some cool stuff also, especially for mages.

Our initial thoughts

Go through the cleric and wizard lists for game-breaking spells and make them all rituals. Standardize casting time and costs for all of them, in line with 4E.

Allow melee types in 3.5 (barbarian, fighter, ranger, etc) to pick a 4E class and get their full range of abilities, At-will, encounter and daily. Frankly I do not think it will hurt game balance at all. Keep damage and str/ex/cha hit bonuses as are, so the one attack a round will hit more, may have a special effect and do some decent damage. For prestige classes ,tehy keep getting abilities based on the class they were getting them from before.

For spellcasters it is harder, but we are thinking of allowing them to give up a standard 3.5 spell slot to pick a daily or encounter power of the appropriate level, and get a free at will at first level, maybe getting more later.

Skills go full on 4E. adjust starting skills a bit (5 minute's work)

And make a few more changes.

I think there will be some teething pains, but it sounds good to us. We play gestalt in 3.5 al lthe time (2 players and a DM virtually demands it) and were giving a feat every level, plus ability increases every two levels, and our games went great. Adding in 4E might be a bit of a struggle, but it should invigorate our game.

 

[Steely Dan]

While it may not apply to anyone in this thread, I believe the people that are most unhappy about the changes in 4E are those with a high degree of 'system mastery'.

My theory is that a lot of them are people who liked to play casters and are now bummed out that they can't pull their encounter/campaign ruining shenanigans they have enjoyed for so many years.

And some people love the Arms Race thing.

 

[Steely Dan]

I've notived this too, actually. In my group the one who complains most about the changes is the guy who has an uncanny ability to master gaming systems in no time...

Yep, we all have a player like that – the person who scours every book looking for things to exploit – gets old, real quick.

…Always some suspect interpretation of a spell, feat, magic item or what have you.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yep, we all have a player like that – the person who scours every book looking for things to exploit – gets old, real quick.

…Always some suspect interpretation of a spell, feat, magic item or what have you.

He managed to create a character that could do over 750 damage in one turn several times a day at level 25. And that was not a melee class, by the way...

On the other hand it did put the guy among the top of the Dutch Magic the Gathering competition...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Edit: While it may not apply to anyone in this thread, I believe the people that are most unhappy about the changes in 4E are those with a high degree of 'system mastery'. 4E is pretty transparent and good tactics are more important than tricky character builds.

I disagree and, while I'm pretty sure it wasn't your intent, would warn you that many people would take that comment as an insult. There's lots of reasons, in my mind, for a person to dislike 4e, just like there's lots of reasons for a person TO like it.

That said, I know plenty of people who love "system mastery" and breaking a system that have embraced 4e full on. As I stated earlier, you can't credit any edition to them.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

And that is the DM's fault.

He can make it so that the PCs don't get a chance to rest immediately after blowing their wad, making the players be much more tactical ("I can use up big healing now, or use a few smaller healing and press on at 75-90% healed.") There doesn't need to be a random encounter, just the threat of one. "It seems you've stirred up Grak's tribe, you can hear increased troop movements echoing through the corridors."

The DM can restrict scry/buff/teleport. And let's face it - in a dungeon, that wizard's 2'x4' mirror costing 1,000 gp minimum is very easily broken and the cleric's holy water font costing 100gp or more is gonna be too cumbersome to lug around when you want to do some scrying.

How many people remember to use the d% roll on the teleport table when casting that spell?

Buff spells? That 1 min/level effectively means per encounter because the intent is that immediately after combat, the PCs are spending the next few minutes catching their breath and mopping up. No way any DM worth his salt should allow a Bull's Strength spell to last more than one encounter. Unfortunately, this is implied but never explicitly stated, in the 3e rulebooks.

 

[3catcircus]

Clerics gain every spell on the list, so, spellcraft and whatnot does not restrain clerics.

Wizards gain 2 spells EVERY level. 4 spells of every spell level, for free. No chance of failure. You don't have to go into splats and whatnot to have incredibly powerful spells. Spells that were effectively save or die occur at every level. Color Spray, Web, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Black Tentacles, take your pick.

Yes - and it requires the DM to have some stones and say "That spell isn't on the list - you have no access to it in my campaign."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And that is the DM's fault.

He can make it so that the PCs don't get a chance to rest immediately after blowing their wad, making the players be much more tactical ("I can use up big healing now, or use a few smaller healing and press on at 75-90% healed.") There doesn't need to be a random encounter, just the threat of one. "It seems you've stirred up Grak's tribe, you can hear increased troop movements echoing through the corridors."

What's with a DM and party that are actually not interested in running such scenarios? Maybe their adventures involve a lot of non-combat activities that don't require spells, making one combat encounter per day a reasonable assumption?

The DM can restrict scry/buff/teleport. And let's face it - in a dungeon, that wizard's 2'x4' mirror costing 1,000 gp minimum is very easily broken and the cleric's holy water font costing 100gp or more is gonna be too cumbersome to lug around when you want to do some scrying.

Bag of Holding / Portable Hole. Magic solves all your problems. Especially the magical ones.

How many people remember to use the d% roll on the teleport table when casting that spell?

Every time. (Unless I am using Greater Teleport). Astoundingly, it never failed.

Buff spells? That 1 min/level effectively means per encounter because the intent is that immediately after combat, the PCs are spending the next few minutes catching their breath and mopping up. No way any DM worth his salt should allow a Bull's Strength spell to last more than one encounter. Unfortunately, this is implied but never explicitly stated, in the 3e rulebooks.

So, exactly the kind of spells that give the fighters a chance to shine more are those that have been restricted in value.
And why should they catch their breath if there is no mechanical to do so - kill your enemies first, loot afterwards. The Bull Strength spell has a duration of 1 hour per level (3.0) or 1 minute per level (3.5). Unlike in 4E, spells usually didn't last "until the end of the encounter".

Yes - and it requires the DM to have some stones and say "That spell isn't on the list - you have no access to it in my campaign."

So, you mean 4E is actually doing the right thing? Removing those problematic spells from the spell list?

If I am given a rulebook with a lot of nice toys, why should I not be allowed to use them? I could accept this reasoning if their was a general note in the PHB or DMG "Some spells can render non-spellcasters meaningless. In campaigns where the party contains a few non-spellcasters, consider restricting the access to such spells, and inform your players about this decision." But there is no such rule or advice. The closest is Rule-Zero, which is meaningless. I can always rule out problematic stuff. But I prefer not to, since Rule Zero doesn't tell me how it affects game balance or playability.

 

[Psion]

This perhaps was my biggest problem with magic as presented in 3e (and to some extent prior editions). I hated the fact that to combat magic you needed bigger and better (or at the very least different) magic.

And I thought it was merely part of the game.

It lead to an inescapable arms race that the "mere" non-casters were completely left out of.

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.

 

[Psion]

Your position appears to be that the balance of casters and non-casters was basically fine as it was.

Yes.

I believe that's simply untrue and that casters needed to be reigned in to have a hope of parity between the classes, it will take a lot of convincing for me to think otherwise because all evidence I've seen points to this conclusion.

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.