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

[Mort]

Tome of magic whilst a good book quickly overshadows the core class options.

No it quickly overshadows fighters - the casters keep up just fine. That right there should say something.

I like the Bo9S - the fact that 4e essentially embraced the same approach was a big plus for me. Of course that is the big split here, 4e embraced the same approach for all the classes and this is really rubbing some people the wrong way (those that hate fighter encounter/per day stuff and those that dislike the scaling back of wizards).

 

[Remathilis]

I'm going to try and stay out of this already getting messy argument as it is, but Psion is far from the only one who ran awesome 3.5 games wherein the wizard or CoDzilla didn't rule the roost. I also like the idea of "What, your wizards didn't TRY to take over all the other people's spots with ill conceived spells from other books that you banned? Man, they must suck."

And by "like" I mean "find laughably absurd."

In my experiences, the wizard didn't have to try. He had to actively avoid it. I always go back to the rogue and wizard example, but I always find it apt. No wizard, even the one with the biggest heart for his fellow thief, is going to pass up invisibility as a spell. It was too good a spell to pass up. For a single 2nd level spell slot:

• you could scout for hours (1 hr/lvl before 3.5) as long as you didn't attack
• you were not forced to stick to shadows or cover & concealment
• you had a 100% chance of not being seen (compared to a thief's % or rogues skill check)
• You could move your full movement rate, even run, without penalty
• You gained bonuses to hit and AC vs foes (though it negated the spell)
• Gave every benefit Hide/Hide in Shadows did (sneak attack, etc)

You can argue invisibility was overpowered for a 2nd level spell. You can make a point that rogues can Hide multiple times a day (whereas wizards were limited to spell slots, forgetting a sorcerer's 6/day for a moment) but you cannot argue a wizard, when he has invisibility prepped, has as good if not better a chance of successfully scouting as a rogue does.

Invisibility is in the PHB. Its been there since 1e (and probably longer). Unless the DM specifically banned it, it was fair game to trample a rogue's scouting role.

That was the problem with most spellcasters: they could do the non-casters job just as easily. A cleric with divine might (PHB) is a fighter for a major combat (and was no slouch unbuffed either). A druid wild-shaped into a bear is as good a warrior as a ranger (and probably a better scout and tracker, thanks to WS/spells). Polymorph opened all sorts of melee monsters up to the otherwise frail wizard (hence the several re-writes and final dissolving of it). These aren't estoric choices out of Complete Munchkin, these were common PHB tactics!

I might have been the odd one out, but I cannot think of a game I played in for long where the spellcasters didn't eventually outstrip the noncasters in importance simply by doing their job.

 

[DocS]

I don't get, and don't agree with,

To see how a party of unbalanced characters functions, you need only look at your own. Your warriors don't shine until the wizard has tapped out. Since you're using Horrid wilting as an example of spell choice, this leads me to believe that your warriors have to wait for a 17th level Wizard to 'tap out' before they can strut their stuff. 17th level wizards can go for a while, that's a lot of waiting.

Your warriors are 'Wizard back-ups', only shining once the wizard has tapped out. This is exactly the problem the 4e people sought to solve. It's right there in your party and you describe it as if it's some sort of 'virtue'.

You don't get it. I agree with that.

 

[Psion]

Your warriors are 'Wizard back-ups', only shining once the wizard has tapped out. This is exactly the problem the 4e people sought to solve. It's right there in your party and you describe it as if it's some sort of 'virtue'.

You declare this is a bad thing all you want. But the fact remains that when the wizard taps out, he's a warrior-back up. Considering he's often relegated to errand-boy, that might be before the fight even occurs.

You don't get it. I agree with that.

Cute attempt to paint me as ignorant. But FYI, personal attacks are against the rules and regarded dimly by the moderators here.

 

[DandD]

Being reduced to back-ups strikes me as wrong. I am glad to know that 4th edition goes away from that mentality, and leaves this outdated idea behind.

 

[Scribble]

You declare this is a bad thing all you want. But the fact remains that when the wizard taps out, he's a warrior-back up. Considering he's often relegated to errand-boy, that might be before the fight even occurs.

When the wizard taps out, he starts asking for everyone to rest, so he can regain spells... Just like all the spell casters.

And the most "realistic" thing in my opinion would be to do it. If you're big guns are down, why press on in danger?

 

[AllisterH]

I've always said that the WOTC 3E designers were in love with the magic users and that Redgar must have stolen their lunch money.

Even though the spells were the same from 1e/2e, the underlying system was vastly changed.

1. Spellcasters got more "slots" not just from their high spellcasting stat but also from the ease of creation of things like scrolls and wands.

2. Spellcasters actually in 3E get to pick their spells themselves or come up with their own spells for an easy price. Back in 1e/2e, the combo nature that we saw with spells would never occur unless the DM purposely gave the spells out. Thus, you might get wall of force, but there's no quarantee that you would get Cloudkill to go along with that.

3. Clerics (and druids) actually got decent spells. I remember playing a 1e/2e cleric and pre Tome of Magic when the new spells/spheres came out, many a combat, my options for memorizing spells just plai weren't that hot.

All 3 of these are why spellcasting became so powerful.

re: Tobifying the 4E power system

I'm pretty sure someone already asked Mearls et al about this. IIRC, WOTC mentioned they wanted to get rid of the minigame that was the refresh system.

Again, I wonder why players unload their encounter powers at the beginning of combat. Doesn't it always makes more sense to wait until the monster is bloodied then to release your big guns?

 

[Psion]

Scribble, I already hashed that point out with Hussar and FE on page 5.

 

[3catcircus]

In my experiences, the wizard didn't have to try. He had to actively avoid it. I always go back to the rogue and wizard example, but I always find it apt. No wizard, even the one with the biggest heart for his fellow thief, is going to pass up invisibility as a spell. It was too good a spell to pass up. For a single 2nd level spell slot:

• you could scout for hours (1 hr/lvl before 3.5) as long as you didn't attack
• you were not forced to stick to shadows or cover & concealment
• you had a 100% chance of not being seen (compared to a thief's % or rogues skill check)
• You could move your full movement rate, even run, without penalty
• You gained bonuses to hit and AC vs foes (though it negated the spell)
• Gave every benefit Hide/Hide in Shadows did (sneak attack, etc)

You can argue invisibility was overpowered for a 2nd level spell. You can make a point that rogues can Hide multiple times a day (whereas wizards were limited to spell slots, forgetting a sorcerer's 6/day for a moment) but you cannot argue a wizard, when he has invisibility prepped, has as good if not better a chance of successfully scouting as a rogue does.

Invisibility is in the PHB. Its been there since 1e (and probably longer). Unless the DM specifically banned it, it was fair game to trample a rogue's scouting role.

That was the problem with most spellcasters: they could do the non-casters job just as easily. A cleric with divine might (PHB) is a fighter for a major combat (and was no slouch unbuffed either). A druid wild-shaped into a bear is as good a warrior as a ranger (and probably a better scout and tracker, thanks to WS/spells). Polymorph opened all sorts of melee monsters up to the otherwise frail wizard (hence the several re-writes and final dissolving of it). These aren't estoric choices out of Complete Munchkin, these were common PHB tactics!

I might have been the odd one out, but I cannot think of a game I played in for long where the spellcasters didn't eventually outstrip the noncasters in importance simply by doing their job.

Yeah - and sending the invisible wizard ahead as pointman guarantees that he'll be discovered because he is way noisier than the rogue and will soon end up dead due to his generally lower hit points and worse armor class.

That cleric with divine might is now useless to heal anyone else while he is dishing out the pain.

Look - if 4e is more fun than 3.5, than play it, but I just don't understand what people think 4e solved. It wasn't a rules problem in 3.5, it was a player problem.

Obviously, everyone who loves 4e seems to love reading about the "roles" - striker, controller, etc. I'd suggest everyone who claims that the spellcasters were too good in 3.5 go back and read the "role" paragraph for each class.

"The cleric serves as a typical group's primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist. He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn't well served by charging to the front of combat. The cleric's domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well."

The role paragraph for the wizard says as much - that spell selection plays a part in affecting his role. Some are offensive, some are diviners, some are support for the front-line.

Look - up until 4e, everyone knew that the fighter was infantry, the wizard was artillery, the cleric was a medic, and the rogue was a cavalry scout. Each was expected to be very good in his primary role and maybe have some collateral duties. Now, with 4e, there is this misguided notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things.

 

[hong]

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."

... or you could just ban wizards. Seems to save an awful lot of trouble.