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

[3catcircus]

saying the classes play the same way in 4e is ludicrous.


Brute Strike
Martial Daily Reliable Weapon
Std Action Melee one Target
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: do 4[w] + str

Expeditious Retreat
Daily Arcane
Move action Personal
Effect: Shift up to twice your speed

The attacks differentiate the classes and even the races pretty well. Fighters and Paladins try to keep melee with rogues trying to get combat advantage and clerics hitting and healing at the same time (they don't hit as hard though). Wizards cast AoE's, warlords provide combat bonuses and also can hit quite a punch, rangers do a tons of damage but are very frail and warlocks drain the hell out of an enemy's HP.

Even Eladrin teleport and Halfling Second Chance differentiate a halfling paladin from an eladrin paladin.

Bzzz. Try again. Next time, pick two similar powers - you've tried to prove your point by comparing a fighter's daily exploit vs. a wizard's utility spell. How about comparing brute strike to acid arrow or flaming sphere - a wizard's daily spell.

Almost every non-utility power is "Attribute vs. Defense and do x damage with possibly some other effect." Almost every utility power is "give self or ally the following buff."

As to Teleport vs. Second Chance - those are *racial abilities* and shouldn't be compared to class abilities. They differentiate the halfling from the eladrin.

 

[LostSoul]

There's a difference between a GM messing with a player just because he can and a GM making a ruling on a clause that is designed to provide a limit on a spell that is widely held to be too powerful for its level in a manner that meets that intent rather than the "accidental" intent of poor wording.

And there's a difference between a player using the rules as he and his group has understood and used them in the past and "the uttermost rules-lawyer hair splitting".

 

[Teemu]

Almost every non-utility power is "Attribute vs. Defense and do x damage with possibly some other effect." Almost every utility power is "give self or ally the following buff."

I don't see how that differs much from 3e. Fighters and the rest roll their attack against opponents AC and deal damage, casters attack much in the same way, attack roll + damage or just damage and saving throw (inverted attack roll). 3e "utility" powers tend to give buffs to self or allies.

 

[3catcircus]

I don't see how that differs much from 3e. Fighters and the rest roll their attack against opponents AC and deal damage, casters attack much in the same way, attack roll + damage or just damage and saving throw (inverted attack roll). 3e "utility" powers tend to give buffs to self or allies.

In 3e, if a caster rolled to attack, it was based on BAB (Str or Dex). Now, they get to be just as good at melee/ranged attacks since they can use their Int/Wis/Cha stats.

 

[Mort]

In 3e, if a caster rolled to attack, it was based on BAB (Str or Dex). Now, they get to be just as good at melee/ranged attacks since they can use their Int/Wis/Cha stats.

Well except for the fact that in prior editions most of the time they didn't have to roll to hit at at all (e.g. magic missile area damage spells etc.) or in 3e had touch attacks which were often much better than standard melee/ranged attacks and more than compensated for the casters reduced BAB. I think the fact that everyone plays by the same rules when targeting/hitting is a good improvement.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Bzzz. Try again. Next time, pick two similar powers - you've tried to prove your point by comparing a fighter's daily exploit vs. a wizard's utility spell. How about comparing brute strike to acid arrow or flaming sphere - a wizard's daily spell.

Okay. Let's do that.

Brute Strike - Fighter Attack 1
Daily - Martial, Relieable, Weapon
Standard Action - Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Str vs AC
Hit: 3W + STR damage

Acid Arrow - Wizard Attack 1
Daily - Acid, Arcane, Implement
Standard Action - Ranged 20
Primary Target: One creature
Attack: Int vs Ref
Hit: 2d8+INT acid amage and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends). Make a secondary attack:
- Seconday Attack Target: Each creature adjacent to the primary target.
- Seconday AttacK: Intelligence vs Reflex
Hit: 1d8+INT acid damage, and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends)
Miss: Half damage, and ongoing 2 acid damage to primary target (save ends), and no secondary attack.

These powers are so incredibly similar and feel so much the same.
I mean, come on, a ranged attack with a range of 20 is nearly the same as a melee attack. It's only 20 squares different.
Attacking one target and its surrounding with acid and having that acid burn over some time is very similar to dealing massive weapon damage in a single blow. Hey, and wielding an orb or wand (implement) or a greatsword is very similar, too, if you think about it - in the end, you're just holding stuff in your hand and something happens with it...

There is really _no_ difference between these two. If the Fighter had acid strike, it would surprise nobody!
[/irony]

I will try to avoid comparing a Cleric spell like Dispel Magic with a Wizard spell like Dispel Magic, or a Wizard spell like Fireball with a Druid spell like Flame Strike, for the sake of limiting the edition war nature of this thread.

As to Teleport vs. Second Chance - those are *racial abilities* and shouldn't be compared to class abilities. They differentiate the halfling from the eladrin.

Exactly. They are differentiated across all levels, and no statistical fluke will let you forget the difference, unlike an ability modifier or skill modifier...

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Anyone that thinks melee characters have so many more options now are just deluding themselves. Barring recharge powers from paragon or epic paths, you get four dailies, four encounters, and two at wills. Three if you're human. So after eight rounds of combat, you're pretty much down to two options. Oh how fun that is... The removal of vancian casting pretty much neutered all classes down to 3e melee, with fluff and flavor text added to basic attacks like trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, etc.

You're not going to use all four dailies in the same combat. Any dm that runs one combat per session and allows an extended rest before the next session is running the game wrong. So... any combat that lasts past six or seven rounds is going to be using the same power over and over. Sure do got a lot of variety there.

They should have stuck with vancian casting with a pared down and fixed spell list that removed the broken aspects of it since power gamers have no self-control and will use any and every advantage regardless of how it affects the game overall.

 

[Mort]

Anyone that thinks melee characters have so many more options now are just deluding themselves. Barring recharge powers from paragon or epic paths, you get four dailies, four encounters, and two at wills. Three if you're human. So after eight rounds of combat, you're pretty much down to two options. Oh how fun that is... The removal of vancian casting pretty much neutered all classes down to 3e melee, with fluff and flavor text added to basic attacks like trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, etc.

It's a vast improvement over the options warriors had before. Good fluff and flavor text makes makes for a good combat so I don't really see this as a problem.

Let me ask you this, when was the last time you saw a fighter do something different 8 rounds in a row? 8 rounds is a long time especially considering that they will not be all next to each other, some rounds involve movement, basic attacks, other positioning etc. The fact that you actually have 8 different things to do is 6-7 more than the fighter had in previous editions.

You're not going to use all four dailies in the same combat. Any dm that runs one combat per session and allows an extended rest before the next session is running the game wrong. So... any combat that lasts past six or seven rounds is going to be using the same power over and over. Sure do got a lot of variety there.

Again, it's a lot more than before and it gives a lot of variety to combat.

Also, this "you're doing it wrong comment" misses the mark. Sometimes there will be multiple combats, sometimes there will only be one - variety is key. But more than that if the DM keeps the players engaged and having fun he's doing it right; there are no other criteria.

They should have stuck with vancian casting with a pared down and fixed spell list that removed the broken aspects of it...

This does nothing to solve the problem of the fighters only having a very limited number of options - even if they perfectly fixed the spell system.

...since power gamers have no self-control and will use any and every advantage regardless of how it affects the game overall.

This is a very cynical almost hostile approach - certain gamers have certain play styles - it's as much a job of the DM to adjust to them as theirs to adjust to him.

That said assuming everyone is just out to break the system and ruin your game is 1) a self fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen and 2) really selling short the majority of gamers.

Besides a little power gamer is a good thing, it means players are engaged and paying attention.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

You sound like another guy who hasn't played high level DnD. Dragons, demons, other wizards, priests, arcane hybrids, half-fiend melee combos, devils, angels, and numerous other high CR creatures that could take a wizard out one on one. And they can fly or use magic on their own so that the wizard is on his own.

Sorry, it is very easy to give the wizard a run for his money. And there aren't many monsters that can give the melee a good run for his money with a priest backing him. That's why I said the majority of you complaining about wizards must not have had very good priests.

A priest and melee class together was a nightmare for just about any being to deal with. Enormous physical damage, high hit points, and a priest to keep them healed and buffed to the point where they were able to compete.

You didn't play with one, if you did, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

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.

Most high level creatures have SR and enormous saves. If I was running an NPC party, I gave them a priest. Design the parties for maximum interaction, just like the PCs are designed. There is no reason whatsoever to design groups like they do in modules, which was just ignorant on the part of module designers.

A major flaw of 3E was making equal level characters an equal level challenge. That was utterly stupid. A lvl 6 wizard was not a CR 6 monster.

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.

See above. I'll just reiterate that a good priest made melees god-like and nearly invincible. They could make any wizard run out of spells.

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.

As I said, there were some serious design flaws in the 3E monsters. They corrected some of those in 3.5. They never did get around to correcting classed NPC CRs. Since I understood how the game worked, I took it upon myself to do so.

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.

Melees strength was continuous unlimited damage. This was a very powerful ability when coupled with a cleric.

I truly doubt you played with a skilled priest to ask this question. Non-casters shouldn't be able to deal with certain enemies without the help of magic. That is what makes the classes have to work together.

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

This might be nice. But I'll still miss the pleasure of playing a cleric. I liked helping my party win.

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.

If you played as a passive DM that didn't think much about the encounter, you are correct.

I didn't. If my party went after the big bad, they had best win. Because they are getting harassed and not being allowed to rest. Or the enemy is going to get their spells ready too.

I just didn't think the same way as other DMs. My thinking on encounters was to make a few really tough encounters with a ton of NPCs and monsters. I wanted the party to feel like they were in a war and had no time to rest or prepare or change tactics.

Our campaigns were so harsh that we instituted a house rule that gave each player hero points. This allowed them to avoid certain death. You know what? People still died. Even with 1 hero point a level that can avert death.

If you run standard modules, you will experience what you are talking about, even with just melees. There were plenty of overpowered melee combos as there are were overpowred caster combos. You certainly don't need a save or die spell when you're a melee doing well over a 100 points of damage a round.

So don't give me this trash about melees being weak in 3.5. They weren't as versatile, but they did plenty of damage. Unless you were gimping your melees on magic items, then all those high level melees had stacked weapons with feats up to ying yang and did horrible damage that made a mage blush when they got into damage range.

I had more melees kill my encounters just by winning initiative and getting a lucky crit than mages with save or dies.

So I'm fairly happy that 4th edition reduced melee damage output as well as spell versatility. Melee damage output in 3.5 got out of hand at high levels just as much as magic did.

When I say I miss the magic system, I'm talking about the versatility and the play/counterplay aspect of learning to be a good spellcaster that helped your other group.

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.

Well, I'm giving 4th edition a try. But I know for a fact it doesn't have the type of magic system I like. Neither did 3.5, but it was a whole lot closer to what I like than 4.0.

 

[Celtavian]

How?

How does a 14th level character have close to 20 hp's per level?

I didn't realize it would get so out of hand. But if you want the mechanics of it here they are:

Martial Aritist 10
Armored Pugilist 4
Earth Genasi: +2 Con
Vow of Poverty: Main stat increase I think +6 right now stacked onto con.
General point increases:+3 Con
(total of 29 Con right now which is a +9 modifier)'
Improved toughness
Lucky hit point rolls

That is how. He gets +10 hit points a level right now. I know, it's insane. But that is how he built his character. What am I going to do? Tell him he can't boost his Con?

What? You didn't have wands, scrolls or potions in your game? Limited by lots? Not after about 9th level. What else does a wizard have to spend his money on? Heck, the cleric, after he's got some shiny armor, might as well bulk up on the same. Most of the really juicy spells are under 4th level anyway.

A wizard spends his money on his spell book.

If you read my earlier posts, we tended to keep magic item inflation down. It was the number one killer of campaigns. Once our characters accumulated too much gold and too many magic items, they became nearly impossible to defeat because they hugh armor classes and nearly unlimited healing.

So we toned down the amount of gold and the amount of magic items released into the game. It worked wonders on making our campaigns easier to run.

Magic item inflation creates an arms race between the players and the DM since he has to match their power on his NPCs, thus releasing more and more powerful magic items into the game. So we just cut down on them to keep the game easier to run.