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

[Celtavian]

The board is become more important in 4E. Which isn't always a plus, but there is just more activity now - not just determining the area of the spell and how many enemies you can get in your Fireball, but also where to push/pull/slide your enemy (from a Wizards perspective. Non-spellcasters focus more on where to move to get combat advantage or block the maximum number of enemies, or where to move to keep out of trouble)

Tactical movement isn't my idea of fun tactics. But we'll see how it plays.

Long-term is not required. A single combat can be enough. 3 rounds can be enough.

I hope your not implying that for my scenario long-term is not required. I threatened the party with permanent imprisonment of their fighter. A three round imprisonment wouldn't have made a viable threat.

Maybe for a kidnapping it might be viable, but now there is not teleport spell to get out instantly when you kidnap someone. Alot of things have changed and I can no longer design the same encounters I did before.

No amount of you trying to fit 4th edition spell pegs into 3rd edition square holes is going to change that. The spell system is very different. The same encounter tactics will not work and are not possible in the new edition. It is a very limited spell system with attack spells focused entirely on a per encounter basis and rituals focused on non-combat situations.

You may not have a found numerous uses for spells that last more than a round or do something 4th edition deems too powerful, but I did. No way you spin it will change that truth.

4E will not support a very long string of encounters, but the individual encounters will be far bigger. The toughest fight we played so far was a 4-player party against a level 6 encounter, consisting out of like 17 enemies (including the BBEG and his "lieutenant", coming in two waves (the second wave 3 rounds after the first). The encounter was too tough, to be honest, but the party still survived (barely, with the last one standing being the Dwarven Wizard.)

Yeah. I'm wondering about how these encounters work. I was looking at some high level monsters in 4th edition. Boy, they look unbeatable. Then the fact they are putting them together with other tough monsters makes the entire encounter look unbeatable. I'm looking forward to seeing how it works.

No, it's teamwork. And that's were the fun lies. Well, at least for a lot of gamers.

There was never a lack of teamwork in my groups. The way you and a few others on this post make it sound, you would think the wizard alone was winning all the encounters. That certainly wasn't the case in our groups.

We played as a team. Myself and the other guy that Dms made encounters where there was not a choice to do otherwise.

So if you think 4th edition requires more teamwork than 3rd edition, you were playing in a very different fashion than my group was.

 

[Celtavian]

To the OP: I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're missing having a spell for every possible problem. I think the 4E wizard is fine. It's still the most flexible class in 4E. Their spell book allows them to have twice (or with a single feat thrice) as many daily and utility powers in their arsenal as everyone else.

I may try one.

It's also an improvement they got rid of rarely used skills. You want a character who was a carpenter before his adventuring career? No problem: Just mention it in his background. IIRC, the 4E PHB even encourages doing things like this.

No more wasting skill points on flavor skills.

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 think you are correct. I have mastered every game system I've ever played.

Even now, after barely reading the fourth edition books, I've already figured out more than the guys I'm playing with including most effective damage types, how they balanced weapons, how to best design a character, and what kind of feat scheme will be effective for what I want to do, a bunch of the nuances of combat, how temporary hit points work (hasn't really changed), and just a variety of small rules. I've done all this without playin the game. I see and can visualize and comprehend how it interacts in the game.

Probably why I had such fun playing wizards and priests in 3rd edition. And not the simple blaster or healer, but the guy who came up with the strats and got the party to execute them. Hopefully, I can still do that in this game. We'll see how it goes once I figure out how all these powers work.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

I'm thinking of doing some of this too. But I am very careful about house rules and I want to see how it all works together first.

Primarily I just want to have fun. If I can do that in 4th edition, then I'll be cool with it as is.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Wasn't who I was. I DMed alot. I never liked exploits. Clever use of spells and exploits are two different things. We didn't allowed skewed interpretations of spells.

I'm happy I played with a group of guys that didn't like exploits and didn't try to do outlandish things. Or once someone did do an outlandish thing (and not to screw over the DM, but just because they thought it would be cool), we usually adjusted it with a house rule.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Well ladies and gents,

I'm out of this thread. Thank you for the nice discussion. I'm giving 4th edition a try with some friends that like it. It isn't my idea version of DnD (or should I say a fantasy role-playing game), but if it can be fun to do with my buddies, it will serve its purpose. It at least got them all to read the books, whereas they were too put off by the numerous of books of 3.5 to read them. Made my time gaming with them a bit of a bore as I had to answer all their rule questions. Now I can sit back and play.

Though I don't like the 4th edition spell system, I like some of what they did with monsters. Should make certain encounters more challenging.

Good day to all. Have fun gaming no matter what edition or game you choose. Let's face it, the main reason to game is to get together with a bunch of friends and pretend you're heroes (or whatever suits you) going on some great adventures you will never get to do in real life.

 

[Scribble]

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

I dissagree with your answer, however.

That's giving sente to the party. That's what random and unexpected encounters and putting PC on the clock is for.

I feel that this idea is almost railroading in a way.

"Oh look ANOTHER "random" encounter, or ANOTHER time sensative mission!"

Sure, as a DM you could make a system work. You can make any system work. If it's a good system for you, by all means continue using it. But I feel a system should work, without my having to throw in stones to make it do so.

If the majority of players want to continue being effective, then that's the game that wants to be played. If you try to cram that style into 3.5 or earlir, you end up with one vastly overpowered character, and a bunch of supporting roles that can't do much.

if you try to throw in obstacles that prevent players from playign that game, it gets railroady.

So I completely agree with the changes to the new system. Put everyone on the same page, and give them all the same limiting factor. (Healing surges.)

And I feel it's the most realistic scenario, as again, if I'm traveling with a tank, and the tank overheats, I will wait for the tank to be functional again, rather then risk my neck in an entirely optional way.

 

[Psion]

I dissagree with your answer, however.

You are free to do so. The point being you were asking a question/making a point that had already been addressed. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself anymore. I can only conclude you didn't read the intervening posts or feel as if you repeat what has already been said, it will somehow invest it with objective merit.

I feel that this idea is almost railroading in a way.

That's an odd definition of railroading. No definition of railroading I am aware includes the mere act of introducing an encounter when they might not be up for it. If that's railroading, then any adventure that features encounters that aren't sitting there waiting for the PCs to get there is railroading.

If it doesn't work for you fine, but I'm not going to subscribe to your personally selected definition of railroading just because you think it will make me feel bad for disagreeing with you. I don't feel bad. My players have said things to me like "your games are legend" and asked me if I can schedule additional sessions beyond our normal ones because they can't get enough. I don't accept your scorn. I suggest if you don't like the way I run things, you don't exercise it in your game and stop trying to talk down to me, because it's not going to work.

"Oh look ANOTHER "random" encounter, or ANOTHER time sensative mission!"

And that mocking characterization has already been presented and dismissed as hyperbolic/not necessarily the norm. You don't like risk/resource management as a result of meeting threats when "off peak" then don't include it in your game. That doesn't mean it's "wrong"; I happen to think it's an enjoyable aspect of the game.

 

[Mort]

If it doesn't work for you fine, but I'm not going to subscribe to your personally selected definition of railroading just because you think it will make me feel bad for disagreeing with you. I don't feel bad. My players have said things to me like "your games are legend" and asked me if I can schedule additional sessions beyond our normal ones because they can't get enough. I don't accept your scorn. I suggest if you don't like the way I run things, you don't exercise it in your game and stop trying to talk down to me, because it's not going to work.

I've seen many of your posts on campaigns, systems etc. and I'm pretty sure you run an amazing game. But you know something, I'm sure you'd run a good game with 4e too. The question is does the system help, hinder, or is it completely indifferent?

My friend ran one of the best campaigns I ever had the pleasure of participating in. His game was simply brilliant on almost every level and I really enjoyed it. The kicker? he ran it using the RIFTS rpg, IMO possibly one of the clunkiest rules systems currently still in existence. I can honestly say he made the game work completely in spite of the system. This was shown as fact when he decided to run an old west game and we switched to Deadlands. Here his DMing was again brilliant but this time the system helped (between good workable mechanics and other things that helped with an old west feel) and thew game was even better as a result.

 

[Psion]

My friend ran one of the best campaigns I ever had the pleasure of participating in. His game was simply brilliant on almost every level and I really enjoyed it. The kicker? he ran it using the RIFTS rpg, IMO possibly one of the clunkiest rules systems currently still in existence. I can honestly say he made the game work completely in spite of the system.

Well, if it's any indication, back in the day[TM], I tried to run RIFTS, being really intrigued by stuff in their Atlantis book.

I soon concluded that it just wasn't going to work, and that game only ran for about a month.

FWIW.

I think it's safe to say that GMs have different systems that suit their styles. The very "strong magic" feel that is being decried here that 3e has is an instrumental element in my 3e campaign setting, and I don't think 4e would carry it off the same way. Some aspects (to be specific, the ritual system) of 4e work well to another campaign setting I have in mind, but it's not my normal D&D fare at all. But I'm still not sure if 4e is the right system for this campaign in other ways.

 

[Miyaa]

To me, what killed 3.5 wasn't the basic stuff, but were the supplements and their plethora of options. 4th edition will probably head towards that way, but having options for all of the classes. I mean we'll get a book with magical items, treasures, and possibly more spells in November.

Although I could see another possibility: Wizards will put in as much work on the current classes they have until April when their Player's Handbook 2 is in. Then they'll have a new revamped set of classes and their powers. And thereby, they expand what you can do with the current set of classes. Once the new Handbook is in, they might not do anything more with this core of classes, thus keeping themselves from having the problem of having too many options for players to choose from at the end of the second year.

If books like the Nine Swords, Tome of Magic are any indication, they may have gone into a paradigm of having a lot of classes to choose from, with their "unique" powers and such. As it stands now, the magic system is alright, but nothing that could be solved with more powers and rituals heading down the pike. The classes aren't that cookie-cutter like; they're more like you're gestalting with a Bard, who can do a few things that wouldn't seem to be outside your main class.