Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Anyone else wonder why they didn't combine the 3.5 spell system and the 4th edition..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ycore Rixle" data-source="post: 4355398" data-attributes="member: 675"><p>Well, actually...</p><p></p><p>First, apologies for not reading every post in this thread.</p><p></p><p>So I have my name on the cover of Bo9S. Is it like the book that I wrote? Yes and no. The truth is that WOTC feels free (as they should, since they own the property) to "rip the arms off your baby, but it's ok, we'll give it new robotic arms that are much better" when you turn in your work as a freelancer. The quote is from Mearls, I believe, at a Gen Con 2006 or 2007 WOTC freelancers-only seminar.</p><p></p><p>The truth is that, speaking only for myself and not Rich Baker (who is great) or anyone else, I was trying to do with Bo9S exactly what the OP is talking about. Namely, work on a new melee power system that would function with the existing 3.5 spell system. The new power system would, I hoped, make melee characters more interesting and less overshadowed by casters, especially at high levels. It's neat that that system wound up being seen by most as very similar to and having influence on the 4e power system. But I didn't know anything about 4th-edition at the time. </p><p></p><p>So, Mustrum, when you say Bo9S was inspired by 4E mechanics, all I can say is that for me, it was not. On the other hand, at the time I started working on Bo9S, Rich already had a basic power system in place. Maybe he took that from internal 4e testing. I don't know. Also, maybe after my final turnover, the devs took it and decided, "Hey, let's run this through the 4e-ifier!" After all, as I said above, the final book is different in significant ways from the book I helped to write. All I can say is that from my point of view, the work I did on Bo9S was not inspired by 4e at all.</p><p></p><p>It was, however, inspired by exactly the sort of idea that the OP is talking about.</p><p></p><p>Edit: I'll also add that I think the 3.x combat/magic system was ok without Bo9S. That is, it was possible to balance fighters and wizards, for example, in the same party and in the same adventures. We certainly did in all my games, and it sounds like Psion did too. But my hope was that Bo9S would make it easier and more interesting to do so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ycore Rixle, post: 4355398, member: 675"] Well, actually... First, apologies for not reading every post in this thread. So I have my name on the cover of Bo9S. Is it like the book that I wrote? Yes and no. The truth is that WOTC feels free (as they should, since they own the property) to "rip the arms off your baby, but it's ok, we'll give it new robotic arms that are much better" when you turn in your work as a freelancer. The quote is from Mearls, I believe, at a Gen Con 2006 or 2007 WOTC freelancers-only seminar. The truth is that, speaking only for myself and not Rich Baker (who is great) or anyone else, I was trying to do with Bo9S exactly what the OP is talking about. Namely, work on a new melee power system that would function with the existing 3.5 spell system. The new power system would, I hoped, make melee characters more interesting and less overshadowed by casters, especially at high levels. It's neat that that system wound up being seen by most as very similar to and having influence on the 4e power system. But I didn't know anything about 4th-edition at the time. So, Mustrum, when you say Bo9S was inspired by 4E mechanics, all I can say is that for me, it was not. On the other hand, at the time I started working on Bo9S, Rich already had a basic power system in place. Maybe he took that from internal 4e testing. I don't know. Also, maybe after my final turnover, the devs took it and decided, "Hey, let's run this through the 4e-ifier!" After all, as I said above, the final book is different in significant ways from the book I helped to write. All I can say is that from my point of view, the work I did on Bo9S was not inspired by 4e at all. It was, however, inspired by exactly the sort of idea that the OP is talking about. Edit: I'll also add that I think the 3.x combat/magic system was ok without Bo9S. That is, it was possible to balance fighters and wizards, for example, in the same party and in the same adventures. We certainly did in all my games, and it sounds like Psion did too. But my hope was that Bo9S would make it easier and more interesting to do so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Anyone else wonder why they didn't combine the 3.5 spell system and the 4th edition..
Top