Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5784031" data-attributes="member: 53980">Apologies if I reiterate something already addressed. I only skimmed any of the new responses that weren't addressed specifically at myself.Who's talking about making you play 4e? I've already said I think classes should be balanced but unhomogenized. Is it that you simply don't believe that it's possible, or something else?That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things about 4e that they might not like, that would cause them to not switch. Also, clearly there is a play style (yours) that doesn't have the balance issues seen in other play styles under 3e.Unsurprisingly, I don't think everyone should have to adopt your play style just to play D&D. Clearly, there are other ways of playing it, and there are plenty of people who have voiced umbrage with the 3e magic system. It's not like I'm the only one.EDIT: To expound on this further, with my group's preferences / play style, while we did go out of our way not to step on other people's toes most of the time, it often felt like we were walking on eggshells with the 3e magic system. For us, at least, it did feel like we were playing with one arm tied behind our backs, and it didn't much appeal to us. We prefer a system that can be driven to near its limits without breaking, because it cheapens the experience for us to have to hold back. I think that's part of why we like 4e. We never have to hold back and neither does the DM.You say that a good DM and players can compensate for the imbalance inherent in the 3e magic system. I say they shouldn't have to. As a DM, I have better things to spend my time on than trying to figure out ways to nerf the wizard and raise the fighter into the spotlight. I'd rather give them both opportunities to shine, without having to worry that the fighter will be atomized during the wizard's moment, or that the fighter's moment will be trivialized when the wizard resolves the scenario with a single spell (probably not even realizing that the moment was intended for the fighter, but rather thinking he was helping out).And let me tell you, some of our early games were terrible! Just because I say my group is polite doesn't mean that that was the case when I first started playing. I didn't even know this group back then.That only works if there's someone experienced at the table. I, myself, am a black box self-taught D&D player. I taught the rest of my friends, after I figured out the basics. And guess what? I had no clue whatsoever that taking Knock would be in bad taste. Given how low the 1st level Thief's starting percentages were, I probably would have advocated the idea.I'm not saying that the wizard shouldn't be able to do any of those things. Only that he should not be able to do them as effectively as he does in 3e. Invisibility shouldn't come into play until after a rouge gains Hide in Plain Sight. When Charm Person wears off, the creature should realize that it was magically beguiled and react accordingly.Magic should have both limits and a price. It should not be the default go-to best option in most situations. Why even have a skill like Diplomacy if a 1st level spell like Charm is arguably better?Not only is Shapechange a druid spell, it's also a wizard spell and a cleric spell (animal domain). Druids are probably the most potent of the casting classes, I'll agree. The Wizard is nonetheless a better skeleton key though. Besides, the wizard is not the only issue. As I've previously stated, it's all casters. The wizard is just the example I keep using.That's the problem! The wizard should not have the best emergency "get out of the locked room card". It should be the rogue, because a locked door is his schtick and his time to shine. It shouldn't be a choice between use the rogue and die, or use the wizard and live. Of course every player, including the rogue, will choose the second option. They'd have to be brain damaged to do otherwise! And therein lies the problem.If anything, the rogue should have automatic success picking locks x time per day, and the wizard should always have to roll a check for knock. Or the rogue should have to roll as well, but the wizard's check is not as good. When faced with a locked door and no time, the rogue should always be the first choice.The problem is exactly that, in 3e, he's not.First, I'm not trying to knock 3e. It did a number of things well. I recognize that the magic system does work when using certain playstyles. I don't, however, feel that that is sufficient, as I believe that D&D should support as many play styles as possible. And there are definitely a few play styles out there for which it works quite poorly.Honestly, I'd be fine with them doing an entire huge line of D&DN supplements on 3e style magics. I just don't think it should be the default, because then it becomes nigh impossible to house rule out or balance.I have faith in the designers though. I think they'll be able to come up with a default design that's more flexible than 4e, yet more balanced than 3e. All it requires is a critical examination of the 3e spell list, and careful consideration of the implications of each spell's mechanics. Which in all fairness, would be a lot of work, but then again they're paid to do it!Perhaps that will mean that the party has to hold out for a round or two while the wizard gathers the requisite mana to cast teleport as a single round action, and/or that long-range teleportation is only possible to a location with an existing teleportation circle. Perhaps it will mean that scrying can only be performed in certain remote magical locations, and therefore officially becomes part of the DM's purview. I certainly hope it means that when a door needs to be opened and there's no time, the rogue is the man for the job. I do think, however, that it can be done.</blockquote>

Verification