Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Mort]

This assumes that the 3e DM had a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.

Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically wasn't a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....

The Auld Grump

A 3e wizard gets scribe scroll for free. If there is any downtime at all, the wizard can cheaply and easily scribe all the utility scrolls he needs. This is why the argument that the 3e wizard has to sacrifice precious spell slots if he wants utility and versatility is a fallacy (edited for earlier typo).

 

[Ant]

I agree with the Auld Grump. In my 3.5e games trying to sell or buy magic items in town was often an adventure unto itself.

 

[Mort]

I agree with the Auld Grump. In my 3.5e games trying to sell or buy magic items in town was often an adventure unto itself.

same question - what about the fact that the 3e wizard could easily make them (especially scrolls)?

I was in a game where magic items of any kind were exceedingly rare to find, and there were certainly no magic item shops. This made my mage's (actually fighter/mage but leaning more on mage as levels went up) ability to scribe scrolls much more powerful not less so.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This assumes that the 3e DM had a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.

Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically wasn't a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....

The Auld Grump

I commend you for it, and adhere to the same philosophy, but that would be a house rule. The default assumption is that the players (PCs) can either create or buy whatever they want. Perhaps not whenever they want or wherever they want, but that level of customization is assumed.

Terrible design decision, FWIW.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This assumes that the 3e DM had a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.

Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically wasn't a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....

The Auld Grump

And there isn't anything wrong with that at all. It was not the default condition of the RAW is the point. I run my 4E game with only a few trinkets for sale and everything else must be won as treasure. Thats far from the default for the game but it works for us.

 

[Beginning of the End]

A 3e wizard gets scribe scroll for free. If there is any downtime at all, the wizard can cheaply and easily scribe all the utility scrolls he needs. This is why the argument that the 3e wizard has to sacrifice precious spell slots if he wants utility and versatility is a phallacy.

I've got a 3E wizard who spends all of his downtime scribing scrolls. Here are my observations:

(1) He generally doesn't go for the stuff that duplicates things that the other characters can accomplish by using their skills. That's a waste of time and money.

(2) His scrolls do extend the versatility of the character and the party, and also supplements the depth of their available power on days when they really need to keep pushing forward and don't have the luxury of pulling back and resting to restore their spells.

(3) But they do carry a significant cost in the aggregate. At 8th-level he's now a level behind the rest of the PCs half the time and the drain on his funds was sufficient that the party concluded they needed to all chip in to cover his costs.

 

[Garthanos]

You don't have to duplicate another classes ability to over shadow them in what they do.
The argument I seen was something like : don't disarm traps you trip them up safely and easily without die roll or chance of harm to anyone for instance by summoning a pony in the right location. And that pony could alternately be a source of strength for carrying things or used as bait to distract monsters, or temporarily block them from approaching, or as supper if you are hungry ... the list is huge. Basically versatility = power, hang knowledge.

8th level I never heard as being abusively powerful.(In AD&D I heard that level touted as one of the funnest and most cross class balanced).

 

[N0Man]

Thats fine because this is a completely different point.
If you want to call it a good teaching aid for new DMs I'll offer no arguement.

But I'm not speaking as or for new DMs. Teaching is well and good, but let's also take full advantage of no longer needing to be taught.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here... that the DMG shouldn't waste space with stuff that is useless to people who are experienced enough that they don't need the DMG?

And as a tangent, the claim of "a subsystem for every single possible action a player might perform" is a total red herring.

Not really, because otherwise it's all a matter of what actions *you* think should have been explicitly defined, which is completely different than what other players think should be defined. What comes up and is useful varies greatly from group to group, and it's impossible to accommodate for everything people want to do, and so they offer some very good guiding principals.

Aside from liking pg 42 for new DMs, do you really disagree with the rest of my statement?
Do think that one size fits all is a good policy?

No, which is why I've stated many times in this thread that just because some people really dislike some design choices doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for them and that others don't believe they are an improvement.

It's also a good reason to help teach DM's some guiding principals to start with, so that they can then decide what works best for them and their group and adapt it as needed. The DMG does not discourage DM's from making the game their own, quite the opposite.

Do you think GM calls is not a critical cornerstone?

Absolutely, but uninformed and poor GM calls can really ruin the fun too. Again, the DMG offers a lot of suggestions, advice, and guidelines. I wouldn't consider P. 42 (or most other parts of the DMG) to be hard rules, but rather helping DM's get a feel for the art of DM'ing and learning to make their own calls by giving examples of generally balanced resolutions.

Do you think that the merits of a set of mechanics should be based more on one DMs ad hoc rulings moreso than the entirety of the system itself?

Now this is a question that is completely subjective, because it hinges on personal preference.

I personally think that having a bunch of confusing subsystems that have I (personally) would frequently have to reference and re-reference when they occur to not really be a huge advantage to a game system where I am not really trying to run a simulationist style game, but rather just want to focus on story, drama, characters, fun and action.

I think that teaching guiding principals of how to resolve the vast majority of things is a better approach than how to resolve a small number of things hand picked by the designers, which may or may not apply to your particular game.

Over time, these resolutions will likely tend to become increasingly more consistent and solid as a GM learns from experience and learns to apply resolutions from the past to new unexpected actions in the future.

Giving me a better grasp of principals makes me feel a lot more free to improvise and feel confident about it.

In my opinion, P. 42 fits right in with the old adage, "Give a man to fish, feed him for a Day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

However, I realize that some people want everything to be defined in explicit detail. It's a matter of taste and what people feel comfortable with.

 

[Windjammer]

One time we were fighting a cadre of leveled arrow demons and I concocted a strategy that took up almost all of my spell slots as the clerics just to put the melees in a position to take out the arrow demons because it was our best option. It was creative use of windwall, teleport, invisibility, and other such non-combat spells to get the job done.

That type of planning and strategy was completely absent from 4E in 11 levels.

That's what I'm baffled about regarding 4th edition as well. Even a pretty standard computer RPG like Dragon Age features the possibility of mages creating new spell effects by combining 2+ spells (or casting them in close succession), and the game has lots of options for you to combine different characters' combat options.

4E reduces that to PC 1 helping PC 2 by creating combat advantage or damage vulnerability. That's a bit too little, which is why I expect 5E to re-introduce that aspect of gaming. The casting time requirement of rituals all but ensures that the most creative spells in the 4E system aren't used inside combat.

 

[Windjammer]

is a phallacy

Freudian slip?