Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[TheAuldGrump]

when our characters were about 9th level, we explored a wizards tower. Every door of any consequence was wizard locked; meaning the rogue (in all of his pixie 30 DEX glory) had exactly 0% of opening any of the doors. Knock, on the other hand, got through the doors quite nicely. It's disparity like this that sours me a bit (and I was the one playing the mage, the rogue was even less thrilled).

That would piss me off too - an I might have my good friends Mario and Luigi pay a visit to the DM. (They call themselves plumbers, but that's only because of the work they do with lead pipes. )

That comes down to a DM deciding to screw over one of the PCs, and is seriously not cool. Not the system - the adventure was specifically set up to screw the PC. It messes with the wizard as well, because he has to dedicate those resources that could have been better used on other things.

The Auld Grump

 

[N0Man]

I don't actually think you'll find that this is the case on ENWorld.

I've played D&D since the early eighties, starting with the three-punch red book, and moving through 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 before 4e. Lots of others on here are similar. Quite a few never switched over to 3e, and several who started with 3e haven't switched to 4e. (Heck - I still run a 1e game, too.)

I don't think there's any connection between D&D experience, and whether or not a given player or DM enjoys 4e. It's a matter of preferences, and what you value in a gaming system - nothing more.

I'll definitely agree here. My first exposure to D&D was when I bought used copies of the AD&D PHB, DMG, and MM. I played 2E for years, and then 3E. After 3.5, my play became much more rare. However, I'm also a fan of 4E, and feel that in many ways it kind of feels like many of the things I liked from both 2E and 3.0, and changing other things into something new (that I also approve of).

It's not perfect, but it's a strong system and accomplishes what I want from a system rather well.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I don't think one can separate creativity from spell casting because creativity exists with any tool. If spell casting contains no otherworldly effects, I'd argue it was spell casting in name only.

What I meant was that 3E style spell-casting doesn't necesarily equal creativity while 4E style is the opposite. Creativity in encounters is good, but that does not mean the incredible power of 3E casters is required or good; that's what I meant by separating the goodness of creativity in a game, from spell casting.

Yes. Waiting 10 minutes reduces the interest, utility, and versatility of rituals. Waiting a day (or the possibility that such may occur) to gain resources increases the number of environmental variables players have to game with.

Interest? No. Versatility? No. How would time effect those things? Rituals are indeed versatile, and while it could be debated how interesting they are, I don't see how time affects how interesting their results are. Utility I can see. Some stuff you want to be able to fire off in a short amount of time. You want to send off an animal messenger quickly to warn the guards, not wait 10 minutes to the point where you could have gone yourself.

In any case, dailies are still in 4E, so you still have to wait a day for that. Wizards have the spellbook feature so they switch out spells, like taking out fireball if they're in the red dragon's lair or whatever. While waiting can reduce the utility of rituals, "There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately." I agree with you, there.

 

[jgbrowning]

What I meant was that 3E style spell-casting doesn't necesarily equal creativity while 4E style is the opposite.

I'd have to disagree. I think the intentional design of 4e is to reduce as many variables in spell-casting as possible to have only damage (or the removal of such), condition (or the removal of such), or movement (or the hindering of) effects. To simplify, if a spell doesn't do one of the above to a piece of plastic on the grid during combat, it doesn't exist. There are exceptions to that simplification, of course. 4e spells are specifically designed to reduce "creative" potential because damage/condition/movement balance in combat is more important than using arcane lock to split an enemy group into two groups.

That, IMO, means that magic in pre-4e editions is inherently more creative, if for no other reason that it can be used in both combat and non-combat spheres simultaneously, allowing for greater creative potential. I think this is indicated by the design choices of the 4e design group in how they developed 4e spell casting, rituals, and especially in magic items.

Take water breathing as an example. If a 4e party member in full armor falls into a lake, there's no chance of swimming down and casting water breathing to save him.

Creativity in encounters is good, but that does not mean the incredible power of 3E casters is required or good; that's what I meant by separating the goodness of creativity in a game, from spell casting.

Honestly, I've never seen the powers of casters in pre 4e editions as being incredible - at least until at very high levels where one would assume the power would be incredible. This may be a rare experience, but my games haven't been overshadowed by spellcasters.

Interest? No. Versatility? No. How would time effect those things? Rituals are indeed versatile, and while it could be debated how interesting they are, I don't see how time affects how interesting their results are. Utility I can see. Some stuff you want to be able to fire off in a short amount of time. You want to send off an animal messenger quickly to warn the guards, not wait 10 minutes to the point where you could have gone yourself.

Interest: casting silence in combat is, IMO, more interesting than being unable to do such - it leads to more combat permutations. Versatility: being able to cast silence in combat is more versatile than not being able to do such. Utility: silence that is both combat and non-combat usable contains more utility.

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

I think its the opposite. It's all based on personal experiences of course, but the vast majority of people I know or heard about who haven't switched, are people who discovered D&D during the 3.x era.

I know a lot of people who played prior editions and didn't go to 4E (certainly including myself). But the only observation I can make it that it seems to make no difference.

 

[Mort]

I'd have to disagree. I think the intentional design of 4e is to reduce as many variables in spell-casting as possible to have only damage (or the removal of such), condition (or the removal of such), or movement (or the hindering of) effects. To simplify, if a spell doesn't do one of the above to a piece of plastic on the grid during combat, it doesn't exist. There are exceptions to that simplification, of course. 4e spells are specifically designed to reduce "creative" potential because damage/condition/movement balance in combat is more important than using arcane lock to split an enemy group into two groups.

The problem is - only casters had this kind of versatility. Still do really, as a you could probably convince your DM to lock the door for a round or 2 with cantrip.

That, IMO, means that magic in pre-4e editions is inherently more creative, if for no other reason that it can be used in both combat and non-combat spheres simultaneously, allowing for greater creative potential. I think this is indicated by the design choices of the 4e design group in how they developed 4e spell casting, rituals, and especially in magic items.

I don't see this as magic being creative (after all it's not "creative" to lock a door, grease a floor, web a hallway etc. it's what the spells are meant to do). I see it as magic being more versatile which gives the mage a leg up on non-spellcasters. 4e chose to address this disparity; the solution is not for everyone but there was a definite reason for it. Mages can still do amazing things far above the ability of non-mages, but they take time to do it, meaning sometimes a non-magic solution is preferred or even necessary. And yes I have a bias here, I'm glad that the mages "six second solution" to nearly every problem is reduced in 4e.

Take water breathing as an example. If a 4e party member in full armor falls into a lake, there's no chance of swimming down and casting water breathing to save him.

You mean someone actually has to swim down and pull him out, or get him out of his armor so he can pull himself out without using magic? The horror! Sorry couldn't resist, I just detest when magic becomes the solution to every problem in a game. IMO this limits creative thinking to a great degree rather than enhancing it.

Honestly, I've never seen the powers of casters in pre 4e editions as being incredible - at least until at very high levels where one would assume the power would be incredible. This may be a rare experience, but my games haven't been overshadowed by spellcasters.

Mages have spells that can make or break a combat. Easy example, Evard's Black Tentacles, can take a fight versus multiple opponents from difficult to cakewalk as soon as it's cast. But forgetting that, the 3e mage can easily step on the toes of the rest of the party while minimally impacting his ability to do his own role - that, not "incredible power" is my issue.

 

[JeffB]

I find I must be squarely in the 4e target audience for some reason or another.

Myself as well- at least pretty close to square

FWIW (as related to the recent topic of old timers prolly not liking 4E as much as younger players)- I started with the LBBs in the late 70s. Progressed through 1E and B/X, glossed over most of 2E (only because I quit gaming for several years) came back at the tail end and into 3E which is SO not my cup of tea. 4E hits a (good) nerve with me too for the most part- which I could ramble on about for quite some time, but I will spare everyone

 

[jgbrowning]

I don't see this as magic being creative (after all it's not "creative" to lock a door, grease a floor, web a hallway etc. it's what the spells are meant to do).

When I say creative I mean available for use outside of the intended. I don't have a bunch of examples, because well, I'm not feeling creative right now. Something like using continual light to create a lure to draw up a big fish from the bottom of a deep river as opposed to using it as a light source for vision as it was intended.

You mean someone actually has to swim down and pull him out, or get him out of his armor so he can pull himself out without using magic? The horror! Sorry couldn't resist, I just detest when magic becomes the solution to every problem in a game. IMO this limits creative thinking to a great degree rather than enhancing it.

I'd disagree. The option of multiple solutions means (more than likely) a greater possible chance for a creative solution. If you only have a hammer, you have less opportunity for creativity than you do if you have a hammer and a saw.

Mages have spells that can make or break a combat. Easy example, Evard's Black Tentacles, can take a fight versus multiple opponents from difficult to cakewalk as soon as it's cast. But forgetting that, the 3e mage can easily step on the toes of the rest of the party while minimally impacting his ability to do his own role - that, not "incredible power" is my issue.

I never really had that happen either. An Evard's tentacles is useful (and if someone wants to spend 900gp and 36xp to scribe a scroll - more power to them) but there's only a few per adventuring day and they are available for use against the party.

I guess my experience is very different than others. For example, I wouldn't be pissed or upset in the least about investigating a wizard's tower that had every important door arcane locked. I mean, well of course the important doors are arcane locked. Is the wizard supposed to be an idiot or something? To me, that's not stepping on the toes of any classes's role - that providing an environment that's believable for adventuring.

joe b.

 

[Mort]

When I say creative I mean available for use outside of the intended. I don't have a bunch of examples, because well, I'm not feeling creative right now. Something like using continual light to create a lure to draw up a big fish from the bottom of a deep river as opposed to using it as a light source for vision as it was intended.

I have a problem with "creative" use of magic. To me, the limiting factor in spells is that they do one thing; want to do something else? find another spell or use a non-magic solution.

I'd disagree. The option of multiple solutions means (more than likely) a greater possible chance for a creative solution. If you only have a hammer, you have less opportunity for creativity than you do if you have a hammer and a saw.

The problem is when the wizard has a tool chest and everyone else only has a hammer. That's the issue I'm talking about.

I guess my experience is very different than others. For example, I wouldn't be pissed or upset in the least about investigating a wizard's tower that had every important door arcane locked. I mean, well of course the important doors are arcane locked. Is the wizard supposed to be an idiot or something? To me, that's not stepping on the toes of any classes's role - that providing an environment that's believable for adventuring.

joe b.

Well yes, of course the wizard would be an idiot to not wizard lock every important door. Just like it would be unrealistic to not encounter undead in an ancient cemetery (at least in D&D). But if there are too many situations where one class is gimped while another always has good solutions and options, the disparity can become jarring for the players.

 

[jgbrowning]

I have a problem with "creative" use of magic. To me, the limiting factor in spells is that they do one thing; want to do something else? find another spell or use a non-magic solution.

Well, that concept would be pretty foreign considering the history of the magic in the game.

The problem is when the wizard has a tool chest and everyone else only has a hammer. That's the issue I'm talking about.

To me, that's not an issue. It's really only a problem with a wizard with a large spell collection and time to prepare for the situation. He's a specialist's specialist with enough time, but for every day adventuring I've never found them to be that much better than other classes.

Well yes, of course the wizard would be an idiot to not wizard lock every important door. Just like it would be unrealistic to not encounter undead in an ancient cemetery (at least in D&D). But if there are too many situations where one class is gimped while another always has good solutions and options, the disparity can become jarring for the players.

The players could try not invading successive wizard controlled areas or try getting out of the cemeteries for a while. If one environment favors one class and the players are finding that a bit boring, well, leave that environment and go somewhere different. Or have a GM that knows how to spice things up, even when they are similar.

*shrug*

joe b.