D&D 3E/3.5 J Tweets 3ed BANE
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
TerraDave said:
Yeah, the requirement to balance an adventure against the incredible options available to a high level spellcaster is tough. Much of the good adventure design at these levels appears to involve carefully crafting the scenario to limit or channel spells. Given this, a more reasonable baseline for spells would be a more interesting game.
Irda Ranger
First Post
That pic looks like pretty much like most of my D&D sessions. My DM can confirm if he sees this thread ...TerraDave said:
Irda Ranger
First Post
Like that was hard. Iron Heroes doesn't have any Core spellcasters.hong said:
Shieldhaven
Explorer
Speaking as both a frequent GM and a slightly-less-frequent player of spellcasters, I feel like JoT's overstating the problem.
In my experience, there are multiple valid approaches to most problems, and I can use my spells alone or in combination to solve those problems. If I focus on the low-end spells, then my fighter buddies will be carrying a little more of the weight for that encounter. If I focus on the high-end spells, then my fighter buddies will be carrying a little more of the weight in later encounters. JoT makes it sound like a wizard's player is making a critical, stressful choice every time he casts a spell; if that's the case, he needs to invest in some wands or staves. These magic items give you something to do when you don't know what to do, and let you conserve your spells for when you're actually in a jam. But then, the thing I love most about being a wizard is always having just one or two more tricks up your sleeve.
As a GM, I can scale encounters within a day more sharply. That is, if the PCs have held onto their high-end spells all day in preparation for that last encounter (and you know they've been in the habit of doing so), then let that last encounter be one where they're happy they did so. But if they've already burned those spells for whatever reason... well, the wizard and the cleric (or other Vancian casters) aren't the only party members who can destroy enemies en masse.
I'm looking forward to 4e, but I feel like JoT's getting a little carried away with recognizing the problems of 3e. Giving players meaningful choices to make in each round of combat isn't bad game design, though I think it may be falling out of vogue.
Haven
In my experience, there are multiple valid approaches to most problems, and I can use my spells alone or in combination to solve those problems. If I focus on the low-end spells, then my fighter buddies will be carrying a little more of the weight for that encounter. If I focus on the high-end spells, then my fighter buddies will be carrying a little more of the weight in later encounters. JoT makes it sound like a wizard's player is making a critical, stressful choice every time he casts a spell; if that's the case, he needs to invest in some wands or staves. These magic items give you something to do when you don't know what to do, and let you conserve your spells for when you're actually in a jam. But then, the thing I love most about being a wizard is always having just one or two more tricks up your sleeve.
As a GM, I can scale encounters within a day more sharply. That is, if the PCs have held onto their high-end spells all day in preparation for that last encounter (and you know they've been in the habit of doing so), then let that last encounter be one where they're happy they did so. But if they've already burned those spells for whatever reason... well, the wizard and the cleric (or other Vancian casters) aren't the only party members who can destroy enemies en masse.
I'm looking forward to 4e, but I feel like JoT's getting a little carried away with recognizing the problems of 3e. Giving players meaningful choices to make in each round of combat isn't bad game design, though I think it may be falling out of vogue.
Haven
Drammattex
First Post
hong said:
Same. I went to Iron Heroes.
Also hoping Teleport (aka "Avoid Adventure") & Scry (aka "Avoid Plot") will be modified in 4e. Once spellcasters get those spells, the game changes. The DM has to write adventures differently and include dozens of safeguards or else a smart wizard PC will walk all over him.
Also would like to see the skill Sense Motive (aka "Avoid Intrigue") modified.
I don't mind high level spellcasting to have the big magic. My problem is this:
1) Magic needing magic to beat. A prime example is force cage. The most powerful fighter in the world, but if he doesn't have some ddoor or teleport thingy he is completely undone by this spell. I wish there were more mundane ways to deal with magic, not as powerful of course, but that allows a fighter to compete.
Another prime example is fly. It would be nice if flying magic lowered your dex or something, some penalty so that there is a good reason NOT to fly all the time.
2) Magic beating fighters in combat. I don't have a problem with mages divining, or call minions, or controlling minds, etc. But I do have a problem that against a tough opponent, a mage is better at raw power killing than a fighter, which is wrong. A fighter should be the end all be all of killing stuff, everything else (including mages) should tremble in fear. Let the wizard have his armies and his fun spells, but don't take away from what the fighter does best.
1) Magic needing magic to beat. A prime example is force cage. The most powerful fighter in the world, but if he doesn't have some ddoor or teleport thingy he is completely undone by this spell. I wish there were more mundane ways to deal with magic, not as powerful of course, but that allows a fighter to compete.
Another prime example is fly. It would be nice if flying magic lowered your dex or something, some penalty so that there is a good reason NOT to fly all the time.
2) Magic beating fighters in combat. I don't have a problem with mages divining, or call minions, or controlling minds, etc. But I do have a problem that against a tough opponent, a mage is better at raw power killing than a fighter, which is wrong. A fighter should be the end all be all of killing stuff, everything else (including mages) should tremble in fear. Let the wizard have his armies and his fun spells, but don't take away from what the fighter does best.
Shieldhaven
Explorer
I see no reason to believe that the 4e class model will make fighters or paladins the "end-all, be-all" of killing stuff. That's not the primary job of the defender role. Defenders dish out respectable but probably not dominating damage. Since these class roles seem to be founded on the same design principles as most MMOs, the strikers and controllers are more likely to be cranking out withering amounts of damage.
Stalker0, it seems to me that you're viewing these fights mostly from the fighter's perspective. If he can't stop a fighter in his tracks (forcecage) and he can't dish out enough damage to burn through a fighter's bucket of hit points (direct damage of all kinds) and he can't stay out of melee range, how does a wizard ever win? Why should the fighter be, as you seem to say, the single best class in the game, and the only one to fear?
Haven
Stalker0, it seems to me that you're viewing these fights mostly from the fighter's perspective. If he can't stop a fighter in his tracks (forcecage) and he can't dish out enough damage to burn through a fighter's bucket of hit points (direct damage of all kinds) and he can't stay out of melee range, how does a wizard ever win? Why should the fighter be, as you seem to say, the single best class in the game, and the only one to fear?
Haven
frankthedm
First Post
Oh I got a hunch the fans of those spells will NOT be happy with 4E.Drammattex said:
