Okay people, a little wake up call.

[Heselbine]

Anyone ever really get to grips with the grappling rules in 3e? I mean, really?

That's one simplification in 4e in particular that I am very pleased about.

 

[hectorse]

For sure.

You want to overcomplicate rules to get the same mind numbing effect?

By all accounts go nuts.

 

[caudor]

I must be easy to please. I've yet to come across something in 4e that I do not like. I'm very excited about this release.

Remember, these 3 core books will be the first of many rule sources. Psionics will surely return (in some cool 4e way), more classes will come, more options will come.

Maybe I'm too easy to please, but I'm happy just the same.

 

[hectorse]

I must be easy to please. I've yet to come across something in 4e that I do not like. I'm very excited about this release.

Remember, these 3 core books will be the first of many rule sources. Psionics will surely return (in some cool 4e way), more classes will come, more options will come.

Maybe I'm too easy to please, but I'm happy just the same.

BUT BUT BUT wizards can't break the game overcome obstacles by imaginative broken ways of using their spells!

 

[Sashi]

Anyone ever really get to grips with the grappling rules in 3e? I mean, really?

I actually memorized the 3E grapple rules specifically because I got tired of flipping to the proper page in the book to use them. I've actually taken over other DM's games for two minutes while adjudicating a grapple, because everyone else has decided to defer to me about it (I am not allowed to make grappling characters).

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'd just like to voice my agreement with the original poster. In fact, I agree with him so much that if I play a Realms game in 4E, I'll probably be sticking to the 3rd edition material for it.

You know, I bet its only a matter of time before someone posts decent conversion guidelines for taking your 3E adventures and setting materials into 4E without having to repurchase the 4E versions. If monsters are easier to kill, then increase the number of monsters by X. If barbarian class is not available, you can convert your barbarian to a X build fighter using Y powers (maybe these will be new). Since I declined to download the books when I had the chance, I really don't know the specifics of what I'm talking about, but the one thing that I'm certain of is that the rules are just a framework and its always possible to introduce legacy content into a new framework if you take a little time and effort.

 

[Metus]

You mean the list of "1001 things spellcasters can do that nobody else can"? This had to go.

And now I see it as nobody can do anything varied. If anything, I feel like they should have gone in the opposite direction: 1001 things that every class can do that no other class can. Instead, we have everyone dealing 1[W]damage. I'm not impressed.

(It seems strange to me that you're complaining about the lack of options the Wizard has and then complaining that he can't just repeat the same one over and over)

Getting to focus on one spell and casting it multiple times was just as much an option as memorizing different spells. We no longer have that option.

You're actually upset that non-wizards are horning in on the "I get to kill stuff with my cool ability" market, aren't you?

Wizards were my most favorite class, for sure. And, let me say right now that wizards were unbalanced as far as other classes go. I didn't care for that, and ideally I would want that resolved.

The reason I liked wizards, however, was the vast (almost overwhelming) sense of options I was given, in the form of spells. It let me think and get creative with what I would use; it gave me options.

In 4th edition, the thinking and creativity is still there, but solely in the form of tactics and how you use your handful of powers. Formerly, it felt like I had a wide range of tools to choose from. Now, it feels like I have one tool and I have to be inventive in its use. I don't like that.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, instead of limiting everyone's options and forcing more usage out of the options that are available, I prefer having thousands of options, ideally ones that are unique to every class. In 3rd edition that was the purview of the wizard, which is why I liked the wizard.

4E definitely reduced the complexity of the game, this is true. But for me it's like how Tangrams are less complex than a Jigsaw puzzle. For you, it appears that the reduction is more akin to how Tic Tac Toe is is less complex than Chess.
I'm not going to disagree with you that the game is now simpler, but I'm going to disagree that the game being simpler is calamitous and/or wrong.

Keep in mind that while I do agree and will state that the game is less complex, I by no means claim that 4th edition is somehow factually wrong. Definitely wrong for me, which is why I'm unimpressed and uninspired, but I'm not giving it a general, "This game is wrong for everyone."

 

[Sashi]

Wizards were my most favorite class, for sure. And, let me say right now that wizards were unbalanced as far as other classes go. I didn't care for that, and ideally I would want that resolved.

The reason I liked Wizards, however, was the vast (almost overwhelming) sense of options I was given, in the form of spells. It let me think and get creative with what I would use; it gave me options.

How is it creative to say "hmm, we appear to need spell ___, which I happen to have"? I think it's far more creative to do lots of things with a limited toolset. As other people have said, "being creative" with spells usually means "breaking the game" (i.e. "can I cast light on his eyes? Will that blind him?" "I summon ten gallons of water into his small intestine, bursting it and killing him", both incredible game-braking maneuvers attempted with cantrips). Uses of spells that don't break the game are when you use the spell to do something it was designed to to. The real skill is in figuring out that digging the hole will bypass the trap, not in casting the spell that digs the hole.

In 4th edition, the thinking and creativity is still there, but solely in the form of tactics and how you use your handful of powers. Formerly, it felt like I had a wide range of tools to choose from. Now, it feels like I have one tool and I have to be inventive in its use. I don't like that.

So you want to be creative ... but you don't want to be creative? Or you want to be MacGyver the Wizard "I just happen to have a spell of paralyzing white dragon zombies right here!"

As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, instead of limiting everyone's options and forcing more usage out of the options that are available, I prefer having thousands of options, ideally ones that are unique to every class. In 3rd edition that was the purview of the wizard, which is why I liked the wizard.

This just ... doesn't work. One of the fundamental reasons behind Wizards being so powerful in 3E is that they got a million and one options for what they could do (even the books on alternative magic systems included spells!). You're also attempting to balance 1000 different options multiplied by every class made, and asking players to learn a completely different system for every class made.

What you're actually asking for is that the 4E rules be made up of Magic, Incarnum, Book of 9 Swords, Psionics, Shadow Magic, Pact Magic, Truename Magic, and Artificers. Which is very bad, because it's probably impossible to balance completely different systems (the most balanced combat system I've ever encountered? World of Darkness. It's exactly as easy to kill someone with a gun as it is with a sword. Why? Because they both use exactly the same system)

Keep in mind that while I do agree and will state that the game is less complex, I by no means claim that 4th edition is somehow factually wrong. Definitely wrong for me, which is why I'm unimpressed and uninspired, but I'm not giving it a general, "This game is wrong for everyone."

Alright, then. But please recognize that the game has a fundamentally different design goal than what you want. It's like saying "boy, this chocolate cake sure is disappointing" while eating a bagel.

 

[theNater]

The reason I liked Wizards, however, was the vast (almost overwhelming) sense of options I was given, in the form of spells. It let me think and get creative with what I would use; it gave me options.

In 4th edition, the thinking and creativity is still there, but solely in the form of tactics and how you use your handful of powers. Formerly, it felt like I had a wide range of tools to choose from. Now, it feels like I have one tool and I have to be inventive in its use. I don't like that.

I don't have the books yet, and I'd like a little check on the numbers. It's my understanding that a starting wizard in 4e has (after character creation is complete) 5 spells to choose from, plus cantrips.(2 at-wills, 1 encounter, 2 dailies).

According to the 3.5 PHB, a wizard has (after character creation) 3+int modifier spells to choose from, plus cantrips. That's usually 6-8 spells.

Are my numbers right? If so, is the difference really that significant? Especially when you remember that the 4e wizard gets to use four of those during the day, many of them several times, while the 3e gets to use at most 3 total spells a day?

For someone who has the information, how many spells does a 4e wizard know at 20th level, to compare to the 44-46 spells a 3e wizard learns due to being a wizard?(I'm not counting spells purchased with money or found as treasure, under the assumption that rituals will provide the 4e wizards with additional options purchasable with money or findable as treasure).

 

[bjorn2bwild]

I don't have the books yet, and I'd like a little check on the numbers. It's my understanding that a starting wizard in 4e has (after character creation is complete) 5 spells to choose from, plus cantrips.(2 at-wills, 1 encounter, 2 dailies).

According to the 3.5 PHB, a wizard has (after character creation) 3+int modifier spells to choose from, plus cantrips. That's usually 6-8 spells.

Are my numbers right? If so, is the difference really that significant? Especially when you remember that the 4e wizard gets to use four of those during the day, many of them several times, while the 3e gets to use at most 3 total spells a day?

For someone who has the information, how many spells does a 4e wizard know at 20th level, to compare to the 44-46 spells a 3e wizard learns due to being a wizard?(I'm not counting spells purchased with money or found as treasure, under the assumption that rituals will provide the 4e wizards with additional options purchasable with money or findable as treasure).

From the information I have, a level 1 wizard gets 4 cantrips, 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, and your choice of 1 of 2 daily powers. You also gets 3 rituals, right off the bat, no paying involved.

So, abbreviated, it looks like: 4/2/1/1(2) + 3 rituals for a total of 12 unique known spells, including cantrips.

Just like before, you can still only prepare one of those daily powers to cast, but you do get the choice.

If you take the expanded spellbook feat, the number of daily power choices gained increases to 3.

or, 4/2/1/1(3) + 3 rituals for a total of 13 unique known spells, including cantrips.

As for 20th level, you will have 4 cantrips, 2 at wills, 4 encounter powers (including one from your paragon path and two that replace previously acquired encounter powers), 4 daily spells (1 from paragon path, the other three chosen from your spellbook containing 10 daily spells), 5 utility spells per day (1 from your paragon path and the other four chosen from your spellbook containing 8 utility spells), and you will automatically know (without purchasing) 3 1st rituals, 2 5th level (or less) rituals, 2 11th level (or less) rituals, and 2 15th level (or less) rituals.

abbreviated, it looks like 4/2/4/4(1+10)/5(1+8) and 9 rituals for a total of 39 unique spells known including cantrips.

If you take the expanded spellbook feat, the number of daily spells in your spellbook increases to 15, and the number of utility spells in your spellbook increases to 12.

or, 4/2/4/4(1+15)/5(1+12) and 9 rituals for a total of 48 unique spells known including cantrips.