"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[Zil]

Our group started out as being somewhat skeptical about 4E when we started playing, but a couple of players were really gung-ho so we gave it a try. After playing for a while and gaining a few levels the majority of the players decided we preferred to play 3.5 so we've gone back there. That doesn't mean we'd refuse to play 4E ever again, just that for now we're playing around with Pathfinder.

I played the wizard character in the 4E campaign. At first, I quite enjoyed myself and I actually felt a bit overpowered at 1st level compared to a 3.5 wizard. Eventually though things got to be a bit too repetitive somehow. I also did miss the Vancian magic and found that the somewhat sterile rituals didn't really make the grade for what I was expecting for D&D magic.

 

[Lars Porsenna]

Despite reading the PHB, and all the stuff I read pre-release, I went ahead and played in a campaign for several months with 4e. Our group was trying to give it a 'fair shake," and despite not liking what I was reading, decided to give it a go. Like any game with a good group of friends, we had our fun, but it wasn't long before I grew bored of playing my character (fighter), grinding through a combat, and end up using the same at-will ability over and over again (of course that's after whiffing my daily and/or encounter powers), not having any glory since all the other players can for the most part do more damage (except perhaps the "leaders").

The real downer to this is that 4e came very close to breaking up the group, with several flat out refusing to play 4e anymore counterbalanced by those that really like the rules (only a couple). We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...

Damon.

 

[Mercule]

The real downer to this is that 4e came very close to breaking up the group, with several flat out refusing to play 4e anymore counterbalanced by those that really like the rules (only a couple). We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...

Unfortunately, I see shades of this in my group. I've come to hate 3.x -- even before 4e was announced, I was looking for an exit to the campaign I was running. I think I could handle running purely canned, short-run modules or playing non-casters, but Vancian magic has annoyed me since the early 1980s and has aged like rotting fish. I also don't have any interest in managing the rules required to prep adventures at levels 10+.

On the other end of things is the player I'm concerned about with 4e. I don't know that he's necessarily of the opinion that 3e is without its flaws, but he's quite uncomfortable with how 4e looks.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...

Damon.

Solomon-like, I suggest you "split the baby," with some people running 3.X PCs, and others running 4Ed PCs in the same campaign, until one side or the other relents.

OK, maybe that won't work. But constantly butting heads over 3.X vs 4Ed falls under that popular definition of insanity- doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Instead of continuing to argue about those games, try playing fantasy in another system.

Personally, given the different tastes, I'd choose HERO (using Fantasy HERO) as my next choice, but M&M would do just about as well. Green Ronin is going to be releasing a FRPG based on its game, too.

Here's the info for Warriors & Warlocks. We'll be talking more about it on mutantsandmasterminds.com as we get closer to release.

Warriors & Warlocks
A Mutants & Masterminds Sourcebook
Authors: Dale Donovan, Matthew E. Kaiser, Steve Kenson, and Aaron Sullivan
Format: 160 pages, full color, softback
MSRP: $29.95
Product Code: GRR2525
ISBN-10: 1-934547-19-0
ISBN-13: 978-1-934547-19-9

Not all comic books are about costumed heroes fighting crime; many classic comics have featured the fantastical adventures of sword-wielding and spell-casting heroes. Now Warriors & Warlocks takes the Mutants & Masterminds RPG to the realm of fantasy. This beautifully illustrated sourcebook includes information on character design, magic, equipment, villains, monsters, and more. It also includes a Mutants & Masterminds rules companion to Green Ronin's popular Pirate’s Guide to Freeport, along with an introduction and overview of Freeport as a setting for fantasy adventures. Warriors & Warlocks is your go-to guide for comic book sword & sorcery action.

Why should you try Fantasy HERO or Warriors and Warlocks?

Because with either of those systems, by using some creative PC design, you actually could structure your PCs to run like 3.X or 4Ed PCs as was your preference.

That's right- you could have full Vancian 3.X style spellcasters adventuring beside Fighters who mark and use healing surges, daily, encounter and at-will powers. Or whatever.

Its not quite splitting the baby, but its close.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).

This is known as a GOOD thing. Easily churned out magical items become less magical and more like mundane equipment. Once magical items become standard gear, whats special or magical about them?

Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.

I don't know about that. You might be confusing powerful with ubiquitous here. 3E characters had more access to magic in various forms than characters from earlier editions, but was that magic more powerful?

 

[AllisterH]

I don't know about that. You might be confusing powerful with ubiquitous here. 3E characters had more access to magic in various forms than characters from earlier editions, but was that magic more powerful?

The spells themselves became more powerful in most cases. This was mostly due to a few reasons.

1. The save system. By the time a mage got to the Save or Die/Suck spells at levels 6 and higher, the PCs themselves didn't have "weak" saves. Even without gear, many character classes could simply expect a better than average chance of flat out ignoring any spell. Throw in the lack of ways for spellcasters to apply penalties to the saves/bonuses to the spell a la Spell Focus and the faster progression of non-wizard characters, you're looking at an underlying system than favours the non-wizard player.

2. Spells were simply not that strong. Contrast Shapechange pre 3E with the problems people had with it in. Similarly, other spells like Permanency, Wish had major drawbacks in their use for the caster. Really, by and large, while the damage dealing spells lost effectiveness in the change, the really problematic spells actually became more powerful and useful.

3. Higher level spells tended to be weaker in combat due to the "every round roll initiative and apply casting/weapon speed" rule. IIRC, a longsword had a Wpn Spd of 4 thus any spell higher than level 4 was less likely to suceed. Remember, there were no rules for concentration/withstanding damage and thus, if a mage used a level 8 spell in combat, from the beginning of the round to the time in the initiative order, the mage couldn't move or take any damage or the spell would be lost.

So yes, magic was much less powerful pre-3E. It's why I find the arguments that 3E's magic is "the same thing like 1e/2e" to be so not true...

 

[Lars Porsenna]

Instead of continuing to argue about those games, try playing fantasy in another system.

Easier said than done. I'd love to play FREX WHFRPG, or GURPS. The problem (as I see it) is we play a World of Greyhawk campaign, and unless it has that D&D feel, well...

Plus then you'd have to convert all the monsters, and that can be a lot of work.

We tried M&M and some people liked it, others did not. The Fans of 4e were very much in the "I don't want to play complex games!" crowd, and yes we almost lost someone when we were talking about playing a short M&M (if 3xe is complex...).

Perhaps the best compromise is to ditch D&D altogther and just play SW for a long while (we plan on doing this till at least August when PF comes out, for our playtest), but then abandoning a continuous campaign that has lasted 12+ years and 2 editions isn't attractive either...

Damon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Easier said than done. I'd love to play FREX WHFRPG, or GURPS. The problem (as I see it) is we play a World of Greyhawk campaign, and unless it has that D&D feel, well...

Plus then you'd have to convert all the monsters, and that can be a lot of work.

We tried M&M and some people liked it, others did not. The Fans of 4e were very much in the "I don't want to play complex games!" crowd, and yes we almost lost someone when we were talking about playing a short M&M (if 3xe is complex...).

Perhaps the best compromise is to ditch D&D altogther and just play SW for a long while (we plan on doing this till at least August when PF comes out, for our playtest), but then abandoning a continuous campaign that has lasted 12+ years and 2 editions isn't attractive either...

Damon.

Well, I can't help the M&M love/hate thing, but, when it comes to different systems...

You don't have to convert ALL the monsters, just a few KEY ones. The ones that matter most to your campaign.

Other games will have other monsters- ones with which your players will be unfamiliar. That will bring back a bit of the mystery and caution that came with early gaming experiences. And some critters are nearly universal to FRPGs.

Besides, you can bet that someone else has probably already converted the best of the best to any given system- all you need to do is ask on the right board.

 

[Ahglock]

This may sound silly but did anyone here ever play by the rules a 1e/2e wizard?

You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).

Unless you were playing a specialist, you didn't really get to choose your spells and you had limited slots with no easy scroll creation to get around it.

Seriously, of the loss of the power of spellcasting in 4e versus 3e, it should never be forgotten that the 3E spellcasters SIGNIFICANTLY got a power-up from the transition from 2E to 3E.

Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.

I found the 1e/2e wizards less powerful and more magical. I'm tempted to run a 2e game or maybe hackmaster because i loved the feel of magic in the earlier editions.

Its kind of funny when I was playing 2e I complained about how worthless the save or die spells were because the odds of a failed save and or magic resistance tests were so high you could not risk wasting a round casting them. I wanted something like my level or stats to matter for saves and magic resistance. I got what I wanted, and boy did it taste bad. Save or dies went from don't cast, to super powerful always cast spells that turned fights into 1 round wonders.

As a DM it even felt worse, because before I could have a caster or monster pull out a low success chance but awesomely powerful save or die and not have to worry, in 3e i was worried about it being a TPK.

 

[AllisterH]

I found the 1e/2e wizards less powerful and more magical. I'm tempted to run a 2e game or maybe hackmaster because i loved the feel of magic in the earlier editions.

Its kind of funny when I was playing 2e I complained about how worthless the save or die spells were because the odds of a failed save and or magic resistance tests were so high you could not risk wasting a round casting them. I wanted something like my level or stats to matter for saves and magic resistance. I got what I wanted, and boy did it taste bad. Save or dies went from don't cast, to super powerful always cast spells that turned fights into 1 round wonders.

As a DM it even felt worse, because before I could have a caster or monster pull out a low success chance but awesomely powerful save or die and not have to worry, in 3e i was worried about it being a TPK.

In Hindisght, I think spells were designed under the simple basis of a) Rarity and b) Their low chance of success.

It is somewhat _balanced_ that spells could do anything and trump mundane skills since the PCs, thanks to the rules, couldn't abuse the spells in applying the perfect spell for every situation.....

Once 3E actually made spells that had a decent chance of success AND that PCs could reasonably expect to get them (contrast what a 10th level mage spellbook would have pre 3e in terms of number of spells), the spells themselves needed to be toned down.....

But of course, other than damaging deal spells, the self same spells became more powerful in 3E.

I can see why even though the 1e/2e wizard was less powerful but more magical since the world itself ran under the assumption that it was mundane.....I mean, pre-3E, did shopkeepers et al have to design their houses around the KNOCK spell or did castle designers really have to worry about people flying over via FLY or using PASSWALL? I wold argue no because the use of said spells would be so rare that it wasn't worth considering thus the world should resemble a basically mundane world thus any magic that is used would stand out more so from the background....

Can you justify though it in a 3E world where KNOCK is going to be a STANDARD spell and pretty much any mage even with a 13 INT is going to know that spell?