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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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....

I would argue yes. Not so much because of the spells, but because of the hostile creatures whose abilities the spells mimic. IOW, its not just the spellcasters, its all of the other supernatural creatures out there.

No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.

In a world where there are incorporeal creatures, astral or ethereal jaunters, etc., you HAVE to train your men-at-arms some kind of techniques to deal with them, even if its just "Call the Wizard!"

And not to put too fine a point on it...if you think RW miners and sappers were a pain, think about maintaining wall integrity in a world with bulettes, ankhegs, xorn and earth elementals.

 

[AllisterH]

I would argue yes. Not so much because of the spells, but because of the hostile creatures whose abilities the spells mimic. IOW, its not just the spellcasters, its all of the other supernatural creatures out there.

No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.

In a world where there are incorporeal creatures, astral or ethereal jaunters, etc., you HAVE to train your men-at-arms some kind of techniques to deal with them, even if its just "Call the Wizard!"

And not to put too fine a point on it...if you think RW miners and sappers were a pain, think about maintaining wall integrity in a world with bulettes, ankhegs, xorn and earth elementals.

But this gets back to the "how fantastic is the background of the world" argument. Sure, if you;re a masonry worker in a Ravenloft domain, part of your standard mortar mixture probably contains natural ingredients to prevent ghosts and other incorporeal creatures from simply ghosting through...

I would argue though that someone from say Cerilia and even Krynn wouldn't face those issues. Krynn has dragons and there really is no way to dragonproof a castle but conversely, 99% of the typical Krynn adventure is with mundane humanoids.

Same thing goes for what I consider the baseline D&D world, namely Greyhawk. Sure, there are wandering monsters but that's just it, there wandering monsters that you encounter in the wilderness. Take a look at the typical wandering monster table by location in the 1e DMG.

You don't really encounter "fantastic" monsters until you hit the wilderness.

 

[Pbartender]

No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.

In a world where there are incorporeal creatures, astral or ethereal jaunters, etc., you HAVE to train your men-at-arms some kind of techniques to deal with them, even if its just "Call the Wizard!"

And not to put too fine a point on it...if you think RW miners and sappers were a pain, think about maintaining wall integrity in a world with bulettes, ankhegs, xorn and earth elementals.

Which is why in D&D worlds A) there are so many underground "dungeons" around, and B) local lords have so so much use for professional Adventurers who have the specialized skills to deal with such threats. In areas where such creatures are a constant threat, these tactics will emerge. In areas where they are rare, they won't, and they'll resort to "Call in the Wizard!"

Of course, a standard fortified keep (even without a wall), is still pretty good proof against flying creatures as an enclosed stone building.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But this gets back to the "how fantastic is the background of the world" argument.<snip>

You don't really encounter "fantastic" monsters until you hit the wilderness.

Except when it comes to castles.

Make no mistake- castles are military installations that require all kinds of materials, and they're going to attract attention.

Some of those materials are going to require people go into fairly remote areas to collect them...which is where the rarest and most dangerous beasties are likely to reside.

And if you're a sentient critter like a dragon and you see someone building a fortress in your area, you're going to consider your future very carefully.

Assuming the materials get to the site and the castle gets built, if it doesn't take into account hostile flying critters at the very least, a castle will fail. Read some of those monster descriptions- many of them are not afraid to raid human communities for food, be it cattle or serfs.

 

[Beginning of the End]

If the 3e wizard fan is mature enough to recognize the 4e changes were made to be make the game more playable across more levels and to give other classes a share of the spotlight, then they should be fine after a while. But if they are not mature enough to handle that change, then they will never be happy with 4e.

If someone doesn't like what you like that means they're immature?

ROFL.

I don't think the word "mature" means what you think it means.

4th Edition is a fundamentally different game than previous editions of D&D. It doesn't scratch many of the same itches. It doesn't even try to. If those particular itches weren't important to you, then 4th Edition may be preferable. But if those itches are important, then 4th Edition isn't going to work.

In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).

In 4th Edition, customization has been drastically curtailed. There are fewer options and the options are all very similar to each other. This is theoretically great for balance (although in practice 4th Edition appears to be just as broken and unbalanced as 3rd Edition was), but if you play roleplaying games because you enjoy tinkering with your characters... Well, the game you enjoy playing has been severely castrated.

One of my personal bugaboos is the relationship between the game world and the game rules. My preference is for all action to be born out of the game world. I "translate" that action into the system and use the system to resolve the action. I want the mechanical aspects of the system to be smooth, effective, accurate, and fun -- but I still consider them to be in service to the world and not vice versa.

4th Edition not only turns that on its head, it frequently says, " the game world. The game world doesn't matter. The mechanics do what the mechanics do."

And, again: If these things weren't important to you, you probably don't miss them. You probably don't even understand the problem.

Here's an analogy: You take someone who loves football and you tell them they have to play baseball instead. They object.

"What are you talking about?" you say. "It's still a sport! It's still played with a ball! There are still teams! You still keep score! The team with the most points at the end of the game still wins! It's played in a stadium! The players wear uniforms! It's still broadcast on television! There are still play-by-play announcers! Concessions are still sold in the stands!"

That's all true. But baseball isn't football.

And, for me, 4th Edition isn't D&D. I don't care what name is printed on the front cover. It isn't the game I've been playing since 1989.

 

[AllisterH]

In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).


.

But this wasn't true in pre 3E at all. Not if you were playing by the rules anyway....

It was printed in big bold letters that spell acquisition was firmly under the control of the DM. Furthermore, generalist wizards got to choose a new spell only once every time they gained a new spell level and spell research was long and expensive....

Time for research = 2 wks per spell level
Cost of Research = 1d10x100gp per spell level
Success chance = 10% + 1% per ability score + 1% per xp level - (2 x spell level)

That doesn't even take into account that you were supposed to have a laboratory/library which gets into the thousands of gp.

Your best shot was by capturing spellbooks, but if you look at any official adventure, they rarely gave out that many captuired spellbooks. I'm not sure where this infinte customization idea come from unless you houseruled extensively.

 

[EroGaki]

If someone doesn't like what you like that means they're immature?

ROFL.

I don't think the word "mature" means what you think it means.

4th Edition is a fundamentally different game than previous editions of D&D. It doesn't scratch many of the same itches. It doesn't even try to. If those particular itches weren't important to you, then 4th Edition may be preferable. But if those itches are important, then 4th Edition isn't going to work.

In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).

In 4th Edition, customization has been drastically curtailed. There are fewer options and the options are all very similar to each other. This is theoretically great for balance (although in practice 4th Edition appears to be just as broken and unbalanced as 3rd Edition was), but if you play roleplaying games because you enjoy tinkering with your characters... Well, the game you enjoy playing has been severely castrated.

One of my personal bugaboos is the relationship between the game world and the game rules. My preference is for all action to be born out of the game world. I "translate" that action into the system and use the system to resolve the action. I want the mechanical aspects of the system to be smooth, effective, accurate, and fun -- but I still consider them to be in service to the world and not vice versa.

4th Edition not only turns that on its head, it frequently says, " the game world. The game world doesn't matter. The mechanics do what the mechanics do."

And, again: If these things weren't important to you, you probably don't miss them. You probably don't even understand the problem.

Here's an analogy: You take someone who loves football and you tell them they have to play baseball instead. They object.

"What are you talking about?" you say. "It's still a sport! It's still played with a ball! There are still teams! You still keep score! The team with the most points at the end of the game still wins! It's played in a stadium! The players wear uniforms! It's still broadcast on television! There are still play-by-play announcers! Concessions are still sold in the stands!"

That's all true. But baseball isn't football.

And, for me, 4th Edition isn't D&D. I don't care what name is printed on the front cover. It isn't the game I've been playing since 1989.

That is how I feel, in a nutshell, about 4th Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. I much prefer football

 

[pawsplay]

But this wasn't true in pre 3E at all. Not if you were playing by the rules anyway....

It was printed in big bold letters that spell acquisition was firmly under the control of the DM. Furthermore, generalist wizards got to choose a new spell only once every time they gained a new spell level and spell research was long and expensive....

Time for research = 2 wks per spell level
Cost of Research = 1d10x100gp per spell level
Success chance = 10% + 1% per ability score + 1% per xp level - (2 x spell level)

That doesn't even take into account that you were supposed to have a laboratory/library which gets into the thousands of gp.

Your best shot was by capturing spellbooks, but if you look at any official adventure, they rarely gave out that many captuired spellbooks. I'm not sure where this infinte customization idea come from unless you houseruled extensively.

First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book.

Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research.

Third, earlier editions often assumed a fair amount of downtime. If you had a few hundred or thousand gp, you could and would research just about anything you wanted.

Fourth, although the DMG discouraged selling spells, NPCs are not completely impervious to bribery.

 

[Ahglock]

First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book.

Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research.

Third, earlier editions often assumed a fair amount of downtime. If you had a few hundred or thousand gp, you could and would research just about anything you wanted.

Fourth, although the DMG discouraged selling spells, NPCs are not completely impervious to bribery.

In my experience past the low-mid levels most spell books and scrolls from adventures looked a lot a like. While you did in fact have a decent chance at a fairly hefty spell book of your own, I rarely got much past a certain common list from scrolls and spell books.

I had no where near the same level of spell options actually known by my wizards in 2e as compared to a similar level 3e character. Which is kind of weird considering how many more adventures I had to go on in order to reach mid levels in 2e.

The 4 things in 3e that I felt really advantaged wizards more than previous editions, was freer access to spells, the new save system, the concentration skill, and charged items.(I came to hate wands of knock and similar toe stepping items)

In 2e, I had less spells known, due to the save system I primarily used damaging spells, any damage interrupted my spells if it hit me in the round before I got it off, and if I used a spell like knock or other spell that might step on toes it really cut into my daily resources.

While at the time I did not like spell interruption in core 2e, I much preferred it to the almost guaranteed casting of spells in 3e. I wanted protection from scratches when casting spells, I think spells and magic had an option for this where you could ignore like 2 points of damage when trying to get a spell off. Another isntance of me getting what I asked for and regretting it.

 

[AllisterH]

First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book. .

Ah but how often did this occur? Even the published adventures, while being free with the magical items including scrolls, the poor wizard would have to wait a few levels.

Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research.
.

True, but don't forget that it required the caster to pass their spell learn roll. Even with a 17 INT, a generalist only had a 75% chance of learning a spell and the scroll was used up even in failure Thus, there was a big incentive NOT to transcribe it from a scroll into your spellbook.

(As a side question, did anyone ever actually play with a 15 INT or lower INT wizard?)

Third, earlier editions often assumed a fair amount of downtime. If you had a few hundred or thousand gp, you could and would research just about anything you wanted. .

THIS is a change I didn't note from 1e/2e to 3E. This though was still pretty extensive...Did people really handwave away the months (seriously, any decent spell research/item was taking months of gameworld time)

Fourth, although the DMG discouraged selling spells, NPCs are not completely impervious to bribery.

I'm not sure that's a valid point as you yourself note, the DMG strongly recommends against this method of spell acquisition.

Still, given the other things like the initative system, the actual other subsystems with regard to magic and the sheer few ways to abuse spells, are you honestly saying that a 1e/2e mage is ANYWHERE close in power or versatility to his 3E counterpart?

I think another reason why magic became so overpowering was conversely that CHOICE that magic gave to players in 3e. Previously, the DMG STRONGLY recommended that spells only be introduced into the PC hands via the DM choice....

As such, a smart DM could potentially catch any effective/cheesy combination of spells and thus nip it in the bud even beforehand. The 3E designers basically assumed I think that players wouldn't try to maximize the spell choices/combine spells in ways they didn't see...

E.g. In all the years I was playing/DM 1e/2e I never once saw the obvious combination of Wall of Force and Stinking Cloud. The mages back then certainly HAD the spells at their disposal but the actual use of those two spells together at the same time?

Nope.

In 3e, this must be the 1st thing they teach apprentice mages because practically everyone knows that trick....