Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Editions
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5815 Posts

Posted - 19 Feb 2017 :  15:01:44  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Yeah, it was based in Vance's novels, if I recall correctly. And maybe worked fine in 1e or 2e (dunno, as I did not play in the Golden Ages), but when 3e came and was so "battle centric", this system of magic became flawed. All those attempts to give casters other sources of spells (such as spell-like abilities, Incarnum, and that stuff) just showed how this "limited" magic was becoming a problem in 3e.





Actually, 3e toned DOWN spellcasters from 2e... heavily. Having to have feats to do certain things meant many tricks turned many wizards down fine tuned paths, but they were still fairly versatile. 4e just made them this cookie cutter thing with few options. In essence, it would take little study to know what another wizard can or cannot do, and in essence they were more like sorcerers. The new 5e stuff returns back to the idea that they can learn different spells, which makes them more feasible. The key now is to introduce new spell options for 5e without making them wide open for every wizard to use.

The idea of only casting a certain number of spells a day is actually very feasible if you consider it somewhat akin to exhaustion. What it takes to swing a sword is nothing compared to drawing forth the energy of the cosmos, channel it into a precisely controlled ball, and then releasing it where you focus your will. That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Senior Scribe

Colombia
659 Posts

Posted - 19 Feb 2017 :  16:37:37  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.



This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.

The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.

That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
6283 Posts

Posted - 19 Feb 2017 :  21:53:04  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Judging from what I'm reading in this scroll, the edition conflicts (and 4E bashing) are primarily based on how and why the rules and game mechanics govern character abilities and general gameplay.

I find that a little strange. Of course each edition revamped the rules, and there can never be a full consensus about the new rules being "better", there's always going to be fundamental arguments about balancing spellcasters vs fighters, how (or even if) psionics should be included, etc. But my understanding is that the rules are just the rules, like them or not they shape what the characters can do and introduce their own flavour to the game. I'd thought that the biggest edition schisms were less about the rules and more about the settings. I think it's fair to say that there's been far more bitterness about RSEs "ruining" or "destroying" the Realms, heralding each new edition with ever-increasing craters and body counts. I've often noted that while people will happily condemn apocalyptic things like the Avatar Crisis or Spellplague they also seem ready to ignore all the "problems" in the Realms (like rampant numbers of overpowered godlike NPCs) which such events have a tendency to correct.

I'm not trying to troll this scroll or flame up all the old (and now very tiring) RSE hatreds. I'm just commenting that it seems odd to me that people appear far more concerned about the D&D game itself (and the various fundamental design philosophies or decisions which define it) than they are about the "flagship" setting in which it's played.

[/Ayrik]
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 19 Feb 2017 :  22:39:18  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ayrik I don't think you're wrong insofar that the schism is more setting based than rules-based. Had the setting been 1. Better supported with existing lore and info (some supplements and Dragon issues aside) and 2. most of the drastic changes and retcons not occurred then the overall game might not have been so divided. I've come across many people who were "meh" on the game side of the Realms but would use it fine to play in the realms but the changes were too much that the entire thing was disliked.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Wrigley
Senior Scribe

Czech Republic
418 Posts

Posted - 19 Feb 2017 :  23:14:05  Show Profile  Visit Wrigley's Homepage Send Wrigley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
For me it is easy to tone down some NPC's from original sources to fit my game. It is much harder for me to think up explanation for things that happened in the Realms to make sense.
Go to Top of Page

Starshade
Learned Scribe

Norway
127 Posts

Posted - 21 Feb 2017 :  21:50:30  Show Profile Send Starshade a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The only real complaint about 2e I have heard in RL was spellcasters at low Levels. It was so big an issue some Norwegians i knew made AD&D wizards able to cast infinte number of spells.
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Senior Scribe

419 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  01:48:47  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.



This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.

The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.

That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.



I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures.
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
14035 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  03:11:37  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.

You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.

On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 22 Feb 2017 03:12:06
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  03:32:09  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
'Supers' rules?

To what are you referring, Markus?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
14035 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  03:48:53  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
A set of rules for playing in a super-hero (comic book) style game. The mechanics of 4e were practically written just for that (every class got 'powers' at each level). From the moment I cracked open the 4e PH I was like, "Wow, this would make for an awesome Supers game!" I think maybe it could have even been better than Villains & Vigilantes (did I mention I helped playtest that?)

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone

Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31690 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  04:01:14  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Right, I should've already hit upon that. Shows how long I've been missing from these halls.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  06:14:45  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.

You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.

On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.



Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition?

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
14035 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  16:58:16  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I wasn't knocking it, so there is no need to defend it. Its just a different style of play, is all. It was more encounter (combat) focused than any other edition before it, so much so that people felt it took from the RPG aspects of it (which is preposterous, since the RPG aspects have more to do with the DM and the group than any rules set).

But since you are defending it, it wasn't so much that Mages were more powerful (and at lower levels, they are), its that EVERYONE had the same mechanics - it was overbalanced. You basically laid down the same damage whatever class you were. Sure, you could say you were swinging a sword, shooting magic bolts, backstabbing, etc, but it all 'felt' the same. BTW, this coming from people I've talked to - and enjoyed the 4th edition, because I NEVER played it, and couldn't honestly say. All my experience of it comes from just reading the 4ePH.

With Mages, they got 'washed out'... its kind of hard to explain. In earlier editions, they went from near-useless targets (low level), to handy helpers (mid levels) to a walking arsenal (high levels). Getting your mage high enough to shine was quite an accomplishment in early D&D. 3e gave them some 'omph' right out of the gate (better HP, etc), but they still followed the 1e/2e paradigm. 4e just took all that and applied a rolling-pin to it. They were of about the same utility (comparative power) throughout their lifespan. Now, on the surface, that sounds like a good thing, and I guess in some ways it was (once again, more like a VG than a TT RPG), but it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Wizards no longer had to get off their 'one shot' and than spend the rest of the time cowering behind the fighters.

I think what happened to the Cleric over the years is much worse, but I can totally get why it happened. No-one wanted to play the cleric in OD&D or 1e. They got a little 'shinier' in 2e, and then became kind of awesome in 3e. Then in 4e they sort of just became another combat class (because everyone could heal, and when everyone can do it, priests are no longer 'special').

So thats about it - there was this certain 'homogenization' that went on there, where they balanced the crap out of everything, to the point where it became less interesting. I can point to this same affect happening in other games; for example, in WoW The Horde had certain classes the Alliance did not, and vice-versa. That made each side unique and different. Than the expansions started coming out, and The Horde got Paladins, and The Alliance got Shamans... it all felt the same after that.

Sometimes, I think, designers can listen to the (whiny) gamers too much... you know, the ones who are jealous of the 'other guys toys'. This lead to an over balancing of everything, and it also lead to the complete obliteration of the setting that was The Forgotten Realms. Designers should NEVER listen to the people who hate something. Haters gonna hate. Its why the internet has trolls.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 22 Feb 2017 22:10:30
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5815 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  21:44:26  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.



This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.

The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.

That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.



I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures.



At lower levels in earlier editions this happened a lot. 3rd edition started to aid this with scribe scroll given to wizards at first level for free, though it wasn't a great solution. After that the wizard had to shoot a crossbow, throw darts/daggers, swing a staff in desperation, etc.... Also, at lower levels, sleep was an almost amazing thing for group encounters, charm person had enormous potential by giving you a bodyguard/servant/sacrificial lamb, etc....

That being said, also at lower levels the fighter took one hit and needed healing. The thief failed a trap check and needed healing. You weren't exactly "going all day" with anyone. The person I felt for was the cleric, because the only spells the rest of the party would LET them carry were heal spells for the first few levels, but hey, at least they had armor and everyone was motivated to keep them alive.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5815 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  21:49:21  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.

You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.

On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.



Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition?



Not a power thing.... its a "I'm doing the same damn thing yet again" thing. The reason a lot of us like wizards is the "think out of the box to get things done" piece of it. Other people LIKE the "doing the same thing over and over" thing (my buddy loves playing fighters, and 3e at least gave him a few options, but it was still pretty much wade in and do multiple swings). Especially if you played earlier versions of the game where part of the fun was thinking up what kinds of wards you want to carry into THIS dungeon versus THAT dungeon... that's what a lot of us like.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Senior Scribe

Colombia
659 Posts

Posted - 22 Feb 2017 :  22:03:20  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That's why I love the Essentials ruleset for 4e. Yeah, it streamlines 4e to simple classes and little customization. But it gives the 4e ruleset the "D&D feeling" Markustay and sleyvas are talking about, without changing 4e rules to something that it wasn't 4e. I believe that if Essentials rules had appeared since the start of the edition, 4e wouldn't have had all the hate it got.

quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.



This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.

The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.

That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.



I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures.



One in which our DM was not kind with new players, not even at lower levels It was really difficult battles (my first D&D battle was in a lv.1 party against CR 5 enemies... we died). BTW, 3.5 rules.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...

Edited by - Zeromaru X on 22 Feb 2017 22:04:42
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  06:07:44  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

I wasn't knocking it, so there is no need to defend it. Its just a different style of play, is all. It was more encounter (combat) focused than any other edition before it, so much so that people felt it took from the RPG aspects of it (which is preposterous, since the RPG aspects have more to do with the DM and the group than any rules set).

But since you are defending it, it wasn't so much that Mages were more powerful (and at lower levels, they are), its that EVERYONE had the same mechanics - it was overbalanced. You basically laid down the same damage whatever class you were. Sure, you could say you were swinging a sword, shooting magic bolts, backstabbing, etc, but it all 'felt' the same. BTW, this coming from people I've talked to - and enjoyed the 4th edition, because I NEVER played it, and couldn't honestly say. All my experience of it comes from just reading the 4ePH.


The AEDU structure aside, each class's damage was pretty all over the place not to mention how they interacted with class features. The distinction between even characters of the same class is clear. A Fighter who fights with two-weapons not only has different exploits but features as well and is very different than a Fighter using a big two-hander. Then feats and utilities all add to the differences. For example I make a Fighter from Waterdeep who also dabbled in the Arcane. I could grab the Ritual Caster feat and the Arcana skill and now I'm making rituals. The difference in any particular character is likel to be never duplicated because there's no cleAR cut (must have feat, feature, spell, etc) that was so prevalent in 3e except maybe the Ranger's Twin Strike.

So the sameness point that's all so often made really doesn't hold water except maybe when your look at just the PHB. BUT that's also true of other editions as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Mages, they got 'washed out'... its kind of hard to explain. In earlier editions, they went from near-useless targets (low level), to handy helpers (mid levels) to a walking arsenal (high levels). Getting your mage high enough to shine was quite an accomplishment in early D&D. 3e gave them some 'omph' right out of the gate (better HP, etc), but they still followed the 1e/2e paradigm. 4e just took all that and applied a rolling-pin to it. They were of about the same utility (comparative power) throughout their lifespan. Now, on the surface, that sounds like a good thing, and I guess in some ways it was (once again, more like a VG than a TT RPG), but it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Wizards no longer had to get off their 'one shot' and than spend the rest of the time cowering behind the fighters.


You're probably right, my experience with pre-3e is sparse to say the least but in 3e, I dunno a 1st level wizard can easily get 3 spells at 1st level plus 3 more cantrips. Sleep, Color Spray, Burning Hands, Charm Person can all be applied to mop up an encounter or two and any down time is spent making ridiculously cheap scrolls (as a wizard) for those spells you need but only every once in a while. At least that's been my experience with 3e

quote:
Originally posted by MarkustayI think what happened to the Cleric over the years is much worse, but I can totally get why it happened. No-one wanted to play the cleric in OD&D or 1e. They got a little 'shinier' in 2e, and then became kind of awesome in 3e. Then in 4e they sort of just became another combat class (because everyone could heal, and when everyone can do it, priests are no longer 'special').


Oh dear. Well there's a lot you don't really know about the awesomeness of 4e clerics. For one, they're THE best healer in the game. Their schtick is all about healing people without delving into their healing surge resouces. Not only that but they're great at helping allies with status effects that have a saving throw and laying down loads of Radiant vulnerability. The Radiant Mafia (all divine class party who loads on up Radiant prayers) is one of the best groups. Each "leader" class is unique and different in their own way despite all of them being healers. Which is why it's so baffling to me when people say they're all the same.

quote:
Originally posted by MarkustaySo thats about it - there was this certain 'homogenization' that went on there, where they balanced the crap out of everything, to the point where it became less interesting. I can point to this same affect happening in other games; for example, in WoW The Horde had certain classes the Alliance did not, and vice-versa. That made each side unique and different. Than the expansions started coming out, and The Horde got Paladins, and The Alliance got Shamans... it all felt the same after that.

Sometimes, I think, designers can listen to the (whiny) gamers too much... you know, the ones who are jealous of the 'other guys toys'. This lead to an over balancing of everything, and it also lead to the complete obliteration of the setting that was The Forgotten Realms. Designers should NEVER listen to the people who hate something. Haters gonna hate. Its why the internet has trolls.



For the Realms, I agree in part because of how drastic the changes were despite me liking many of them. But if your can blame anything on 4e's creation it's the creators of the previous edition. Nearly all of 4e's gimmicks were the result of how terribly imbalanced 3e was and how trivial non-spellcasters became mid- to late-game. Boring mechanics and the near requirement of either multiclassing or Prestige class in meant a ridiculous power creep that turned the game into rocket tag and the non-spellcasters had no rockets of their own.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  06:24:09  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.

You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.

On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.



Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition?



Not a power thing.... its a "I'm doing the same damn thing yet again" thing. The reason a lot of us like wizards is the "think out of the box to get things done" piece of it. Other people LIKE the "doing the same thing over and over" thing (my buddy loves playing fighters, and 3e at least gave him a few options, but it was still pretty much wade in and do multiple swings). Especially if you played earlier versions of the game where part of the fun was thinking up what kinds of wards you want to carry into THIS dungeon versus THAT dungeon... that's what a lot of us like.



Wizards get spellbooks that hold all their daily and utility spells (I allow them to add all their spells in there and pick them per day) plus a Ritual book for all their rituals too. Spells can he used in a variety of ways, which makes wizards (specifically) the most versatile class in 4e. Use Scorching Burst (at-will spell) to melt ice, catch things on fire, burn wood, start bon fires or use Ray of Frost (at-will spell) to freeze a lock, make ground slippery, turn small amount of water to ice, etc. The more costly the resource the bigger the effect.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Senior Scribe

419 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  11:31:21  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message  Reply with Quote
To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.

The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  12:57:49  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.

The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed.



Ain't that the truth. I guess my problem is that what little I played of 2e the Fighters were actually pretty good then, especially when you add in things like non-weapon proficiency stuff (Fighter's Handbook?). Then with 3e they became SOO hyper-specialized and put nearly EVERYTHING fun behind a feat-wall. Oh sure you can try to trip someone without the Improved Trip/Combat Expertise feats but unless you either have A) amazing Strength (18+), B) use a Trip weapon, and C) fight mostly medium-sized monsters it'll backfire a significantly high amount of times.

Of course you also have to contend with the notion of "Full-Attack", which is silly on it's face and makes really NO sense in a system that's designed to simulate realism. A Wizard can pop a quicken spell and cast another spell and move ALL in 6 second BUT the Fighter, try as they might, can't make more than 1 attack if they move 5-ft?! Hahah, ok.

Then you get into the feats they get for "Free" but are like immovable stone once selected. A Fighter who grabs Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical [Longsword] is out 3 feats if they find a better Warhammer or Battleaxe or maybe a Lance. Yes you can substitute these with Weapon Groups but doesn't really FIX the problem, just makes it generally less annoying. Now the Warblade (Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords) DOES fix the problem with Weapon Aptitude (1 hr meditation, change X-number of feats to specific weapon to another) and that greatly helps in campaigns where magical items are done randomly.


4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5815 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  12:57:55  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.

The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed.



In 5th edition they started fixing some of that though. For instance, walls are no longer permanent. Now, granted, I think they went a little far and they just like in 3.5 they need to introduce some rules to allow wizards to do certain things. For instance, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that every spell under the sun needs concentration or that a wizard can only concentrate on one thing at a time. That being said, for most wizards, maybe this SHOULD be the norm.

Obviously, I'm a big proponent of "hey, let's see some optional rules to help flex 5e's muscles". We could stand to see a lot more spells. However, after all the editions that I've seen, I know exactly what happens now if you just start piling on wizard spell after wizard spell (or cleric spell after cleric spell, or any other class).

What's the fix to this? I think we should go back and visit some 2nd edition ideas for wizards. Specifically, the Paths of Power idea that was in one dragon magazine (Dragon #216 in fact). In that, each wizard learned a "path of power" and that allowed them to learn certain spells that are on that paths lists. Then some paths may depend upon you having earlier paths. So, for simplicity, you might have a lesser path of fire and two different greater paths... maybe a greater path of fire (which has fire evocations, summonings, wards, etc...) and a greater path of area effects (which is strictly area effects of differing elements)... there similarly could be a path of abjuration... a path of shadow magic... etc...

I know this wasn't the original point of this thread, so I think I'll start a new thread specifically for developing this rather than hijack this.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  13:00:39  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Also, I feel I must apologize to CorellonsDevout for participating in the hijacking of this thread from Realms of different editions and to a, yet again, discussion on the merits and perceived faults of the editions themselves.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
14035 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  14:48:24  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, any 'perceived faults' I got from listening to other people who were playing 4e. All my own opinions are based solely on the PHB, which did feel a little 'overbalanced' to me. Maybe it was more of a 'repetition' thing than a 'all classes feel the same' thing. I just remember people saying every encounter was like "do same thing, roll dice,rinse & repeat". And it didn't feel like the fighter was swinging a sword, or the mage was casting spells - everyone was using 'powers'.

Coming up with 'inventive ways' to get past something was no longer a thing, and that used to be a big part of D&D.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2017 14:50:03
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3410 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  19:55:15  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Well, any 'perceived faults' I got from listening to other people who were playing 4e. All my own opinions are based solely on the PHB, which did feel a little 'overbalanced' to me. Maybe it was more of a 'repetition' thing than a 'all classes feel the same' thing. I just remember people saying every encounter was like "do same thing, roll dice,rinse & repeat". And it didn't feel like the fighter was swinging a sword, or the mage was casting spells - everyone was using 'powers'.

Coming up with 'inventive ways' to get past something was no longer a thing, and that used to be a big part of D&D.



I think that's really disappointing if that was their experiences with 4e. My group approached 4e just like we do every other version of D&D. You can try anything but there's no guarantee it'll work BUT powers are sort of like trump cards for the most part.

One of our first adventures illustrated just how easily PCs could get past something using inventive ways to solve issues. It was a Forgotten Realms adventure called Menace of the Icy Spire (Dungeon #159) that takes place not too far from Loudwater. The entire area is covered in ice and snow and this tower, once owned by a dwarf warlock named Draigdurroch, cursed it. The PCs approached the main door of the tower but it was covered in ice. The Fighter tried to bash his way in but it would take forever so the wizard cast Scorching Burst on the door and the ice melted greatly, allowing the Fighter to burst his way in.

Another time a Fighter used Cleave to cut through the wooden support pillars of a balcony to knock it over and put the snipers on the ground that had been harassing the party during a battle.

Then there was this other time we had a Drow Ranger (using a bow primarily, not a Drizzt clone) that used his Faerie Fire ability to light up a guard then action point (1 free action) to fire two arrows at the closes candles, plunging the entire room in darkness except for the target. Because he lit up like a Christmas tree, he was exposed giving everyone else combat advantage (a +2 bonus to attack rolls and Rogues can do things like Sneak Attack) because he was so easy to see AND he had to make perception checks because of the light he gave off in a darkened room made his visibility almost nothing.

Now that being said I can't comprehend the reason WHY when people saw 4e's powers in colored-boxes and decided that "This thing can only be used the the vacuum of combat an nowhere else." OR why they didn't express an interest in interacting with the wider world or using their abilities in unique ways Other than "I attack the target again with x,y,z power."? To me it's absolutely mind boggling. Maybe it was the DM that didn't encourage it? Maybe it was a lack of specifically saying in BIG BOLD LETTERS "Hey, you can do stuff that ISN'T listed in a Green, Red, or Gray box to overcome challenges." from the PHB or DMG?

Like I said we approached the game just like every other one. Wanna use Lance of Faith (radiant at-will prayer that has a range of about 50-ft.) to light up a corridor? Go ahead! Wanna use your Astral Wasp conjuration (wizard spell, conjures a wasp) to hop down a hallway and set off any traps? Be my guest! Need to push a medium or large size object off a ledge or a pedestal, Tide of Iron (fighter at-will exploit that slams shield into target) OR just make a Strength check. Maybe 4e's original adventures and the ones showcased early on just didn't prop up what exactly 4e could do or maybe the entire format of the game threw people off from what they were used to. A large format change can easily alter people's perception of their usage and flexibility. Because the attack is in a box might tell them, subconsciously, that it has one intended use, cannot be used outside of said box, and deviation is prone to brokeness. I'm not sure?

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2012 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  01:18:33  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

Also, I feel I must apologize to CorellonsDevout for participating in the hijacking of this thread from Realms of different editions and to a, yet again, discussion on the merits and perceived faults of the editions themselves.



Lol, no worries. I'm glad this is an active thread.

Sweet water and light laughter
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000