PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 spells in 4e?



Nad
2008-12-01, 04:49 PM
Hi all,

So after playing 4e for a while, I really like it. The only thing that seems to be left out is the complete lack of creativity with magic. Some of the coolest things to happen in our D&D games were using spells that were not made for combat... in combat.

Rituals seem very wanting.

I like what 4e has done with combat spells but I want to bring non-combat over. Has anyone taken 3.5 spells and moved them over to 4e? If you have, can you share how you did this? If not, care to join me in figuring out how to do this? Do I use the same progression as 3.5 but all non-combat? Do I let them choose a spellbook and incorporate them with 4e's will/encounter/daily?

Thanks for your comments!

Inyssius Tor
2008-12-01, 05:18 PM
We actually started talking about this in the [4e] Ritual Analysis thread, although it may have devolved into a flamewar about the wizard since then.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-01, 05:29 PM
It may in fact prove easier to use 4E's combat spells in a 3E campaign. The 4E rules are not supposed to let you be creative, because creativity leads to unexpected results, with are (by definition) potentially unbalancing.

That said, I'd probably allow many concepts of such creative spells as "utility powers" (if they can be used fairly often) or as "rituals" albeit with vastly lower casting time and gold cost than is common in the 4E PHB.

For example, Grease? Wizard daily utility 2. Detect poison and/or undead? Cleric encounter utility 2. True strike? Fighter utility daily 6, or encounter 10. And so forth. Are you thinking of any creative spells in particular?

Nad
2008-12-09, 09:25 AM
After discussing this with my fellow DM and other players, we think this is going to be golden. We love how simple 4th edition combat rounds are and the balance of the feats and powers is great. So we’re sticking with 4e.

However, we miss arcane/divine non-combat spells.

So here’s the house rule:

Wizards/Clerics/Paladins/Rangers get 3.5 spells.
3.5 spells CANNOT replace any existing POWER in 4e
3.5 spells REPLACE any 4e ritual with the same name/effect

Anyone see any big snags in this?

Darwin
2008-12-09, 09:32 AM
I don't really see how you are going to keep things smooth when introducing 3.5 material to 4e. What I would do was to grab some of the spells I wanted, pick the basics of it and rework them into new 4e powers available to the class it used to fit. I did this when I tried to recreate the beguiler, until I realised that I might as well just be playing a Fey Pact Warlock.

If you think this is too much work, which it easily could be for a lot of people. I'd suggest that you bring your favorite parts of 4e over to 3.5, and leave the powers system where it belongs.

When we grew tired of 4e after playing through Keep on the Shadowfell, we choose the latter option.

WickerNipple
2008-12-09, 09:50 AM
After discussing this with my fellow DM and other players, we think this is going to be golden. We love how simple 4th edition combat rounds are and the balance of the feats and powers is great. So we’re sticking with 4e.

However, we miss arcane/divine non-combat spells.

So here’s the house rule:

Wizards/Clerics/Paladins/Rangers get 3.5 spells.
3.5 spells CANNOT replace any existing POWER in 4e
3.5 spells REPLACE any 4e ritual with the same name/effect

Anyone see any big snags in this?

Huh. well... It'll take more doing than that I'd think.

The framework and balance of the powers system is really what makes 4th work imo. Once you start introducing elements and actions that certain classes get and others don't it really begins to erode things unless you're very, very careful with it.

I guess what I'd want to know is what precisely you wanted to include that 4th isn't offering you.

Is it the spontaneity of minor spells compared to the length of time and effort rituals require? That's not such a big deal, depending on what exactly is being done, but I think you'd really need to define things fairly carefully.

While I don't think it's what you meant, mentioned above was Grease, which would really have to be a Power: it's a potent ability that has dramatic combat implications - someone being able to toss that out in addition to their normal Powers routine would create balance issues.

If you simply meant just the non-combat spells that gave the game a certain flavor before, I'd probably look into toning them down, simplifying them tremendously, and pushing them into the Cantrip system that Wizards have, but for all casters.

Again, I'd personally just want it defined very carefully rather than a vague "yes you have 3.5 spells".

But in the end, whatever you folks think is fun is fun. Just seems like there'd be potential for confusion down the line if it's not very clear.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-12-09, 10:18 AM
4e does have some non-combat abilities, utilities. Now, you can note that many of them are combat related (such as mage armor), but you also cannot doubt that many of them also have non combat functions (such as fly or dispel magic).

I really think that taking what spells you want and making them Utility powers is your best bet. The wizard will be extra useful for accepting these, as he can pick 2 daily powers each time, and he prepares them everyday (so he can pick both a combat ability and a non-combat).

DiscipleofBob
2008-12-09, 10:26 AM
One thing I considered doing is allowing spellcasters to go through the preparations for rituals like Comprehend Languages, Knock, or Silence earlier in the day, store the spell via scrolls or something like that, and be able to use said spells when needed.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-09, 10:48 AM
4e does have some non-combat abilities, utilities. Now, you can note that many of them are combat related (such as mage armor),
Actually, pretty much all of them are combat-related.


The wizard will be extra useful for accepting these, as he can pick 2 daily powers each time, and he prepares them everyday (so he can pick both a combat ability and a non-combat).
True, but the latter is only useful if he faces (or expects to face) no combat at all during the day. So it's not really any more useful than other classes, unless he gets a Mnemonic Staff (which has the problem of screwing over your magic item dailies, at higher levels).


One thing I considered doing is allowing spellcasters to go through the preparations for rituals like Comprehend Languages, Knock, or Silence earlier in the day, store the spell via scrolls or something like that, and be able to use said spells when needed.
That solves one of the problems with rituals (their ludicrous casting time), but there remain the two problems that most of them are very expensive to use, and very limited in effect. For instance, Knock is easier duplicated by making a Thievery check, and Silence simply doesn't do much at all. Unless you are prepared to handwave away a lot of limitations, that is (which does seem to be what most DMs do)

Mando Knight
2008-12-09, 11:23 AM
The 4E rules are not supposed to let you be creative, because creativity leads to unexpected results, with are (by definition) potentially unbalancing.

...Are you just trying to troll, or do you honestly believe this? The DMG has guidelines for doing things off the cuff, as in suggested DCs and damage dice for unusual actions... and in one session I was in, one of the dragonborn threw a gnome wizard twice... once to avoid touching shiny magic pillars and pull the lever on the other side of the room (the DM revealed after the gnome managed to pull the lever that the pillars would have bogged us down with undead if we had decided to strongarm our way through...), and another to throw the gnome across a 10' pit. While the gnome was firing off one of his attack powers.

On bringing 3.5 non-combat spells into 4E: any of them with large material components in 3.5 won't dent the PCs' budget in 4E at higher levels: the cost of a single level 29 item is worth 2625 level 4 items. A 4E 17th level magic item is worth the same as 2 and 3/5 3.5 True Resurrections.
Also, there are only up to 9th level spells in 3.5 (barring the "create-your-own-instant-win-spell" Epic Spellcasting), but in 4E, ascension into Epic levels is assumed, so powers and spells go up to level 30.

Siegel
2008-12-09, 11:35 AM
That solves one of the problems with rituals (their ludicrous casting time), but there remain the two problems that most of them are very expensive to use, and very limited in effect. For instance, Knock is easier duplicated by making a Thievery check, and Silence simply doesn't do much at all. Unless you are prepared to handwave away a lot of limitations, that is (which does seem to be what most DMs do)

Where is the problem that Knock is the same as a thievery skill ? The roughe is usefull again HOOOORAAAY

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-09, 11:44 AM
but in 4E, ascension into Epic levels is assumed, so powers and spells go up to level 30.

Actually, the whole "sweet spot extention" thing make epic levels just meh.

Not to just troll, just to second K.G. :smallsmile:

In other words: epic scaling is assumed, but epic is not longer awesome. So, it's dangeorus introduce high level effects, IMHO.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-09, 11:46 AM
Where is the problem that Knock is the same as a thievery skill ? The roughe is usefull again HOOOORAAAY

Wrong thread dude. Check what the OP was asking.

Mando Knight
2008-12-09, 11:49 AM
In other words: epic scaling is assumed, but epic is not longer awesome. So, it's dangeorus introduce high level effects, IMHO.

True... but if you stretch out awarding spells from 20 levels to 30, the 9th-level spells' costs will be almost insignificant...

Nad
2008-12-09, 11:57 AM
I think what I might end up doing is expanding the number of Utilities a wizard gets and then break down the 3.5 spells into 4e levels.

Maybe something like you get your int modifier of additional utility spells?

Artanis
2008-12-09, 01:14 PM
Known, or castable?

Both Would have quite different effects from each other, and both have the potential to seriously screw the game if done badly. They could have little to no real effect as well, but it's something to be extremely careful with.

The problem with adding INT mod to how many utility powers you have access to is that one of the game's major balancing factors is the scarcity of powers in the first place. Even a first-level character's INT mod, which is as much as +5, is a massive, MASSIVE percentage of what you can get your hands on.


Now, with that said:

Off the top of my head (I may change my mind after looking at the book), I'd say let the Wizard know more utility powers based on INT mod, but NOT one power per +1 mod. Like one extra power per +3 or something (or whatever turns out to work the best). They'd still only be able to cast the usual number of utility spells, but could choose which one to use at the time*.

For instance, if a Wizard had a +6 INT mod, he would know one more top-level utility than normal and one more second-to-top-level utility than normal, but could only use one of each level that day. I'll check the book right quick and come back with a better example.


Edit: Example


Say we have a level 6 Wizard. At level 6, characters have 2 Utility powers. So for the sake of example, let's keep the math simple and say the Wizard gets one extra utility known per +3. Let's say that at that time, he has a +5 INT mod. This gives an extra one power. So the example Wizard might know:
6: Invisibility, Wall of Fog
2: Jump

Jump would be used as normal. He could use Invisibility OR Wall of Fog as normal, but that "uses up" his level 6 for the day, so once he uses one, he can't use the other (barring some effect that lets him regain the slot, of course).




*Or when prepping Dailies, again, whichever works out the best.

BobVosh
2008-12-09, 01:36 PM
...Are you just trying to troll, or do you honestly believe this? The DMG has guidelines for doing things off the cuff, as in suggested DCs and damage dice for unusual actions... and in one session I was in, one of the dragonborn threw a gnome wizard twice... once to avoid touching shiny magic pillars and pull the lever on the other side of the room (the DM revealed after the gnome managed to pull the lever that the pillars would have bogged us down with undead if we had decided to strongarm our way through...), and another to throw the gnome across a 10' pit. While the gnome was firing off one of his attack powers.

Have you really managed to do something off the deep end...with a power?

Not a stat check, a skill check, or assumption any idiot can do it.

So far the only thing I have heard of is a Tenser's Floating Disc Tank.

Any, on topic. Rituals have seemed to be the low point of 4th since it was made. Everyone doesn't appear to like em, I'm sure there will be one to protest this sentence, so let us agree most people don't like em. This said, would it really be so unbalanced as to let whoever has the appropiate knowledge do the ritual without specifically learning it? Then you can just ask the DM can I do a ritual which does "blah?" "Sure seems like a thing anyone with your knowledge check of 20 should know." Just remember to try to keep rituals within set level and skill checks.

Eorran
2008-12-09, 03:34 PM
So far the only thing I have heard of is a Tenser's Floating Disc Tank.


Fear the Almighty Hovertank! (OK, it wasn't my idea, but I know the guy who came up with it.)

Anyhow, back on topic:
If you're going to introduce 3.5 spells into 4e, you're going to be doing a lot of work. I think you could make a lot of Utility or Ritual spells from 3.5 spells, but you'd have to make sure it's the right level, and that the effects are more or less in line with what other abilities are. Keep in mind a lot of the favorite 3.5 "utility" spells were basically Save or Suck... often without the Save.

Essentially, you'll end up homebrewing a lot of stuff. So I'm going to throw out a few other suggestions that I'm way, way too lazy to ever follow through on. If anyone's willing to put some work into it, let me know how it goes.
*Note: these ideas probably unbalance 4e to some degree. I'm not really worried about it.
-Nobody's come up with a really good reason for Martial Dailies. Why not scrap them then, or require an expenditure of Healing Surges? I can understand using some marvelous technique that leaves you winded after it's done more than one that only gets used once a day regardless.
-Expand the Dailies for Arcane magic, and toss the Encounter powers, or scale them back.

It makes the classes behave a bit more like the earlier editions, (hopefully) without going to the extent of Wizard = awesome, fighter = suck.