4e with spell slots?

[TheFirstStraw]

I sort of like the way melee abilities work in 4e (free, daily, encounter), but I hate the way spells work for casters. It takes all the intricacy out of it; I like seeing that INT score go to work.

Has anyone done a campaign that puts spell slots and the full list of 3.5 spells into 4e? If so, are they too weak to deal with the 4e enemies?

--OR--

Has anyone snuck 4e mechanics into their 3.5 game (Paragon paths, striker abilities, etc.)?

If there's already a thread like this I apologise.

[PId6]

If so, are they too weak to deal with the 4e enemies?

Somehow I doubt that.

[TheFirstStraw]

Somehow I doubt that.

Well, not in the longrun of course. 3.5 spellcasters get more and more insane as it goes along (probably why they tried to even everything out in 4e)

But first level PCs and enemies in 4e tend to have higher HP. So a 3.5 fireball at first level wouldn't be quite as impressive in a 4e campaign (as I understand it).

[Kurald Galain]

Has anyone done a campaign that puts spell slots and the full list of 3.5 spells into 4e? If so, are they too weak to deal with the 4e enemies?

To my knowledge, no. But note that many 3E spells, starting from level one, either cannot be expressed in 4E mechanics, or break 4E design principles.

Has anyone snuck 4e mechanics into their 3.5 game (Paragon paths, striker abilities, etc.)?

Both those mechanics already exist in 3E, though. I think there's people using the 4E skill system with 3E games, for instance.

[TheFirstStraw]

To my knowledge, no. But note that many 3E spells, starting from level one, either cannot be expressed in 4E mechanics, or break 4E design principles.


Both those mechanics already exist in 3E, though. I think there's people using the 4E skill system with 3E games, for instance.

I don't really know enough about 4e to distinguish Paragon Paths from Prestige Classes and Epic Level spells, so you're probably right there.

And I guess I meant using the daily, per encounter, at will mechanic with a strict set of 4e abilities: basically using a 4e fighter in a 3.5 campaign (with 3.5 stat growth, I guess).

[Kurald Galain]

And I guess I meant using the daily, per encounter, at will mechanic with a strict set of 4e abilities: basically using a 4e fighter in a 3.5 campaign (with 3.5 stat growth, I guess).

Tome of Battle, mostly. It is commonly remarked that TOB was most likely a test run of some 4E mechanics to the established audience.

Aside from that, most PHB classes also have abilities that work x times per day and abilities that always work, which is more-or-less the same except that you don't have to divide your day into discrete "encounters".

[Tengu_temp]

And I guess I meant using the daily, per encounter, at will mechanic with a strict set of 4e abilities: basically using a 4e fighter in a 3.5 campaign (with 3.5 stat growth, I guess).

The Tome of Battle classes, you mean?

[TheFirstStraw]

::looks up TOB::

Yes. Yes to all of that. Thanks.

[Dragosai]

There are also several feets in 4E that give more "slots" to wizards, allowing them more of a choice when they wake up for their adveturning day.

[Kaiyanwang]

A lot of the ZOMGCOOL thing of 4th edition (optional* rules about the way skill are raised, rituals, and in some way even skill challenges) are part of Unearthed Arcana and so of 3.5 SRD. Shame people don't bother to read nowadays.

Encounter powers appeared in 3.0: see under "barbarian rage".

Myself, I want to use epic destinies for 3.5 from a wotc web article when the characters of my current campaing hit level 21. I anticipated it to them, in the way they had an agreement about them.

I'm quite excited, I crafted an artifact sword for the future Blade of Ragnarok sinergizing with her special abilities.

BTW, I suggest to 3.5 players take a look, they are cool and could be a good way to improve your gaing experience, even used before epic, maybe as a melee class boost.

Tome of Battle, mostly. It is commonly remarked that TOB was most likely a test run of some 4E mechanics to the established audience.

There is something debatable about it: yes, ToB has a concept of HPs more similar to 4th edition, as well as the standard action attacks thing.

But ToB has a better explanation in game of mechanics of recharge (this is debatable I admit), as well as maneuvers that boost full attacks. 4th edition completely get rid of full attacks.


* I meant optional in UA, not in 4th.

[jseah]

To my knowledge, no. But note that many 3E spells, starting from level one, either cannot be expressed in 4E mechanics, or break 4E design principles.

Really? I think I can code many spells in 4E mechanics. Whether they will be balanced or not is not my problem, but I'm sure you can have spells that work in the same way.
Can't do anything about square areas and other cosmetic things, but I'm sure writing spells 4E style would clear up ALOT of rules arguments about how they work. Sometimes I have dreams of rewriting 3E spells and maneuvers in the 4E power language.

That said, I'm curious, what design principles was 4E based on that these spells violate?
The only one I'm familiar with is no SoD. Which I disagree with personally, but never mind that.

[Kurald Galain]

That said, I'm curious, what design principles was 4E based on that these spells violate?

Just off the top of my head,

* No changing core statistics, such as with Bull's Strength and Reduce Person.
* No spells relying overly much on DM adjudication, e.g. Silent Image and Charm Person.
* No automatic hit or miss effects, ruling out Protection From Evil, Protection From Arrows, or True Strike.
* No spells that work only on one class of creature (except through elemental resistance or vulnerability), such as Hypnotism, Disrupt Undead, or Shocking Grasp.
* No spells with a range beyond 100 feet, area beyond approx 50 feet squared, or duration over a few minutes.

[Zaq]

Just off the top of my head,

* No changing core statistics, such as with Bull's Strength and Reduce Person.
* No spells relying overly much on DM adjudication, e.g. Silent Image and Charm Person.
* No automatic hit or miss effects, ruling out Protection From Evil, Protection From Arrows, or True Strike.
* No spells that work only on one class of creature (except through elemental resistance or vulnerability), such as Hypnotism, Disrupt Undead, or Shocking Grasp.
* No spells with a range beyond 100 feet, area beyond approx 50 feet squared, or duration over a few minutes.

This is one of the biggest ones. It took me forever to become used to the fact that there's no such thing as a long-term buff anymore. (Some rituals kiiiiinda do things like that, but not really.)

[Fax Celestis]

I sort of like the way melee abilities work in 4e (free, daily, encounter), but I hate the way spells work for casters. It takes all the intricacy out of it; I like seeing that INT score go to work.

Has anyone done a campaign that puts spell slots and the full list of 3.5 spells into 4e? If so, are they too weak to deal with the 4e enemies?

--OR--

Has anyone snuck 4e mechanics into their 3.5 game (Paragon paths, striker abilities, etc.)?

If there's already a thread like this I apologise.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.a.../drfe/20080428

[TheFirstStraw]

Becoming a minor deity and casting "miracle" at your leisure? That sounds a bit nuts.