|
What if you want to play a Harry Potter type wizard who can cast minor spells all day (but only with a wand)?
I have no problem with your disagreement, but i do want to say one thing Hary Potter type wizard is a concept and I can make a harry potteresque wizard in 3.5. Minor spells all day long is a mechanic (and one that is not reflected in the harry potter movies or books IMO).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What if you want to play a Harry Potter type wizard who can cast minor spells all day (but only with a wand)?I have no problem with your disagreement, but i do want to say one thing Hary Potter type wizard is a concept and I can make a harry potteresque wizard in 3.5. Minor spells all day long is a mechanic (and one that is not reflected in the harry potter movies IMO).
Out of curiosity, how do you build it without employing some sort of house rule or otherwise going outside of the core rules? You can do anything under almost any setting if you're willing to put in the time and effort - I have no doubt you could build a gunslinger class using just the core rulebooks, but I don't think this is unique to 3e (or 4e for that matter).
That would come pretty close, but the assertion I was addressing was that you could build just about any concept with only the three core books. It's entirely possible you will be able to build a lance using knight once a suitable 4e splatbook is released.Could you do that with the warlock from Complete Arcane?
What if you want to play a Harry Potter type wizard who can cast minor spells all day (but only with a wand)?
My bad. I didn't catch that lastknightleft said only core books. Me fail English comprehension, that's unpossible.
It's pretty clear that one can't use the core classes in 3.5 to make any random character concept. Almost the whole selling point of the Complete X splatbooks was new character classes.
|
|
Out of curiosity, how do you build it without employing some sort of house rule or otherwise going outside of the core rules? You can do anything under almost any setting if you're willing to put in the time and effort - I have no doubt you could build a gunslinger class using just the core rulebooks, but I don't think this is unique to 3e (or 4e for that matter).What if you want to play a Harry Potter type wizard who can cast minor spells all day (but only with a wand)?I have no problem with your disagreement, but i do want to say one thing Hary Potter type wizard is a concept and I can make a harry potteresque wizard in 3.5. Minor spells all day long is a mechanic (and one that is not reflected in the harry potter movies IMO).
Well if you seperate mechanic (which I didn't say you could build any mechanic based system with the core rules) and look at concept, Harry Potter is an aprentice wizard that goes to a school to learn how to use magic. Pretty much so long as there is some kind of arcane college in your setting, a harry potteresque wizard is all flavor and easily built using a straight wizard from the PHB, especially if you are going for a harry potter clone since he is merely a gifted student but is learning, level 1 is a perfect place to start. Flavor wise you merely have to say that all somatic components require a wand instead of a free hand.
|
I'm not exactly sure you can do that with 4E either. Not without inventing a lot of powers. One must also remember that there really aren't any spells in 4E, there are powers (lol I almost typed posers!)
You would have to house rule disarm powers, unlock powers, and a host of others. And I do not think 4E has a protection power like a Patronus Charm.
So you could have the 4E wizard waving wands around all day, but they have nothing they can cast.
And incidently in 3.x you CAN do most of those things. I can cast Knock from a wand as often as I want.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well if you seperate mechanic (which I didn't say you could build any mechanic based system with the core rules) and look at concept, Harry Potter is an aprentice wizard that goes to a school to learn how to use magic. Pretty much so long as there is some kind of arcane college in your setting, a harry potteresque wizard is all flavor and easily built using a straight wizard from the PHB, especially if you are going for a harry potter clone since he is merely a gifted student but is learning, level 1 is a perfect place to start. Flavor wise you merely have to say that all somatic components require a wand instead of a free hand.
Okay, but why can't you do something similar for a lance using knight in 4e? The MM has stats for mounts and it's easy enough to come up with a lance.
As an aside, I am somewhat surprised that there isn't all that much in terms of mounted combat in 4e. You're right that fighting on horseback is a pretty solid element of fantasy rpgs, and it would've been nice to see that option included in the 4e core books. I suppose it got left on the cutting room floor because as much as it is a fantasy trope, it's always faced difficulties in play (e.g. most mounts can't go into dungeons (and are frequently limited by room size if they can), you need special rules to track whether the rider or the mount gets hit which won't get used if you don't use mounts, etc.) Still, I generally feel like it's something that should be in a core rules set.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
minor spells all day long is a false pretense because a harry potter wizard can cast any spell all day long, remember the killing curse and patronus are supposed to be difficult and powerful spells. So you can't build a harry potter mechanic based wizard with 4e any more than you could with 3.5
The level system models this fairly well in both editions. Harry Potter could only cast a handful of minor spells when he began the school. By the time he left, he could cast a large number of different spells. In effect, he gained levels which granted access to more poweful spells. He didn't need to prepare the patronus charm each day and could only cast it a finite number of times.
|
|
minor spells all day long is a false pretense because a harry potter wizard can cast any spell all day long, remember the killing curse and patronus are supposed to be difficult and powerful spells. So you can't build a harry potter mechanic based wizard with 4e any more than you could with 3.5The level system models this fairly well in both editions. Harry Potter could only cast a handful of minor spells when he began the school. By the time he left, he could cast a large number of different spells. In effect, he gained levels.
Exactly, I wasn't arguing that you couldn't make a harry potteresque wizard under 4e, merely that you could make one under 3.5
Now you may feel 4e holds that concept better, but you can't argue that you can't create the concept.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Exactly, I wasn't arguing that you couldn't make a harry potteresque wizard under 4e, merely that you could make one under 3.5Now you may feel 4e holds that concept better, but you can't argue that you can't create the concept.
I agree, but I think the same reasoning holds with regards to the lance using knight in 4e that started this conversation. You can do it using the core rules, it just takes a little bit of work. 3e is friendlier to the concept of the lance using knight whereas 4e is friendlier to the concept of a non-vancian spellcaster like Harry Potter, but both editions can do either concept with a bit of work.
|
|
I agree, but I think the same reasoning holds with regards to the lance using knight in 4e that started this conversation. You can do it using the core rules, it just takes a little bit of work. 3e is friendlier to the concept of the lance using knight whereas 4e is friendlier to the concept of a non-vancian spellcaster like Harry Potter, but both editions can do either concept with a bit of work.
Exactly, I wasn't arguing that you couldn't make a harry potteresque wizard under 4e, merely that you could make one under 3.5Now you may feel 4e holds that concept better, but you can't argue that you can't create the concept.
Funny I thought harry would have been a Sorcerer in 3.x
He learned an X number of spells, he could cast whenever he wanted without preparation. Non-Vancian. Simple.
I agree, but I think the same reasoning holds with regards to the lance using knight in 4e that started this conversation. You can do it using the core rules, it just takes a little bit of work. 3e is friendlier to the concept of the lance using knight whereas 4e is friendlier to the concept of a non-vancian spellcaster like Harry Potter, but both editions can do either concept with a bit of work.
Exactly, I wasn't arguing that you couldn't make a harry potteresque wizard under 4e, merely that you could make one under 3.5Now you may feel 4e holds that concept better, but you can't argue that you can't create the concept.
Funny I thought harry would have been a Sorcerer in 3.x
He learned an X number of spells, he could cast whenever he wanted without preparation. Non-Vancian. Simple.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put Harry Potter spells on the same level of known as Sorcerer spells. The Harry Potter spells seem significantly more numerous and easier to learn.
|
|
Yeah, but I wouldn't put Harry Potter spells on the same level of known as Sorcerer spells. The Harry Potter spells seem significantly more numerous and easier to learn.I agree, but I think the same reasoning holds with regards to the lance using knight in 4e that started this conversation. You can do it using the core rules, it just takes a little bit of work. 3e is friendlier to the concept of the lance using knight whereas 4e is friendlier to the concept of a non-vancian spellcaster like Harry Potter, but both editions can do either concept with a bit of work.
Exactly, I wasn't arguing that you couldn't make a harry potteresque wizard under 4e, merely that you could make one under 3.5Now you may feel 4e holds that concept better, but you can't argue that you can't create the concept.
Funny I thought harry would have been a Sorcerer in 3.x
He learned an X number of spells, he could cast whenever he wanted without preparation. Non-Vancian. Simple.
Unless your Nevel
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
except that in the core rules there is no lance. and i may be wrong (its been a while since I opened the book) but i don't recall seeing mounted combat rules or abilities based on horseback?
And in the core 3e rules, a wand is not something that can be used for somantic components (it is a very specific type of magic item) and there are no rules for being able to cast spells an infinite number of times per day.
Toe-mae-toe
Tah-mah-toe
Yeah, but I wouldn't put Harry Potter spells on the same level of known as Sorcerer spells. The Harry Potter spells seem significantly more numerous and easier to learn.Unless your Nevel
He has his own class.
|
|
except that in the core rules there is no lance. and i may be wrong (its been a while since I opened the book) but i don't recall seeing mounted combat rules or abilities based on horseback?And in the core 3e rules, a wand is not something that can be used for somantic components (it is a very specific type of magic item) and there are no rules for being able to cast spells an infinite number of times per day.
Toe-mae-toe
Tah-mah-toe
Magical wands are magic items but just because there are magical wands doesn't mean there aren't non magical wands (and the rules in the DMG specifically call for a DM to allow flavor changes that don't effect the gameplay mechanics) just like the existence of +1 swords doesn't mean there aren't mundane swords.
And once again infinite spells is a mechanic not a concept and no d20 game that I've seen allows for it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Magical wands are magic itemsbut just because there are magical wands doesn't mean there aren't non magical wands (and the rules in the DMG specifically call for a DM to allow flavor changes that don't effect the gameplay mechanics, and once again infinite spells is a mechanic not a concept and no d20 game that I've seen allows for it.
I fail to see a meaningful difference. I could just as easily say in 4e "cross off sword, and write lance" and "you're on a mount, it just doesn't effect your stats." You're still coloring outside the lines of the basic rules in both scenarios.
No, no, no. 3.5 is like wine and 4 is like Coke.
Can't believe I forgot to move this thread to where it belongs. Well, it's moved now.Hey! You moved it into my neighborhood!
Join ussssssssss. Join usssssssssss.
Can't believe I forgot to move this thread to where it belongs. Well, it's moved now.Hey! You moved it into my neighborhood!
Lol. Now we have NIMBYism in threads.
While my forum isn't dedicated to being anti-4e, it is dedicated to being pro-3e. I'm a big fan of 3rd Edition and the OGL. Mainly, my forum is dedicated to my own campaign concepts, but it does have a 3rd Edition Forum, which is really a general forum.
Knightfall's Gaming & Writing Forum
http://walktheroad.s1.bizhat.com/
Note that not only do I have sections for D&D v.3.5 and OGL 3.5 but also I have sections for Dragonstar, Pathfinder, d20 Modern, and Mutants & Masterminds. Also, note that I spend a lot of time on EN World, so I don't usually update my forum as often as I'd like. (If I had more members, then I probably would.)
New accounts must be activated by me, so you'll have to wait until I get the e-mail notice in my inbox regarding account activation. Since I read my e-mail almost every day, you won't have to wait long.
So, if you feel like discussing 3rd Edition or OGL games on a pro-3e forum, then I invite you to "Walk the Road." Just be careful to watch out for the dweller at the Crossroads.
Cheers!
Knightfall1972
|
Can't believe I forgot to move this thread to where it belongs. Well, it's moved now.Hey! You moved it into my neighborhood!
What an eclectic neighborhood. You have cool stuff like
"Who Could Whup Conan," and "Heathansson's Cryptozoological Huntin' Thread," ant that other one,and then whiny s+@# like this.
|
|
I would like to find a place where I can feel welcome instead of despised for my aggravated assault on 4th Edition (but, yet, it's perfectly fine to perpetuate the blindly-faithful, zealousness of pro-4e people by letting them rant on how wonderful it is?)
If anyone knows of such a place, please link it to me. Thanks. It'd be much appreciated and I can help lead other anti-4e folks to the forums to feel both satisfied and secure in their opinions and right to practice their 1st amendment.
There are groups that exist like this: groups of like-minded people who provide a place for angry people to feel like they have a place to fit in and be accepted and share foster their collected and unproductive anger towards another entity. They're called "Cults."
Look up cults on yahoo and you'll find they exist in a variety of scopes: everything from KKK, to Satanists, to Amway.
Robert
...to Amway.
Now that is a truly evil cult.
Oh, you must be an Amway associate.