General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Power Word - PW had a big drawback namely it didn't work on full HP critters of that level. PW Stun for example only did 1d4 rounds to critters that had HP between 60-90 HP. At 13th level when it first appeared, even a fighter that didn't have a CON bonus should have 60+ HP.
Similarly, PW Blind and PW Kill were ineffective spells versus fresh opponents at high levels.
So it's not your first spell. After a magic missile spell, that 13th level fighter is looking pretty vulnerable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisterH
Wall of Iron - You couldn't cast that spell in midair and that had a 50% chance of tipping either way if you had it freestanding AND those who were subject to a falling wall of Iron got a saving throw versus DEATH MAGIC. Even the wizard who had the worst saving throw at that level for death magic had a 50% chance to escape. How is this an example of a non-saving throw spell?
1e version doesn't have a save vs Death Magic. The death magic save from 2e?
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Actually clearing out monster lairs in order to get the potions would be quite grindy, though, even though it was theoretically possible and fairly low-risk for a high-level character. Ditto for fighting monsters to get special components to brew the potions.
Well, since orc chiefs have 12 hp, a single fireball would take care of the main part of an orc lair. There might be an ogre or a troll with them, I suppose. That's not what I would consider grinding so much as shopping with extreme prejudice.
Quote:
I think the key difference between 3e and earlier editions is not so much how feasible it was for the character but how time-consuming it is for the player to get the potions. To use a videogame example, it is the difference between grinding monsters to get a random loot drop and buying what you want with gold at a magic shop.
That's probably a fair assessment. But only if the AD&D DM decides to be a pain in the ass is healing magic really difficult for mid-level characters to acquire. I certainly don't remember bowing down and thanking the gods every time we found a potion of healing.
The gp value was for PCs selling them, not for PCs purchasing them. You're overlooking everything in the 1e DMG regarding purchasing magic items.
For making, not selling. And how would the PCs sell them when according to the DMG, the sale of magic items was not a common occurence?
Bottom line: with a few hundred gp and a side adventure, a PC or mid-level NPC can brew up a few potions of healing in a month's time.
Quote:
I really think this is theorycraft in the extreme. I don't know of any 1e group which has ever treated going out and killing an ogre mage or whatever for a healing potion a "routine" process.
What, for a 10th level party?
Quote:
The assumptions of availability between 1e and 3e are pretty gargantuan.
-O
Maybe Large, with reach. Since 3e modules are so relentlessly balanced and 1e modules are so generous, the treasure rewards turn out to be rather similar.
Pit Fiends though were not expected to be a match for 18th level wizards or fighters for that matter.
Pit fiends were a match for name level characters but by 17th level?
I think it's probably the most telling about the differences in the approaches of the game when the most powerful creature in the books, a pit fiend (and if a pit fiend isn't the biggest non-unique baddy, it's pretty darn close) isn't considered a sufficient challenge for a high level party. That it's a challenge for a name level party, true, but, by the time you get to the end of the spell list for wizards, pit fiends aren't a serious challenge.
It makes comparisons so difficult between editions.
As far as fireball goes. Well, in 3e, why would you bother? By 7th level, you magic missiles were doing 4d4+4 for an average of 14 points of damage. Your fireballs were doing 7d6, for an average of 24, but a save throw which meant that you were likely going to do about 12 points of damage.
Again, we run into play style issues. If you used large groups of small creatures, then fireball is king. If you, instead, played with small numbers of big creatures, fireball sucked. I would suggest that views of a given spell have far more to do with how the adventures you played through were designed than anything to do with the spells themselves.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I would also point out, that in 2e at least, clerics could brew their own potions at 6th level. Availability of potions depends on a lot of factors.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Including *SORCERORS*? The same sorceror that only knows at MOST 4 level 3 spells? Weird.
Fireball is a prime example of why the 3e caster is so much stronger than the pre 3e caster.
Fireball pre 3e D&D, especially in the 1e uncapped era, was _KING_. Fireball in 3e is a decidely less optimal.
(hell, the fact that damage is subpar in 3e is why the Warmage is seen as a lesser light than the equivalent Dread Necromancer and Beguiler)
As an aside, it should be noted that in 1e/2e, as mentioned earlier, high level spells were not that effective against equal levelled opponents. A 10th level fighter had at a minimum a 50% chance of succeeding on any spell saving throw. Tack on cloaks and rings, and a 10th level fighter would most likely fail only on a 5 or lower.
Where does this idea come from that in DnD high level magic was super effective versus high level opponents? It certainly wasn't based on the 1e/2e ruleset IMO.
Depends really. Alot of creatures had far fewer hit points in 1e/2E. Thus damage spells were pretty effective.
Some of us were creative with our spell strategies. That didn't necessarily mean doing damage. It was more fun to have a spellbook that allowed you to figure out a spell strategy for helping the entire party do the job.
Effective use of spells like Wall of Force or Fire could control the battlefield allowing your melee and physical damage dealers to break up tough combatants. I know the majority of players are focused on damage dealing, but that wasn't me. I liked playing the wizard as a facilitator capable of changing the flow of a battle by applying a spell to a given situation.
That was always more fun.
Sad thing in 4E is that magic is very personal in effect. You can't do many group effects or effects on other people that last longer than a round or two. It's a very limiting game for players that like to use magic creatively. Same for DMs that like to use magic creatively. Even 1E/2E catered to wizard players that liked to come up with interesting ways to help the party get the job done.
Pit Fiends though were not expected to be a match for 18th level wizards or fighters for that matter.
Pit fiends were a match for name level characters but by 17th level?
You had to make your own stuff up at that level. Which many of the guys I played with did. Alot of creativity in the adventures my gaming buddies came up with to challenge high level characters.
You had to make your own stuff up at that level. Which many of the guys I played with did. Alot of creativity in the adventures my gaming buddies came up with to challenge high level characters.
Most of the level 12+ games I remember revolved around either acquiring artifacts and the attending lifestyle difficulties that come with owning them, or raiding various levels of Hell.
Sad thing in 4E is that magic is very personal in effect. You can't do many group effects or effects on other people that last longer than a round or two. It's a very limiting game for players that like to use magic creatively. Same for DMs that like to use magic creatively. Even 1E/2E catered to wizard players that liked to come up with interesting ways to help the party get the job done.
__________________
See, there's the crux of the problem. For some, it wasn't the fact that the wizard could "help the party get the job done" it was that "creative" use of spell casting got the job done full stop. The wizard didn't need the party.
Take invisiblity as a good example. Sure, wizards in 1e and 2e got less slots, but, you only needed one invisibility spell. It lasted 24 hours! So long as you didn't attack, you were invisible for a whole day. Or a whole day for the party with a 3rd level spell. Who needs a scout? You drop invisibility and you were pretty much good to go. Worried about someone coming up on you while you're sleeping? Invis is pretty much just as good as rope trick.
Let's not forget that there were no rules for scent in 1e or 2e. There was lip service given in the text, but, that was entirely up to the DM to interpret. If the DM was generous, then you could wander an entire dungeon invisible, and you were golden.
The "creative" use of spells is precisely the reason why 4e is written the way it is. There is a segment of D&D gamers that doesn't like the fact that the way some spells are written allow "creative" use of spells. In other words, they don't like the fact that caster players can play silly buggers word games with the DM and gain way more power that what is intended by the spell. 1st and 2nd level instant kill spells are a "creative" use of spells too.
No one has a problem with wizards being able to polymorph. That's a pretty standard trope. What people do have a problem with is being able to polymorph into a Behir and instantly becoming a far better fighter than the fighter, hitting the Autowin button on any combat with a corporeal creature of size M or smaller. And even the large creatures probably have a serious, serious problem.
THAT's why wizards got beaten with the nerf bat.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
There's a difference between nerfing and making Tofurkey. Pathfinder nerfed polymorph, but I don't know of anyone who hates the new spells, because they are still functional and retain their original flavor. Tofurkey is Thansksgiving turkey made out of tofu. While you may like Tofurkey, it's useless to claim other people should also prefer it. Calling it Tofurkey doesn't make it other than a form of tofu, and not turkey. It may be better in every way tofu is preferable to turkey, but it's worse in every way turkey is preferable to tofu.
EDIT: To summarize my point, in case this was not clear, I consider the 4e wizard to be a tofurkey wizard.
See, there's the crux of the problem. For some, it wasn't the fact that the wizard could "help the party get the job done" it was that "creative" use of spell casting got the job done full stop. The wizard didn't need the party.
...well-argued stuff...
THAT's why wizards got beaten with the nerf bat.
But couldn't they have done it in a different way that restricted the wizard's power but still allowed magic to be interpreted in terms not restricted to hit points, position and momentarily bestowed standardized conditions?
I suppose illusion spells are the real case in point here being forced into dealing hit point damage. I can appreciate using hit points as a general currency to reflect battle condition, but when Celtavian talks about the creative use of spells, this is what I'm thinking of. The subtle quirks of other spells to beat an encounter through creative use got flushed down the toilet along with the save or dies... and to me, this is a shame. In return, we can play 4e literally without referring to the rulebooks in a session but is this streamlining gone too far? Yes rules-lawyers are a pain as are the various arguments relating to rules vague in certain applications. Their complete eradication in 4e is certainly a design goal success but has the baby been thrown out with the bath water? Has the colour been taken out of The Excellent Prismatic Spray?
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
The subtle quirks of other spells to beat an encounter through creative use got flushed down the toilet along with the save or dies...
Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?
Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?
If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog. All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Oh certainly they could have done it a different way.
But, even if they did do it differently, I think they would still have to restrict the wizard considerably. There were two issues IMO:
1. The wording of spell descriptions. Illusion, charm, polymorph, various transmutations, etc. These are the "creative use" spells that could very easily get out of hand. One of my favorites was the 1e Item spell which allowed you to turn a fire into a small piece of cloth that would turn back if hit hard or the command word was spoken. Barrels of oil+fire+sheep= bunination fun!
2. Casters stepping on other people's toes. This has been argued to death and I won't do it here.
Really, I don't think they could tighten the descriptions of the spells without losing the flexiblity of those spells. So, they chose tighter over looser.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?
In a skill challenge, I dare say a high level Warlord could take a dominant role in making this happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nifft
Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?
What you are trying to compare here is a single check with the casting of a single spell. Fair enough, but your examples are extreme. Turn the volume down from 11 to an encounter with a single creature that is most probably easy for the group to deal with but might use up some resources. If a party member can come up with something that quickly/intelligently/admirably defeats such an encounter thus saving the party resources - is that not something that should be rewarded. Just because it is a wizard's spell rather than a warlord's or barbarian's presence should not matter. I'm not talking about a 1st level spell that is going to single-handedly convert a hostile army or scare away a dragon from it's hoard. I'm talking about those somewhat rare occasions where a handful of different circumstances converge in a way where the clever use of a simple spell can have an imaginatively boosted effect.
Quote:
If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog.
Is that really how you see it. Johnny the wizard does something clever in a particular encounter and he gets brought up before the player's judicial council for being a spotlight-hog or wanting to be a "special snowflake"? I'm not talking about the big encounter here, just the hum drum but "heh... damn that was clever" one. Having imaginative effects that don't rely on hit points, position or momentary conditions shouldn't immediately cast you as a "spotlight hog".
Quote:
All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.
Cheers, -- N
I suppose you could argue that a good 3.x DM responsive to his or her players and their choice of characters could achieve this without too much difficulty. I do agree that 4e has made it automatically achievable (as long as you get over the "strikers deal most of the damage and all the other roles help them do it" mentality).
My first character for 4E was a Warlord and at the time, I shifted my mind to think in terms of the party being under my umbrella - almost like a puppet-master pulling his battle strings. I maximized the effect of what everybody else was trying to do. Under these terms, I really enjoyed the character in combat. However, take Dave in our group who played the wizard to begin with. For him, it was just complete frustration that the damage he was dealing was not that effective (along with some pretty poor rolls) compared to the optimized strikers in the party (the rogue and ranger). Handling the minons was just not that much fun for him.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
What you are trying to compare here is a single check with the casting of a single spell. Fair enough, but your examples are extreme.
Yes, they are extreme. They are exactly as extreme as any other single-action I win button. I think the only distinction is: we're used to spellcasters being the only guys who have those single-action I win buttons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise
If a party member can come up with something that quickly/intelligently/admirably defeats such an encounter thus saving the party resources - is that not something that should be rewarded. Just because it is a wizard's spell rather than a warlord's or barbarian's presence should not matter.
Well, like I said above, if you allow every class to have low-resource, single-action I win buttons, triggered by the same level of cleverness, then it's fair.
Thing is, Barbarians and Warlords (... er, Marshals? White-Raven Warblades?) didn't have those single-action I win buttons. Only spellcasters got those.
So yeah. Wanting to keep spellcasters different is a sin against game balance, when this kind of different is identical to better.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Oh certainly they could have done it a different way.
But, even if they did do it differently, I think they would still have to restrict the wizard considerably. There were two issues IMO:
1. The wording of spell descriptions. Illusion, charm, polymorph, various transmutations, etc. These are the "creative use" spells that could very easily get out of hand. One of my favorites was the 1e Item spell which allowed you to turn a fire into a small piece of cloth that would turn back if hit hard or the command word was spoken. Barrels of oil+fire+sheep= bunination fun!
2. Casters stepping on other people's toes. This has been argued to death and I won't do it here.
I completely agree with you . The other factor is that 3.x wizard's get their spells off too easily with minimal chance of disruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Really, I don't think they could tighten the descriptions of the spells without losing the flexiblity of those spells. So, they chose tighter over looser.
Yes. Anything that might need DM interpretation was removed. It was a solution and I suppose a successful one. I would have liked a different solution but how to do it? Oh well.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?
Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?
If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog. All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.
Now that you mention it, I wonder how feasible it would be to allow three separate feats or at-will utility powers to allow a wizard (or any other character with training in Arcana and the Ritual Caster feat) to use an Arcana check in place of a Diplomacy check (Charm), a Bluff check (Illusion), or an Intimidate check (Fear) to simulate the use of mind-affecting magic without entirely stepping on the toes of other characters.
Now that you mention it, I wonder how feasible it would be to allow three separate feats or at-will utility powers to allow a wizard (or any other character with training in Arcana and the Ritual Caster feat) to use an Arcana check in place of a Diplomacy check (Charm), a Bluff check (Illusion), or an Intimidate check (Fear) to simulate the use of mind-affecting magic without entirely stepping on the toes of other characters.
Arcane Mumbling (Arcana utility power from that Dragon article on skill powers). Does something with Intimidate, IIRC.
There were also some cool, versatile utilities in Arcane Power for Wizards, at least some of which had both a combat application and a social skill challenge application.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Yes, they are extreme. They are exactly as extreme as any other single-action I win button.
I disagree with what you're saying. A button refers to the action (in this case being an ingeniously used spell) being automatic, easy to use and simple. I'm talking about a small encounter defeating action, ingeniously used under a very particular set of circumstances - not some easily repeated recipe and very far from an "I-win" button. Can you see why players who enjoyed the imaginitive (and not necessarily super powerful I beat everyone at their own game) style wizard get a little unenthusiastic about popping off minions, shifting combatants around and imposing some easily removed condition on enemies? There's not much magical about it in comparison is there?
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Arcane Mumbling (Arcana utility power from that Dragon article on skill powers). Does something with Intimidate, IIRC.
Just checked it out: it's a 2nd-level encounter utility power that allows you to use an Arcana check in place of a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check. I wouldn't have a problem with the player flavoring it as casting a Charm, Illusion or Fear spell, though. I guess 4e encourages a different kind of creativity: creativity in description or flavoring, rather than creativity in effect (and arguably, the former is easier to balance ).
Oh well.
).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
