Is it time for 5E?

[fumetti]

The fact 4e replaced spells with a more robust skill system as the primary lever for affecting the game world seemed lost on them.

I don't follow. You are saying that the 4E skill system is where all the noncombat spell activity is? I know there's a bit, such as detect magic, but from what I saw 4E put the noncombat spells in with the rituals, not the skills--and then dumped the rituals rituals in 4EE (5 rule books and not a ritual in sight).

 

[fumetti]

Th funny thing is that many of the spells in 1e & 2e were present because of a lack of an integrated skill system - spells such as Jump come to mind.

Another puzzler... are you saying the old jump spell was really supposed to be a jump skill? Wouldn't the purpose of creating a jump spell be to overcome the fact that the wizard simply could not physically accomplish such a jump?

I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me). Either make it a spell or a ritual. But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.

"Skill" implies that anyone can learn to do it without fully dedicating oneself to the class. If anyone can cast a magic-effect without the hard training young wizards undergo, then why have the wizard class at all?

 

[fumetti]

Try looking under "Utility," which is an entire catagory of powers that everyone gets.

Well, first, read the actual powers, as I'm doubting you did so in the first place.

Don't get so haughty so fast. Because you are wrong.

I said virtually all spells are constructed for combat. Meaning, they are created in that context. (I never said they couldn't be used outside of combat, just that combat is central to their structure.)

Combat occurs within an encounter. It does not exist outside an encounter. Shifts, standard actions, move actions, interrupts, etc. all occur within an encounter. (It would be utterly pointless to tell a wizard outside of combat that he is using his standard action for that turn when there is no turn because there is no encounter.)

Darn near every wizard utility in the PHB is either defined by being an "encounter" spell, or by its type of combat activity (free/minor/standard action), or actually contains in-combat effects. (There are exceptions, but they are the minority.)

 

[Stormonu]

Another puzzler... are you saying the old jump spell was really supposed to be a jump skill? Wouldn't the purpose of creating a jump spell be to overcome the fact that the wizard simply could not physically accomplish such a jump?

I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me). Either make it a spell or a ritual. But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.

"Skill" implies that anyone can learn to do it without fully dedicating oneself to the class. If anyone can cast a magic-effect without the hard training young wizards undergo, then why have the wizard class at all?

Well, I don't have my 1E books with me, but I do not remember a standardized way to make a jump check prior to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide/Wilderness Survival Guide (and 2E's NWPs were optional - I knew many groups that did not use them). I think its pretty obvious jump was meant to clear pits or other such obstacles - for at least one PC (it is a touch spell), mayhaps to get a Pc to the far side to clear an obstacle (I seriously doubt many wizards would use the spell thusly themselves - probably on the fighter or more likely rogue, who'd be toting a rope or somesuch).

To be honest, with an integrated skill system, I dislike spells/magic items that circumvent such use (which 3E had a tendancy to do). It cheapens those who devote part of their character's abilities to skills. However, If you can't count on having a skill system, I think its fine to have spells or magic items that allow you to do skill-like things (boots of springing and striding, jump spell, etc.)

 

[Tallifer]

(I hate to get drawn into this argument, because it is completely off the topic of 5th edition. But c'est la vie in a discussion forum.)

Fumetti and friends: look for all the out-of-combat spells in the Rituals. Look for other out-of-combat stuff in the skill section.

Furthermore, the two Dungeon Master Guides give plenty of details about running campaign worlds, scenarios, non-player characters, social situations, et cetera. Indeed, the DMG2 is very light on new rules and very heavy on fluff and how-to. Also, more and various guidelines on world stuff can be found in the many other guides: Manual of the Planes, Forgotten Realms, Ebnerron, Underdark, Astral Sea, Primal Chaos, et cetera.

There is nothing which a player or dungeon master could do in previous editions which he cannot do using some sort of Fourth edition mechanics or simple roleplaying within its rules.

 

[shadzar]

Well, I don't have my 1E books with me, but I do not remember a standardized way to make a jump check prior to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide/Wilderness Survival Guide (and 2E's NWPs were optional - I knew many groups that did not use them).

Since newer things such as feats and skills in their respective editions still use the ability scores, the wouldn't some "jump" skill actually be the same as was implied, and later spelled out for people, as was done in 1st?

Jump uses DEX stat correct? So an attempt to jump would just be rolling versus your DEX. For all such checks you rolled under or equal to pas, rolling over would be a fail in the attempt; such as people wanting higher stat scores.

I could get my books out, but just put them back up.

For most of these type of things and ANY action, you would just find the ability score that closest related and roll vs that ability.

 

[pemerton]

As to your fireball itself...MANY times has I seen it used outside of combat. My players really love to search every room of a structure. If that structure is old an unoccupied and found along the way, they would have no qualms about fireballing it out of existence so they didnt have to search it again in the future.

Are you really suggesting that the typical 4e player would never think of using a fire attack to destroy a timber structure simply because the power description doesn't canvass this option?

Fireball in Rolemaster is presented purely as an attack spell - it is classed as an Elemental Ball Attack Spell, it is resolved by making an Elemental Attack Roll, the description in Spell Law Classic is "A 1' ball of fire is shot from the palm of the caster; it explodes to affect a 10'R area; results are determined on the Fire Ball Table," and the Fire Ball Table to which one is referred is described as an attack table. The results on the table are hits of damage, and criticals, and in early editions of the game there were no core rules for applying these results to inanimate objects (later editions have tended to incorproate the rules from Rolemaster Companion V).

Nevertheless, the player of the firemage in my first RM campaign never hesitated to use fireball to burn down ships, warehouses, ordinary houses, just about anything really . . .

The fact 4th edition powers SCREAMS combat is the difference I am talking about.

I think this is a major key to where the books got it wrong. Calling this an "attack" power when it should have uses outside of combat, when by the very name it screams COMBAT!

When you look at a power with that word and think of using it outside of combat, it sort of sound to me like "I attack the darkness."

I really think this is a red herring. I've never heard an issue of it made in relation to Rolemaster. Why is 4e (or its players) any different? The 4e DMG has rules for attacking objects, for object defences and hit points, for object immunity, resistance and vulnerability to various damage types, etc. These rules are replicated in the DMG kit and the Rules Compendium.

I just don't feel the force of what you're saying here.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me). Either make it a spell or a ritual. But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.

This actually links to the discussion about Hussar's rouge's "magic" lock-opening spoon on another thread.

I have enjoyed running a game (RM) in which the magic/skill distinction is very clear. I'm also enjoying running a game (4e) in which it is far less clear. Interestingly, the second sort of game makes a fairy story/Tolkien-style approach to magic easier. I think the first sort of game generates a different flavour, that I would identify as more modernist/swords-and-sorcery.

 

[pemerton]

I said virtually all spells are constructed for combat. Meaning, they are created in that context.

<snip>

Darn near every wizard utility in the PHB is either defined by being an "encounter" spell, or by its type of combat activity (free/minor/standard action), or actually contains in-combat effects.

First, not all "encounters" are combats. Some (many? - it depends on the individual game, I guess) are skill challenges.

Second, all "encounter" means is you need a short rest to get the power back. And "short rest" is not defined by reference to combat. (Within the rules as published, it is an open question whether an Encounter buff can be used multiple times in a skill challenge that occurs over an extended time interval that permits short rests. The most literal reading of the rules probably suggests that it can be. My preferred ruling is that it can't be. As far as I know, the designers have never specifically addressed this question.)

Third, specifying the action required is no different from specifying casting times in earlier editions. Comprehend Languages has a casting time of "1 standard action" in 3E, and (from memory) 1 segment in AD&D. No one suggests that this makes Comprehend Languages a combat spell in 3E or AD&D, even though I have to go to the combat section of the rulebooks to find out what those terms mean. Similarly, from the fact that a particular utility buff is a minor action in 4e, it doesn't follow that it's a combat spell or created in the context of combat.

Finally, and confining myself to the PHB, here are the non-combat Wizard utilities:

2nd level: Feather Fall and Jump (2 of 4)
6th level: Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate and Wall of Fog (5 of 6)
10th level: Arcane Gate (1 of 4)
16th level: Fly, Greater Invisibility (2 of 4)
22nd level: Mass Fly, Mordenkainen's Mansion (2 of 3)​

For Warlocks, here is the same list:

2nd level: Beguiling Tongue, Ethereal Stride, Shadow Veil (3 of 4)
6th level: Dark One's Own Luck, Fey Switch, Spider Climb (3 of 4)
10th level: Ambassador Imp, Shadow Form, Warlock's Leap (3 of 4)
16th level: Cloak of Shadow, Eye of the Warlock, Infuriating Elusiveness (3 of 3)
22nd level: Raven's Glamour, Wings of the Fiend (2 of 3)
​

Undoubtedly many of these spells could be used in combat (especially the movement and invisibility ones) - just as was the case in AD&D. Equally, there are some spells I haven't mentioned - one's which raise defences or grant resistance - which could be used out of combat, for example if exploring or negotiating certain sorts of natural or magical traps/hazards.

Nevertheless, I don't see any evidence here that nearly every utility spell in the 4e PHB is a combat spell.

 

[shadzar]

Are you really suggesting that the typical 4e player would never think of using a fire attack to destroy a timber structure simply because the power description doesn't canvass this option?

I was answering the question asked to me which was:

By the same token, how are many older edition spells any different? How many times have you seen fireball used outside of combat, despite that being the purpose of the fireball spell?​

But if you want to get down to who would think about it in 4th edition lets look at fireball, and Intelligence attack against a Reflex defense right?

Targets each creature within the burst right?

Now does it say it will ignite combustible material anywhere to give people the idea it would, or could it be another magical flame that is like Magic Missile, that doesnt do anything outside of what it says. Previous editions explicitly say ANYTHING within the blast area that is combustible is ignited. That is the big difference.

Sure a DM might allow it, but first the player has to choose to try to use it outside of combat, outside of the box. Is there anything in the power description of 4th that would lead you to believe it was usable other than during combat?

The power itself says it targets/affects creatures. A player has to WANT to try something else with it for the DM to apply page 42 to that action.

In the context of the discussion it was brought up in, what does this fireball power in 4th inspire for someone to try to use it outside of combat other than having "fire" in the name of the spell, but the spell itself, even with the Fire keyword, defines the affected thigns of the spell?

Fireball in Rolemaster is presented purely as an attack spell - it is classed as an Elemental Ball Attack Spell, it is resolved by making an Elemental Attack Roll, the description in Spell Law Classic is "A 1' ball of fire is shot from the palm of the caster; it explodes to affect a 10'R area; results are determined on the Fire Ball Table," and the Fire Ball Table to which one is referred is described as an attack table. The results on the table are hits of damage, and criticals, and in early editions of the game there were no core rules for applying these results to inanimate objects (later editions have tended to incorproate the rules from Rolemaster Companion V).

Nevertheless, the player of the firemage in my first RM campaign never hesitated to use fireball to burn down ships, warehouses, ordinary houses, just about anything really . . .

I really think this is a red herring. I've never heard an issue of it made in relation to Rolemaster. Why is 4e (or its players) any different? The 4e DMG has rules for attacking objects, for object defences and hit points, for object immunity, resistance and vulnerability to various damage types, etc. These rules are replicated in the DMG kit and the Rules Compendium.

I just don't feel the force of what you're saying here.

You just keep mentioning RoleMaster, and it sounds to me like that IdolMaster game, so have no clue what you are really trying to say. So I really can't answer any questions in regards to 4th edition players in comparison/contrast to RoleMaster players since I have no idea what RoleMaster is.