D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Fenes]

The party is level 15 and the Rogue no longer bothers to scout ahead because, despite being optimized for stealth, the flying, silenced, invisible wizard with permanencied arcane sight is infinitely better at remaining hidden. The spotlight is on the wizard for the next 5 levels.

TLR (and I) find the above problematic, to say the least.

Coming from Shadowrun, I don't see the flying silenced invisible wizard as a problem since I always assume that so much (or in some cases, any magic) is the same as loudly announcing your presence. I simply assume that people long ago took some precautions against magic (Detect magic is a cantrip, after all, so items detecting magic are cheap), so in many cases the rogue is less detectable by avoiding magic, and by knowing his way around mundance options better than the wizard.

Mostly though I think that the spotlight stealing is not a rules problem, but a player problem. If you've got a player willing to outdo the rest of the party, then that's best dealt with by some talking between players, not by changing rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fixing it out of combat is not that hard either - making social skills matter just requires a few common sense stances on magic used in social situations (such as "charming the noble will get you treated the same way as attacking him once people notice - and people will notice, Charm person being common and known in D&D, and Detect Magic being even more common.").

Well, you're not always charming nobles. Sometimes, you might just charm a criminal so he spills the guts.

And what's the Fighter or Barbarian doing with the Noble? Failing his untrained diplomacy check?

Coming from Shadowrun, I don't see the flying silenced invisible wizard as a problem since I always assume that so much (or in some cases, any magic) is the same as loudly announcing your presence. I simply assume that people long ago took some precautions against magic (Detect magic is a cantrip, after all, so items detecting magic are cheap), so in many cases the rogue is less detectable by avoiding magic, and by knowing his way around mundance options better than the wizard.

Mostly though I think that the spotlight stealing is not a rules problem, but a player problem. If you've got a player willing to outdo the rest of the party, then that's best dealt with by some talking between players, not by changing rules.

Well, if the Rogue was not wearing his christmas tree of magical items, you might have a point.

Aside from that, all this magical counter-counter measures get stale. I would prefer magic being always useful, but never so overpowered that you need to negate it with some counter-magic. The latter is certainly a reasonable thing to happen when magic is very powerful, but that doesn't mean it's particularly clever or interesting.

Maybe one of the problems with most role-playing game magic is that it's often way too obvious and unsubtle in the first place... The Warlocks Beguiling Influence is subtle - nobody would automatically assume that your honeyed and wise words are actually a result of magical augmentations. But if you charm an angry Noble to invite you to a dinner, it becomes suspicious...

 

[Fenes]

Well, you're not always charming nobles. Sometimes, you might just charm a criminal so he spills the guts.

And what's the Fighter or Barbarian doing with the Noble? Failing his untrained diplomacy check?

That's what cosmopolitan, cross-class skills, or multiclassing is for. Stock barbarians are not really that at home in the ballroom, and neither are soldiers focused on killing stuff.

Well, if the Rogue was not wearing his christmas tree of magical items, you might have a point.

If the rogue has a christmas tree of magical items, then he probably can be the invisible silenced scout by item or scroll, and won't get outshined by the wizard anyway.

Aside from that, all this magical counter-counter measures get stale. I would prefer magic being always useful, but never so overpowered that you need to negate it with some counter-magic. The latter is certainly a reasonable thing to happen when magic is very powerful, but that doesn't mean it's particularly clever or interesting.

It doesn't have to be interesting, as long as it makes the game interesting. And if mundane skills become more useful, then it worked.

Maybe one of the problems with most role-playing game magic is that it's often way too obvious and unsubtle in the first place... The Warlocks Beguiling Influence is subtle - nobody would automatically assume that your honeyed and wise words are actually a result of magical augmentations. But if you charm an angry Noble to invite you to a dinner, it becomes suspicious...

That's more how you use it, and what you use, than the system itself. No one says you have to use charm person instead of eagle's splendor.

 

[Voadam]

Every game "allows" you to change it, in that there's no hired goon with a baseball bat shipped with the rules, ready to smack you if you change something.

I think the point people are making about 4e is that it's explicit about how you would change things, and provides a process and some clear guidelines.

You might think that something as simple as "If a rule bothers your group, talk through some possible options with them, then decide on an alternative you all agree with" is too trivial to be worth mentioning, but I don't think that's the case. If rules left out everything that a panel of long-time DMs took as "given", the book might be empty ... or on the other hand, the panel might never make a decision since what's obvious and "a given" to one person may not be to another.

In any case, the fact that people are praising it for this element kind of indicates that whatever it's doing, it is in fact doing it differently from past editions.

Kind of indicates? Can you come up with specifics of what is in fact different from past editions here?

Explicit alternative rule guidlines for different styles and types of games? I've seen that in the 1e, 2e, and 3e DMGs as well.

DM explicitly authorized to adjudicate situations regardless of RAW? Its there in the 1e, 2e, and 3e DMGs as well.

Advice on DMing? Running a campaign?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's what cosmopolitan, cross-class skills, or multiclassing is for. Stock barbarians are not really that at home in the ballroom, and neither are soldiers focused on killing stuff.

I wonder if the problem here is that "Fighter" is defined to narrow in 3E? What class is appropriate for a military officer? For a Warleader? A Warrior King? None of the existing classes cover that. I have to learn to sing, cast spells or find traps to get there. Or take cross-class skills - but shouldn't the fighter per default cover this? I mean, I might start as a "grunt", but that an experienced fighter becomes a lot more and becomes a respected character in a society shouldn't be unusual.
Admittedly, if the system on cross class skills was less harsh, the problem would probably not really exist... Pathfinders or Iron Heroes solution to skills are definitely nice in that regard.

 

[Wicht]

TLR was talking about the following:
The party is level 15 and the Rogue no longer bothers to scout ahead because, despite being optimized for stealth, the flying, silenced, invisible wizard with permanencied arcane sight is infinitely better at remaining hidden. The spotlight is on the wizard for the next 5 levels.

TLR (and I) find the above problematic, to say the least.

I have wondered for some time why I haven't seen this problem and it just struck me when I read the above description of a situation. Our wizards tend to cast the silence and invisibility spells on the rogue not on themselves. After all, a silenced, invisible rogue who is optimized for stealth is going to do far better than the wizard who is not.

It seems like the problem is a wizard who hates sharing the use of his spells - not with the spells themselves.

 

[Hussar]

I have wondered for some time why I haven't seen this problem and it just struck me when I read the above description of a situation. Our wizards tend to cast the silence and invisibility spells on the rogue not on themselves. After all, a silenced, invisible rogue who is optimized for stealth is going to do far better than the wizard who is not.

It seems like the problem is a wizard who hates sharing the use of his spells - not with the spells themselves.

But, even if this was the case - the rogue is now having all the work he put into being sneaky being rendered entirely irrelevant by the wizard. He could be a first level commoner and still do the same things because it isn't him being sneaky, it's the wizard's buffs.

No class should be entirely rendered superfluous by another class. Ever.

 

[Greg K]

I wonder if the problem here is that "Fighter" is defined to narrow in 3E?

Admittedly, if the system on cross class skills was less harsh, the problem would probably not really exist... Pathfinders or Iron Heroes solution to skills are definitely nice in that regard.

Imo, yes the class is too narrow. They should have given it a few additional skills and more skill points per level. My preference would have been to do so as background paths (e.g, bodyguard, horseman, mariner, noble warrior, etc,). Or, Dms could look at the section in the PHB about customizing characters . There is a sample given that tailors the fighter class to meet a character concept.

 

[Wicht]

But, even if this was the case - the rogue is now having all the work he put into being sneaky being rendered entirely irrelevant by the wizard. He could be a first level commoner and still do the same things because it isn't him being sneaky, it's the wizard's buffs.

No class should be entirely rendered superfluous by another class. Ever.

I still make them roll.

And monsters (some of them) can see invisible and sense movement on the ground (tremorsense). Invisible and silence is not the end all and be all of stealth.

Nevertheless - my players look for ways to help their companions and I have never had the problem of the wizard grabbing all the attention.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I still make them roll.

And monsters (some of them) can see invisible and sense movement on the ground (tremorsense). Invisible and silence is not the end all and be all of stealth.

I am getting nit-picky, but: Tremorsense or Blindsight also defeat all mundane types of stealth.