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

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can't easily envisage a version of 3E that downplays item creation.

Seems a trivial change to me. Long-time 3e players will squall, to be sure, but they do get over it. Just hand out the treasure they need when you think they need it.

Really I'm astounded that you can't easily envision it.

 

[Hussar]

It is amusing to me how the argument keeps coming down to "someone had a problem therefore everyone is required to have that problem"

It is amusing to me how the argument keeps coming down to "I never had this problem, therefore it doesn't exist."

Funny how that works.

Look, let's put them on the table and measure lengths shall we?

In the "rogues get sidelined" corner, we have the following evidence:

• Anecdotal evidence spanning the length of 3e's release
• The existence of spells like knock, arcane eye and various others which duplicate a rogues abilities, but, at a much, much higher rate of success.
• Numerous variant rules in splat books both WOTC and 3PP which address this issue

What you got?

 

[Psion]

In the "rogues get sidelined" corner, we have the following evidence:

• Anecdotal evidence spanning the length of 3e's release
• The existence of spells like knock, arcane eye and various others which duplicate a rogues abilities, but, at a much, much higher rate of success.
• Numerous variant rules in splat books both WOTC and 3PP which address this issue

What you got?

• Anecdotal evidence spanning the length of 3e's release
• Limitations on the use of spells (an arcane eye can't backstab a guard, etc.) and better alternative uses for those slots when a rogue is in the party.
• The pure inflexibility of fixed spells compared to skills.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Put me down for "Rogues get marginalized by magic."

 

[Hussar]

• Anecdotal evidence spanning the length of 3e's release
• Limitations on the use of spells (an arcane eye can't backstab a guard, etc.) and better alternative uses for those slots when a rogue is in the party.
• The pure inflexibility of fixed spells compared to skills.

Well, now at least we're getting somewhere.

Sure, an arcane eye can't backstab the guard. Then again, rogues can't walk through doors and aren't indestructable.

As far as inflexibility goes, I'm not sure what you mean actually. Which spells are less flexible than the skills they sideline?

 

[Psion]

Sure, an arcane eye can't backstab the guard. Then again, rogues can't walk through doors and aren't indestructable.

Indestructible mage? Haven't met one.

As far as inflexibility goes, I'm not sure what you mean actually. Which spells are less flexible than the skills they sideline?

Which spells have book upon book of "new uses for old spells"? None. Skills are, by intent and design, extensible to any use that they would logically have. Spells, by contrast, are potent but purpose-built.

I'll confess to be treading on dangerous ground here, because some skills I consider too narrow, and open locks is one of them. I follow suit after d20 modern here and fold it in with disable device. Nonetheless, that's where I'll stand my ground: Open locks is flawed; the design parameters of spells and skills are not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Indestructible mage? Haven't met one.

Well, I suppose i ndestructible is saying a little much, but an Arcana Eye or Scrying Sensor isn't really... endangered. If you lose your Arcana Eye or have your Scrying Sensor dispelled, your spell ends. If your Rogue is discovered and killed, you're friends life ends.

Which spells have book upon book of "new uses for old spells"? None. Skills are, by intent and design, extensible to any use that they would logically have. Spells, by contrast, are potent but purpose-built.

What's with those guys that always talk about "clever spell use" and "using spells creatively"? I think I've seen some of them a few times on these boards.

I'll confess to be treading on dangerous ground here, because some skills I consider too narrow, and open locks is one of them. I follow suit after d20 modern here and fold it in with disable device. Nonetheless, that's where I'll stand my ground: Open locks is flawed; the design parameters of spells and skills are not.

I think the problem occurs that some spells grant you automatic successes. That might be a general weakness of spells at least up to 3E - too much stuff is "automatic" and fire-and-forget. Fly - cast it and fly around for a few minutes, don't think further about it. But you'd have to make a Jump or Climg check for every obstacle you want to clear. Knock - door is open. Open Lock - roll and maybe you get it open.

Of course, there are a few other extremes... Find Traps sucks, for example. If I am not mistaken, you can't even use it to help your Rogue...

 

[Mort]

It is amusing to me how the argument keeps coming down to "someone had a problem therefore everyone is required to have that problem"

It's amusing how your response is: it's not a problem in my game therefore it's not a problem period.

I'll say this. I've seen several games where the party had no rogue. The DM had to make no adjustments to the adventures and the party never felt any abscense.

I've seen no games without a wizard where the DM did not make radical adjustments to the adventures and/or the Group was keenly aware of and suffered from the loss.

 

[Mort]

Indestructible mage? Haven't met one.



Which spells have book upon book of "new uses for old spells"? None. Skills are, by intent and design, extensible to any use that they would logically have. Spells, by contrast, are potent but purpose-built.

I'll confess to be treading on dangerous ground here, because some skills I consider too narrow, and open locks is one of them. I follow suit after d20 modern here and fold it in with disable device. Nonetheless, that's where I'll stand my ground: Open locks is flawed; the design parameters of spells and skills are not.

The problem is while skills should be broader that spells they often are not - especially in practice. Too many DM's are willing to give magic a pass because "it's magic" while at the same time saying "I can't think how that would happen in real life - so the skill use is a no go."

Easy example:

DM sets up a locked door with no visable locking mechanism (it's internal - or whatever-though it's not magic)

Rogue: Ok, we have plenty of time so I'll take 20 on searching for a way to get at the lock to open it. With my +20 search that's a 40.

DM: Hmm, well you see no visable locking mechanism so you can't get at any lock to pick - sorry.

Rogue (giving it one more shot): I have a pretty high number, I can't find a crack in the wall or other exploit?

DM: Nope, sorry.

Wizard: Out of my way. I use my scroll of knock on the door.

DM: You hear the lock open with an audible click.

Rogue: #@%#!!

Rinse and repeat with: hide, move silently, climb etc.

Personally, I believe skills should be cinematic, especially when they are very high (and I would have let the rogue find and pick the lock) -I don't seem to be in the majority however.

 

[Psion]

Well, I suppose i ndestructible is saying a little much, but an Arcana Eye or Scrying Sensor isn't really... endangered.

You're absolutely right. If you need a safe scout, Arcane Eye just can't be beat.

But it still can't backstab a guard for you.

Which is why these arguments to the tune of "X trumps Y" fall flat on their face to me. D&D is a team game; the classes should ALL have room and opportunities to contribute.

What's with those guys that always talk about "clever spell use" and "using spells creatively"? I think I've seen some of them a few times on these boards.

Which of those uses should be heeded is another matter.

If you try the break the parameters of a spell and make it do something it shouldn't do, like summon an Orca to crush you're opponent, the GMs answer should still be "no".

If you are allowing spells the same flexibility skills have, I daresay the problem isn't the spell, but the GM.

I think the problem occurs that some spells grant you automatic successes.

It's only automatic if 1) you prepared it 2) you have uses left 3) it hasn't been countermeasured.

That might be a general weakness of spells at least up to 3E - too much stuff is "automatic" and fire-and-forget. Fly - cast it and fly around for a few minutes, don't think further about it. But you'd have to make a Jump or Climg check for every obstacle you want to clear. Knock - door is open. Open Lock - roll and maybe you get it open.

Knock gets ONE door open. One spell slot that could be filled doing something the rogue CAN'T do repetitively.