Removing homogenity from 4e

[Fanaelialae]

Only if there's already difficult terrain for the ogre to cross through (it increases the amount of extra movement for difficult terrain from 1 sq to 2 sqs.) Hopefully, the wizard has an ability to make rubble or a really good movement rate to get down an already difficult-terrain hallway, (maybe this is where all those short-range teleports come in handy?) because otherwise, he's no better off with Phantasmal Terrain than he was painting the door on the wall!

It's admittedly a high level spell, but Spectral Vision (Wizard Utility 16 from Arcane Power) seems to be what you are looking for. It can cause a wall to look like a door (and a lot more), and even resists attempts to pierce the illusion (you have to either make an insight check or be hurt by it to see through the illusion).

 

[LostSoul]

What is a door but a wall with hinges?

The DM may rule that those who are bewitched by the illusion can't open the door, but to say you can't create the illusion of a door at all is needlessly restrictive, in my opinion - along the lines of being unable to set something aflame with Scorching Burst.

 

[Jack99]

No, accurate translation of what was the intention behind
"
- whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do

- whether or not you want "fewer options" as a class feature, such as the old-school fighter
"

where he tries to link people who don't like 4Es system with power hungry wizard players who don't like others (fighters) being able to shine.

Assuming you are not a certified translator, I would probably not give up my day job.

 

[Thasmodious]

There were NWP and Secondary skills that covered being a brewer or cook or farmer and so on in 2e. Few ever took them, or 3e's craft and profession skills, but they were there.

You know, I've forgotten that the NWP had a skill check mechanic, based on ability score. I was thinking it was more just a codified system of notation so player's would be able to say to the DM "see, i planned on being good at armorsmithing all along, not just now when it became important." Still, it is basically just what we were doing in 1e but dressed up as a mechanic. By the rules, rolls were rarely required (as opposed to having to roll in 3e to successfully make arrows if you were a fletcher), the NWP represented things you knew. But those rare times a need for task resolution arose, you had the mechanic of an ability check with a small modifier. Which is what we did in 1e, and what some of us do now in 4e. Player describes what he is trying to do, DM figures out what to tie it to (skill or ability score) and a roll can be made without a hard system of resource trade-offs between class competency and background details. In 2e, NWPs were a separate system, you didn't have to give up class skills in order to weave baskets, you just picked the NWP. I found this quote interesting while reading up on these again as it reflects how I came to feel about the craft umbrella in 3e -

...this system [NWPs] is not without drawbacks. First, NWPs are rigid. Being so defined, they limit the options of both player and DM.

 

[ferratus]

Silent Image is a first level spell, available to all wizards who wish to cast illusions. In fact if it lacks anything, it's specificity. Does a door or wall created by the caster block line of sight? Does seen the wall count as interacting with it? The spell is silent on that, but I think reasonable DMs and players can come to reasonable conclusions. My own answer to those questions is yes to both.

That wasn't the answer in my 3.5 days. Illusionary wall specifically says it does not impede objects from passing through it. It is specifically designed to break line of sight. If Silent Image can do the same, what is the point of illusionary wall? Being bigger doesn't justify three spell levels higher.

No I'm pretty sure silent image is an insubstantial, translucent image in 3.5. It is just meant to display something. Maybe you could use a bluff check to make it seem more realistic if the DM lets you, but it is more a 4e way of looking at things. Silent image is supposed to display an image, not cause a combat effect.

Prestidigitation allows you to create images, and it is to cover minor magical spells that do not cause damage, or otherwise disrupt opponents. So I see no reason why it can't create the same sort of images that silent image does. Minor and Major image would be covered by some sort of bluff check in addition to casting prestidigitation, with the bluff check and page 42 covering distraction or interaction with those you are trying to fool.

What we are actually missing is a ritual for a programmed illusion and simulacrums. Other than those two spells, I think we pretty much got the 3.5 PHB covered.

The same is true of illusions. Unfortunately, the designers neglected to give a general illusion power (similar to Wild Shape) that allows illusionists to create simple illusions. So, no doors.

I think it is covered, but if we actually need an illusion power that would allow someone to cast a sustained illusion of one square, a level 2 utility called "figment" could cover it. I don't think you should create an illusion spell that makes the creature interact with it as if it was real, because that would essentially make the spell the equivelant to summoning a warrior, putting on a negative to attack rolls, blinding them, restraining them, or stunning and immobilizing them. It is just too powerful a spell in that case, and isn't a good idea in 3e much less 4e.

 

[Remathilis]

That wasn't the answer in my 3.5 days. Illusionary wall specifically says it does not impede objects from passing through it. It is specifically designed to break line of sight. If Silent Image can do the same, what is the point of illusionary wall? Being bigger doesn't justify three spell levels higher.

Difference: Silent Image; Duration Concentration. Illusory Wall; Duration: Permanent. Oh, and there is no size limit either.

Silent Image creates an illusion of a wall that doesn't feel, smell, taste, move or sound like a door. However, An ogre with an anger-management problem probably won't stop to to check if the door is real before trying to open it. He'll try, fail (make a will save) and (depending on his save) decide if the door is unreal or under another effect (arcane lock?)

No I'm pretty sure silent image is an insubstantial, translucent image in 3.5. It is just meant to display something. Maybe you could use a bluff check to make it seem more realistic if the DM lets you, but it is more a 4e way of looking at things. Silent image is supposed to display an image, not cause a combat effect.

And you'd be wrong. Its a Figment, and figments appear REAL unless disbelieved. Man, no wonder you don't think illusions are important, you're giving everyone auto-disbelief!

What we are actually missing is a ritual for a programmed illusion and simulacrums. Other than those two spells, I think we pretty much got the 3.5 PHB covered.

Simulacrum is an artificer power now. Multiclass if you want it.

 

[Shadeydm]

The worst part is 2 years later and I still cannot do a decent recreation of my bastard sword wielding rogue from 3.x. The closest I can get is make a fighter or ranger and pretend he is rogue, how sad is that?

I still play 4E every week (mainly because there are two people in the group who refuse to play anything else) and have fun but given the choice I would go back to 3.x in a heart beat. It let me make characters based on an idea instead of an idea fitting into a class.

 

[ferratus]

Well if what you say is true, then if I ever join your game the first thing I'm going to do is play a sorcerer, and do nothing by silent image and all the other images in my low level spells.

If I can create anything that people will think is real based only on their will save, I'll spend all my time creating cages and pits, or clouds of dense fog around anything with a ranged attack, or bags over the heads of anything that needs eyes to see, and other various tactics that would essentially make your monsters unable to attack me and my party because they can't move or see. Then we'd see how long you put up with it as my DM before you reign that in.

Image spells are just too powerful if they have that much of a combat effect. That's why they say they are largely to "momentarily disrupt or confound." The combat effect of these spells should be fairly limited.

 

[Hussar]

I would point out that Silent Image doesn not create touch elements. The door looks real, but, since it doesn't have any physical sensation, your hand would pass right through it. The pit would look like a pit, but, the second someone touched it, they would realize that it isn't real.

Even the 3rd level Major Image still has no physical component, although it does have sound and heat.

 

[Freakohollik]

Well if what you say is true, then if I ever join your game the first thing I'm going to do is play a sorcerer, and do nothing by silent image and all the other images in my low level spells.

If I can create anything that people will think is real based only on their will save, I'll spend all my time creating cages and pits, or clouds of dense fog around anything with a ranged attack, or bags over the heads of anything that needs eyes to see, and other various tactics that would essentially make your monsters unable to attack me and my party because they can't move or see. Then we'd see how long you put up with it as my DM before you reign that in.

Image spells are just too powerful if they have that much of a combat effect. That's why they say they are largely to "momentarily disrupt or confound." The combat effect of these spells should be fairly limited.

Silent Image has a duration of "concentration" which means you must use a standard action to maintain it. Since the creatures will be making will saves against this, that seems a lot less useful than something like sleep. I don't recall anyone ever making the case that silent image or illusion spells were too good in 3e as you imply.

Edit: Hussar beat me to it.