D&D 5E I want a return to long duration spells in D&D Next.

[Manbearcat]

This is absolutely tedious. I cannot put this any more plainly. This is the 3rd time now. I asked you a very focused, specific question with clarifying points as to my incredulity. I did not ask you a general open-ended question that would prod you for a dissertation on your variance grievances with 4e. I actually was a 3e playtester and have lurked on these boards since this website's inception so I'm well aware of all of the dynamics and all the relevant players and their tastes/opinions/positions. I know where you stand on 4e and where you come from with respect to your gaming tastes.

One more time. On this thread specifically (but you, and others, have done it in the past with absolutely ZERO movement by the opposing side), you stated that you felt "4e was just a Tactical Skirmish Game."

I am not going to recount the clarifying reasons for my incredulity at this statement and why it is nothing more than a non-sequitur (see my initial post but you really need no further evidence beyond the fact that its advocates use the RAW rules system to play something more than a shallow "Tactical Skirmish Game"). They are readily available above if you actually would like to read the posts. I think the main idea is pretty clear and expressed pointedly (but perhaps not as you continue to meander towards some general unresponsive retort of "well, I don't like 4e and I can not like it all I want and I can say I don't like it all I want and dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game all I want"...that's great, I'm hardly interested in trying to convince you otherwise or convince you that you should play 4e).

Focused Question:

1) If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a gratuitous provocation?

I am truly curious because I honestly would rather give you the benefit of the doubt and find a way to attribute your continuance of this to some odd interpretation of good faith rather than malice or bitterness or something to that effect.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I suppose that critics of 4th Ed have argued that magic seems too bland or too common and undistinguished from skills and "base" mechanics. I would agree that the "everyone has magic in 4th Ed" does come off as perhaps a bit mundane, but the mechanics, at least, tend not to render other character traits obsolete.

That is what I do not want 5th Ed to do; return to the era of spell caster dominance in most scenarios. Now, I have no disagreement with magic being potent, when limited, either in duration or in cost (monetary, casting-time, or other dis-incentive).

 

[billd91]

I have a mind that Invisibility, and spells of similar potency, should be of a relatively short duration in order to lend weight to the skill of stealth (hide/move silent in 3rd Ed), rather than another means for casters to trump non-casters.

In our campaigns, this has never been a problem because invisible has never meant inaudible. Stealth still plays a big roll. Long term, close up scouting was almost always still done by the rogue (or ranger) whose job was made much easier. I have never seen a game in which a long invisibility spell duration led to the wizard trumping the rogue.

It was polymorph self or wild shape that allowed other classes like druids and wizards to get in on the direct spying game. Not invisibility.

 

[billd91]

.
Focused Question:

1) If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a gratuitous provocation?

I guess I would ask why you say it has been proven to be nothing constructive. Is this just because a subset of 4e fans complain about it? That's hardly proof of anything but the characteristics of the players complaining.

If you find this tedious, that's not my problem. I don't really care how you feel about it. If you don't see 4e the way I see it, that its focus has become myopically centered on the encounter and fetishized combat balance, again, I don't care. I care a little bit more that you think I have to meet some personal standard of yours before my views become legitimate or non-tedious, but I'm not really answerable to you, so your views of my posts are largely irrelevant.

 

[Manbearcat]

Extraordinary. Thanks for the 3rd unresponsive reply to a simple question and a somehow complete misunderstanding on what has been tedious about this exchange (its in that sentence...its not your views) and thanks for somehow turning this exchange into somehow being about me not seeing 4e the way you see it.

I would ask a 4th time and ask for evidence that the generic, non-sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game" has ever convinced a 4e advocate of it specifically or has ever served a positive end within a thread generally...but I'm just going to leave this be and apologize to the thread starter and those participating in it. I shouldn't have taken it off topic. Carry on.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

In our campaigns, this has never been a problem because invisible has never meant inaudible. Stealth still plays a big roll. Long term, close up scouting was almost always still done by the rogue (or ranger) whose job was made much easier. I have never seen a game in which a long invisibility spell duration led to the wizard trumping the rogue.

For a 2nd level spell with relatively little investment on the part of the caster, Invisibility still trumps stealth on its own. How about Spider Climb? Would that be a better example? The vast improvement these spells provide over a long duration, whether coupled with other effects or on their own, still managed to eclipse many mundane abilities.

 

[billd91]

For a 2nd level spell with relatively little investment on the part of the caster, Invisibility still trumps stealth on its own. How about Spider Climb? Would that be a better example? The vast improvement these spells provide over a long duration, whether coupled with other effects or on their own, still managed to eclipse many mundane abilities.

So the spellcaster climbs around. Is that a big deal?
And yes, invisibility is really good, but without other stealth, it's still vulnerable. Invisibility + stealth even better.

One important question: why assume that long duration magic benefits only the wizard/other spellcaster?

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

So the spellcaster climbs around. Is that a big deal?
And yes, invisibility is really good, but without other stealth, it's still vulnerable. Invisibility + stealth even better.

One important question: why assume that long duration magic benefits only the wizard/other spellcaster?

The target is irrelevant, it's the effect. If a spell would significantly impact a related mundane ability, in some cases to the point of obsolescence, over a long period with relatively little investment (picking a spell from a broad list, filling a single slot), then I have issue with the mechanics. Even if the caster never uses the spell themselves; the question becomes, could a character accomplish a mundane task handily without the spell, or could the task be substituted by the spell entirely?

 

[Sunseeker]

My typical campaign settings desperately need spells with long, very long and permanent durations, including curses and enchantments to places and objects, much much much more than they need balance.

My counter-point would be that things that take a very long time to happen, or leave effects in place have two conditions.

1: curses, debuffs, and similar effects build up over time. Round one, even day or week 1 one of a curse may do very little other than make a person feel a little ill. As it proceedes and accelerates the effects become significantly more powerful.
-This prevents caster-blasters from dishing out a deckload of debuffs in the first round or two, and then blasting away for the rest of the fight. Curses are powerful, but only if your target lives long enough to suffer their effects.

2: standing magical effects, such as glamors, illusions, and so on take concentration and sustained effort on the part of the caster. The greater the effect, the greater the toll on the caster. Making a party of humans look like elves isn't as big a deal as making a party of kobolds look like dwarves. Making a party insivible, making them fly, ect... requires more concentration.
-in short: a concentration check per sustained effect, with a higher DC based on stronger effects. Depending on how mean you want to be, you could cause on fail to make them all fail, or be nicer.


Being able to toss out dangerous things is fine, but I feel that it really takes the whole "magic is powerful and has a cost" feeling out of D&D....of course, maybe you don't feel magic should have a cost. *shrug*

 

[Neonchameleon]

Matters a lot if I want to invisibly sneak into town or draw guards away with an illusion. 2 minutes might be fine for combat, but for anything else it's barely above useless.

Seriously? You get to be entirely unseen for five solid minutes? And you consider that useless? What the hell do you want to do? Make the rogue entirely obselete, and dance your way down the hallway in plain sight rather than use the spell to augment a plan, making the challenging parts doable.

I guess I would ask why you say it has been proven to be nothing constructive. Is this just because a subset of 4e fans complain about it? That's hardly proof of anything but the characteristics of the players complaining.

If you find this tedious, that's not my problem. I don't really care how you feel about it. If you don't see 4e the way I see it, that its focus has become myopically centered on the encounter and fetishized combat balance, again, I don't care. I care a little bit more that you think I have to meet some personal standard of yours before my views become legitimate or non-tedious, but I'm not really answerable to you, so your views of my posts are largely irrelevant.

OK. You've been challenged repeatedly. What possible value does an insult with almost no information content add to the conversation? It's a direct insult and attempt to deny that D&D is a roleplaying game - thereby attempting to shut down conversation, It therefore isn't a productive thing to say, any more than calling classic D&D a hacked tabletop wargame is.

Unless you think that somehow a four year old near-contentless and largely irrelevant accusation that always degrades the conversation as soon as it is made will somehow this time do something different. If it will, I'd love to say how.