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

[ForeverSlayer]

Everyone gets treasure. Saying that someone can burn a significant amount of their treasure, that everyone can do, doesn't say much about what's special about their actual class.

Especially when the rogue needs to spend more of his treasure on his weapon(s) and armor than the wizard for basic functionality, so is behind the ball to start.

It's less obvious in a group that is not diverse and uses more random treasure. The DM goes "You find a wand of bark skin" and no one can use it, so the rogue goes "Well, I need a 10 on the die, but guess I'll take it". In my experience, that's fairly rare and that's effectively party treasure anyways. The rogue can eventually pick up, say, a wand of fireball, but it'll be with a horrible DC 14 and only 5d6 damage, at a point when the campaign has moved onto DC 22 12+d6 damages (or flat out save & suck).

But, sure. In infinite treasure land, the rogue does awesome with use magic device. In infinite treasure land, use magic device is so awesome that _everyone in the party takes it_.

That's just talking about the UMD skill.

That's not talking about all the other skills, plus class abilities like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Special Ability, Sneak Attack, etc...

These conversations are all about what "can" be done so the Wizard doesn't get to be the only one who enjoys that spotlight.

If we are going to trow in those limitations that actually happen in real life games then the same needs to go for the Wizard. Not all Wizards have just the right spell memorized, monsters who are standing in the right place, fail their saving throws, magic shops, having time to actually buff before hand, finding other spells besides your 2 per day etc...

I could say that a Wizard is highly dependent on certain things happening but every time that's mentioned the old "well it could happen" excuse pops up.

You can't turn a blind eye when it comes to the Wizard arguments but focus like a laser on other classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E saves were apparantly a weird development.
From Fighters having good saves in earlier editions to bad saves in later editions, and saving throw DCs being all over the place. You really didn't want any magic items that require a saving throw, because the DC would be ridicilously low. (And let's not talk about beating spell resistances with them). On the other hand,a twinked out spellcaster could have ridiciliously high saves that PCs could rarely hope to match. But on the other hand, a Dragon with his less CR then HD and all good saves would probably laugh at most of the time...

 

[Hussar]

See, what I don't understand is how showing that a rogue can be a second class caster, just to try to catch up to the caster, suddenly makes the rogue on par with casters.

Given characters of equal level should have roughly equal amounts of wealth, correct? So, the rogue has to sink a significant amount of his character wealth into making himself a second class wizard. The wizard, OTOH, hasn't actually spent any of his character wealth to out do the rogue. Add in character wealth, and suddenly the wizard has about 100 scrolls which means he's effectively no long worried about burning spells.

Note, by 7th level, you can have 100 scrolls for about 10% of your wizard's wealth. Not 3rd and 4th level spells by and large, true, but, most of the big utility spells (knock, invis, Alter Self, etc) are 1st and second level anyway.

And the wizard can craft those scrolls automatically.

 

[billd91]

3E saves were apparantly a weird development.
From Fighters having good saves in earlier editions to bad saves in later editions, and saving throw DCs being all over the place. You really didn't want any magic items that require a saving throw, because the DC would be ridicilously low. (And let's not talk about beating spell resistances with them). On the other hand,a twinked out spellcaster could have ridiciliously high saves that PCs could rarely hope to match. But on the other hand, a Dragon with his less CR then HD and all good saves would probably laugh at most of the time...

There's a lot more nuance to that issue of fighters having good saves in 1e/2e. Through 8th level, the fighter's saves aren't actually very good. It's only past that point where his saves start to really take off. And even then one major reason his saves appear better is because they improve at a faster rate than everybody else's (every 2 levels instead of 3 or more levels). Eventually, most other classes catch up with him again because their saves continue to improve a while after his plateau.

But I think the issue of saves needing work is a good one. 1e/2e saves improved with the hit dice/level of the target. The caster had extremely few ways to improve them (prayer being one of them) so expecting your spells to work on your opponents as your challenges got tougher became a less valuable strategy whereas, unless you're fighting dragons, in 3e it was a valuable strategy.

 

[billd91]

Which only reinforces my scepticism about Use Magic Device (=, as far as I can see, spend my treasure on pretending to be a caster - why not just retire the PC and build a caster!?).

Because of the most important reason of all - a caster isn't the character I wanted to play.

 

[Shadeydm]

Come back here with those goalposts!


Your first statement was that you had to stop because you couldn't get through the door without picking the lock. It was an absolute limit (the way a Wall of Force is to a non-wizard).

Now you are complaining that breaking the door will make things more dangerous. The implication being that taking a risk means you absolutely must stop.

You are also implying that breaking a door will make enough noise to alert the entire dungeon when e.g. combat and steel clashing against steel won't. Your first combat in a dungeon (unless it's a pure flat-footed gank) will alert the enemy far more than hacking through a door ever would.

Fundamentally, going in without a rogue doesn't make things impossible. But it should make your chances of remaining unnoticed lower - just as going in without a fighter makes combat more dangerous. But you can get through combats without a fighter and get through doors and traps without a rogue.

It's called humor not an absolute... but take issue with what you will. It's entirely possible you have never needed to open a door without kicking it in in your entire adventuring career.

What I am saying and will say again for the sake of completeness is I don't believe any class should be a requirement to play the game. I believe there needs to some overlap for the sake flexibility in problem solving. I don't believe a party without a rogue should be denied the use of a utility spell to resolve a problem that would otherwise be left for the rogue to handle. If the wizard is allocating spell slots to solving rogue problems because there isn't rogue I would expect the party to be happy. The idea that someone sulking at the table because the wizard opened the door just seems kinda sad and petty to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because of the most important reason of all - a caster isn't the character I wanted to play.

But if you realize that a caster can outdo your Rogue in the rogue's speciality, how much is there to be gained by playing the Rogue?

It is not in the disinterest of the player of the Rogue that he actually remains the absolute best in the aspects of stealthiness and trap-disarming, and doing so in "roguish" ways, rather than wizardy ways (e.g. using scrolls that replicate his class features, but in better).

The only one that has something to lose potentially is the swiss army knife Wizard that wanted to be able to deal with traps, stealth, traveling and combat as the best.

I almost think the spell caster classes could be fixed if they just had a _lot_ less spells they can cast at any given - and that includes the usage of scrolls.

If Next moves in a direction where scrolls are used for rituals but not generally instant-casting affairs, one aspect may be dealt with. Ifit then moves on to give the caster much less spells per day, maybe having all the swiss army spells could work - he would at any given day have to seriously think about which spells to prepare, and he couldn'tn just say "Ah, for the rest I use scrolls or" "I've got 10 3rd level or lower spell slots, let's fill them with utility magic". Even a 12th level Wizard should need to agonize whether he has to slot Invisibility or Knock, or rather simply a Fireball.

 

[billd91]

But if you realize that a caster can outdo your Rogue in the rogue's speciality, how much is there to be gained by playing the Rogue?

Hell, yes! That wizard can't sneak attack like I can. He has trouble dodging fireballs. I've got skills he has a hard time investing in while I don't care much about his. So he gets to walk about in broad daylight invisible, I can still hear him because I've got an easier time investing in my perceptive skills than he does with his stealthy skills. Better yet, he's smart enough to realize that invisibility works better on me because I have worked on being more stealthy than him.

I almost think the spell caster classes could be fixed if they just had a _lot_ less spells they can cast at any given - and that includes the usage of scrolls.

One of 3e's major points of friction was the ease with which magic items could be made. Of course, it's also an easy issue to fix were you to view 3e as a toolkit - an idea 5e is making more explicit by promoting modularity - disallow or otherwise restrict magic item creation (or any other particular element of it that gets stuck in your craw). If the wand of knock is a rare item rather than a fairly easy wand to make, it gets withheld for items that need to be opened after the rogue has already taken his best shot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's called humor not an absolute...but take issue with what you will.

When the only reason your example makes a coherent argument is your use of 'humour', it's probably not worth making. Or are you really saying you can't force open a door and therefore need to give up? If it is simply that it makes it harder, do you really have a problem with the idea that some classes can make some things easier for the party?

It's entirely possible you have never needed to open a door without kicking it in in your entire adventuring career.

I play 4e. My last monk and my last warlock were both about as good as a rogue at picking locks. For that matter my last 3.X character was as good as well - he was an artificer (but couldn't sneak worth a damn).

What I am saying and will say again for the sake of completeness is I don't believe any class should be a requirement to play the game. I believe there needs to some overlap for the sake flexibility in problem solving. I don't believe a party without a rogue should be denied the use of a utility spell to resolve a problem that would otherwise be left for the rogue to handle. If the wizard is allocating spell slots to solving rogue problems because there isn't rogue I would expect the party to be happy. The idea that someone sulking at the table because the wizard opened the door just seems kinda sad and petty to me.

And I'm saying that classic D&D fails miserably at your goal. Because the rogue is almost entirely unnecessary for problem solving - but the wizard and the cleric are both strictly necessary for solving a wide range of problems and allowing the party to do things they otherwise couldn't.

I'll believe that the wizard should be able to knock and cast invisibility when either the rogue is either significantly better at both than the spell gets, the rogue gets to teleport the entire party, or the wizard can no longer teleport or fly the entire party.

 

[Shadeydm]

And I'm saying that classic D&D fails miserably at your goal.

I did not say classic D&D nails it or was perfect in that regard. But yes some classes could help offset the lack of others. I think it was a good thing and I hope DDN does an even better job of it. Ideally I never want players to feel like they must play class X because noone else made one.