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

[billd91]

What Balesir said: this whole thief vs wizard thing isn't a complaint that thieves can do things that other PCs can't - it's a complaint that there is nothing a thief can do that other PCs (particularly Flying, Invisible, Knocking wizards) can't also do.

Those who are attacking the UMD skill, and the Knock and Invisibility spells, are defending differentiation. Those who are defending that skill and those spells are defending homogeneity and thieves being overshadowed by magic-users.

There is, however, a problem with niche protection and maintaining abilities that no other class can do - the class risks becoming required. I want various degrees of overlap so that my players can choose to play a different mix of character classes and types without always having to play the big 4. I want abilities to be duplicated by magic items and other pieces of equipment to facilitate that as necessary.

 

[Balesir]

There is, however, a problem with niche protection and maintaining abilities that no other class can do - the class risks becoming required. I want various degrees of overlap so that my players can choose to play a different mix of character classes and types without always having to play the big 4. I want abilities to be duplicated by magic items and other pieces of equipment to facilitate that as necessary.

This strikes me as easy enough - make the "niches" stuff that is useful but not a basic essential. Examples:

- Healing in combat is a Leader schtick in 4e, but out of combat anyone can spend surges, so a Cleric/Leader is not strictly required.

- Opening doors with subtlety and stealth is a Rogue/Thief schtick - but anyone can batter one down.

Class "preserves" might give access to specific ways of solving problems - but not to the ability to solve the problem at all; I can see a system that works in that. In that system, for example, every spell would have a "work around" - the Wall of Ice could be chipped away or melted in time, the Prismatic Wall could be defeated, er, somehow - but if you have a Wizard in the party they'll just dispell it with ease and celerity.

 

[billd91]

This strikes me as easy enough - make the "niches" stuff that is useful but not a basic essential. Examples:

- Healing in combat is a Leader schtick in 4e, but out of combat anyone can spend surges, so a Cleric/Leader is not strictly required.

- Opening doors with subtlety and stealth is a Rogue/Thief schtick - but anyone can batter one down.

Class "preserves" might give access to specific ways of solving problems - but not to the ability to solve the problem at all; I can see a system that works in that. In that system, for example, every spell would have a "work around" - the Wall of Ice could be chipped away or melted in time, the Prismatic Wall could be defeated, er, somehow - but if you have a Wizard in the party they'll just dispell it with ease and celerity.

So why doesn't knock fit into this? Or invisibility? Or spider climb? Seems to me that these are alternate ways to solve the problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So why doesn't knock fit into this? Or invisibility? Or spider climb? Seems to me that these are alternate ways to solve the problem.

I am fine with the Wizard being able to fulfill all the niches of the Rogue - if that's the only thing he can do. (I may be allowing that he can change daily, but even that can be very powerful - if only one day requires a locksmithing and stealth expert, the Wizard can remain valuable th enext day, but the Rogue may be stuck with his skill set). But with magical items like scrolls and wands and with all the spell slots a 3E caster could have, he could occupy the roles of multiple characters at once. And that is not balanced.

Maybe Knock should be described this
You loudly ring a chime three times, and the door opens
Focus: A small chime (worth 10 gp or more)
Casting Time: 3 Standard Actions
Target: Up to 3 Locks within 100 ft you can see.
Effect: At the end of the duration, you can make up to 3 Intelligence (Arcana) Checks instead of Dexterity (Thievery) checks to open up to 3 selected locks. If a lock is protected by a magical ward to resist opening, you must first dispel the ward, using one of those checks. You can make multiple checks on a lock or a lock protected by a ward. You can spend no more than 3 tries to open a lock with this spell.
Special: You can also cast this spell to benefit another character - the character gains advantage on his first 3 checks to pick the lock or break it open.

The Wizard can open the lock with the spell, but it has clear disadvantages (loud chiming, exra handling for wards), but also one compensation - it gives you up to 3 locks to open - a Rogue can try as often as he likes (I am assuming retries are possible), so the spell is not wasted that easily.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am fine with the Wizard being able to fulfill all the niches of the Rogue - if that's the only thing he can do. (I may be allowing that he can change daily, but even that can be very powerful - if only one day requires a locksmithing and stealth expert, the Wizard can remain valuable th enext day, but the Rogue may be stuck with his skill set). But with magical items like scrolls and wands and with all the spell slots a 3E caster could have, he could occupy the roles of multiple characters at once. And that is not balanced.

Maybe Knock should be described this
You loudly ring a chime three times, and the door opens
Focus: A small chime (worth 10 gp or more)
Casting Time: 3 Standard Actions
Target: Up to 3 Locks within 100 ft you can see.
Effect: At the end of the duration, you can make up to 3 Intelligence (Arcana) Checks instead of Dexterity (Thievery) checks to open up to 3 selected locks. If a lock is protected by a magical ward to resist opening, you must first dispel the ward, using one of those checks. You can make multiple checks on a lock or a lock protected by a ward. You can spend no more than 3 tries to open a lock with this spell.
Special: You can also cast this spell to benefit another character - the character gains advantage on his first 3 checks to pick the lock or break it open.

The Wizard can open the lock with the spell, but it has clear disadvantages (loud chiming, exra handling for wards), but also one compensation - it gives you up to 3 locks to open - a Rogue can try as often as he likes (I am assuming retries are possible), so the spell is not wasted that easily.

I would have no problem with that knock spell

 

[Balesir]

So why doesn't knock fit into this? Or invisibility? Or spider climb? Seems to me that these are alternate ways to solve the problem.

They don't qualify because they aren't subsidiary, less advantageous ways to the same end - they are alternates that are as good as or better than the guy whose schticks stealthy lockpicking, hiding and climbing are supposed to be. As [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] suggests, you could make them sorse than the Rogue's skills; alternately you could give them a real price or significant disadvantage (like noise for the Knock, concentration for the Invisibility - so that you can't keep Silence up as well, for example - and reduced walking speed for Spider Climb, just as a few ideas thrown out at random).

For all classes, if they have a way to do what other classes specialise in that is less advantageous than the way those classes do it - fine. But if some classes have ways to achieve every other classes speciality with no discernible downside at a rate of one a day - not fine. A party composed entirely of one class should never be the "optimum pick", at any level.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

They don't qualify because they aren't subsidiary, less advantageous ways to the same end - they are alternates that are as good as or better than the guy whose schticks stealthy lockpicking, hiding and climbing are supposed to be. As @Mustrum_Ridcully suggests, you could make them sorse than the Rogue's skills; alternately you could give them a real price or significant disadvantage (like noise for the Knock, concentration for the Invisibility - so that you can't keep Silence up as well, for example - and reduced walking speed for Spider Climb, just as a few ideas thrown out at random).

For all classes, if they have a way to do what other classes specialise in that is less advantageous than the way those classes do it - fine. But if some classes have ways to achieve every other classes speciality with no discernible downside at a rate of one a day - not fine. A party composed entirely of one class should never be the "optimum pick", at any level.

Why does it matter anyway to be honest?

Why would your Wizard even go that route when there is already a rogue present?

The problem here is you aren't comparing like for like. The Wizard is able to mimic some of the rogue but not fully.

Basically what you want is to close off all doors to where no other class can doing anything another class can do.

In all my 30 years of gaming, I have never once seen a player try and mimic the actions of another when that class is already present in the party. I have had a few Wizards pack a few Knock spells just in case the rogue goes down but that's it. I've also had players who wanted roguish wizards so they had a few rogue like spells that were similar but hey that's okay, you can never have enough rogues in the party.

Are you going to get made if the fighter out damages the barbarian or vice verse?

The biggest problem I've seen with most of these Wizard arguments is the fact that they bank on the Wizard always having the right spell, monsters failing their saves, monsters standing in the perfect formation with their thumbs in their mouths, the Wizard having the best action economy on the planet and a whole slew of other things. Vacuums don't exist in real games so they don't belong in the conversation.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

In all my 30 years of gaming, I have never once seen a player try and mimic the actions of another when that class is already present in the party. I have had a few Wizards pack a few Knock spells just in case the rogue goes down but that's it. I've also had players who wanted roguish wizards so they had a few rogue like spells that were similar but hey that's okay, you can never have enough rogues in the party.

Are you going to get made if the fighter out damages the barbarian or vice verse?

The biggest problem I've seen with most of these Wizard arguments is the fact that they bank on the Wizard always having the right spell, monsters failing their saves, monsters standing in the perfect formation with their thumbs in their mouths, the Wizard having the best action economy on the planet and a whole slew of other things. Vacuums don't exist in real games so they don't belong in the conversation.

You can game for 100 years, but trust me, from my years of playing, you can have magic users intrude on the function of other classes. I am not making up these examples, and you cannot insist that because you have never encountered it, that the issue does not arise. You can have a Druid with summoned brutes or a Cleric with War/Strength domain spells impinge on the Fighter; the Fly/Silence/Knock/Spider Climb/Invisibility spells, among others, impinge on the Rogue.

These last noted spells, as a small example, are not obscure choices that a magic user would mostly ignore, these, depending on level, are some of the most commonly selected; indeed based on specialization or domain, one has plenty of choice. Now if magic users such as Wizards had a much smaller spell slot allowance, then you have a point, but at least in 3rd edition and prior, this is simply not the case.

As for saves, some casters can effectively boost their save DCs, or more commonly, just target weaker saves on purpose, having made a creature knowledge check or using information from prior encounters to know such exploits. Some spells, including many higher level spells, have no saving throw.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
The biggest problem I've seen with most of these Wizard arguments is the fact that they bank on the Wizard always having the right spell, monsters failing their saves, monsters standing in the perfect formation with their thumbs in their mouths, the Wizard having the best action economy on the planet and a whole slew of other things. Vacuums don't exist in real games so they don't belong in the conversation.

What saving throw is there for Knock? Monster Summoning? Etc.

What I cannot believe is that after all the analysis, and we're talking years of analysis and evidence being presented, we STILL have people standing around with their fingers in their ears, eyes closed and shouting that no problems exist.

What evidence would you need Forever Slayer to show that wizards can easily overshadow rogues/thieves? What would it take? Does someone at your table actually have to do it before you'll accept that it happens (and sometimes happens often) at other people's tables?

We're not talking about obscure options from some twenty year old splatbook. These are basic spells that have ALWAYS existed in the game. Why do you think, in the 1e DMG, there is a lengthy essay on how to deal with invisible PC's, but absolutely nothing said about hiding PC's? Why do you think that in high level modules, casters get absolutely hosed, spells removed from the game right, left and center, but the thief/rogue is never even considered?

Put it another way. If thieves were equivalent to other classes, why did they need HALF as much xp to progress in levels?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why does it matter anyway to be honest?

Why would your Wizard even go that route when there is already a rogue present?

The problem here is you aren't comparing like for like. The Wizard is able to mimic some of the rogue but not fully.

Basically what you want is to close off all doors to where no other class can doing anything another class can do.

In all my 30 years of gaming, I have never once seen a player try and mimic the actions of another when that class is already present in the party. I have had a few Wizards pack a few Knock spells just in case the rogue goes down but that's it. I've also had players who wanted roguish wizards so they had a few rogue like spells that were similar but hey that's okay, you can never have enough rogues in the party.

Well, for once, if Knock is more reliable, then that can be a good reason to use it, for example then the Rogue fails.

The important aspect usually is that not just can the Wizard cover the Rogue's role, but he still covers additional roles.

The "good thing" about the Rogue is that opening locks is not generally a life or death situation.
In combat situations, things change ,and when a class's ability let it overshadow a Fighter, then that will happen - dead characters are generally not desired, so minimizing the risk of death is to be expected. But if a class can do that, then it would be better to have two of that class rather than that class and a Fighter.