D&D 4E 4e death of creative spell casting?

[Ruin Explorer]

I've missed that - where did they say that?

Now you're making me find things you bastard! I think it was at the seminar on D&D that people took notes from when 4E was announced, but I'll do my best to locate it.

Edit - It's in the notes of the Q&A session, but the fact that the search on rpg.net is broken is currently preventing me from locating it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

sidonunspa - your example uses Wall of Ice and Lightning Bolt... two pretty common combat spells. I haven't seen anything which indicates you couldn't do the exact same thing in 4e.

I also remember the 1e days and casters finding interesting uses for spells. However, just as often, I recall far too many arguments over what was actually possible with a spell, as many players would start pulling out the physics books to make a case... for *magic*. In your example, for instance, ice is actually a very poor conductor of electricity, and that stunt technically shouldn't have worked. And it's the plethora of ambiguous loop holes in spell descriptions which 3e moved toward eliminating. There was another blog or article which explains why multi-purpose spells can really hose spell choice and design.

But the mention of "siloing" from the quote above makes me think that creative, unusual uses of magic will possibly be *increasing* in the upcoming edition. I don't think 4e will be the death of anything, except some of the more cumbersome, nonintuitive and simple WTF aspects of the current game incarnation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I also remember the 1e days and casters finding interesting uses for spells. However, just as often, I recall far too many arguments over what was actually possible with a spell, as many players would start pulling out the physics books to make a case... for *magic*. In your example, for instance, ice is actually a very poor conductor of electricity, and that stunt technically shouldn't have worked. And it's the plethora of ambiguous loop holes in spell descriptions which 3e moved toward eliminating. There was another blog or article which explains why multi-purpose spells can really hose spell choice and design.

But the mention of "siloing" from the quote above makes me think that creative, unusual uses of magic will possibly be *increasing* in the upcoming edition. I don't think 4e will be the death of anything, except some of the more cumbersome, nonintuitive and simple WTF aspects of the current game incarnation.

Why would "siloing" make you believe that? It seems illogical, given that siloing means splitting things off. Then again you seem certain that 4E will be better in all regards, so perhaps that's why you believe it. For my money, I've never seen an edition change that was "better in all regards", so I don't believe that.

I've been looking for the blog/article on how multi-purpose spells hose choice (which I think is nonsense - they do make design harder but meh), do you know where that is? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[olshanski]

Based on a perusal of the WOTC boards, I think that most "creative spellcasting" revolves around rules ignorance on the part of DMs or Players or Both.

A lot of "creative spellcasting" is often allowed to work once, but then never again when the DM realizes that it is broken..

I know that some of these examples below are strictly forbidden in the rules, but I've seen most of them cited as "creative spellcasting" at one time or another, in which the DM allowed the player to get away with it because it sounded creative and cool.

1: cast a light spell in someone's eyes to blind them.
2: cast silence on an arrow, then shoot it into the target.
3: summon an elephant in midair above your enemy
4: summon a wall of stone in midair above your enemy
5: use dimension door to appear inside your enemy, bursting them from the inside.
6: use create water to create water inside a person's lungs and drown them.
7: use gas form to go inside a creature and then become solid to kill them.
8: use "enlarge person" to crush someone inside a corridor that they cannot fit in.
9: use polymorph self to do a lot of stuff.
10: summon an efreet and get a wish.
11: cast "freedom of movement" on a ship in an ocean, so that it would fall down through the water as if the water were air and smash to pieces on the ocean floor, 3 miles below.
12: cast "wall of force" in midair so that a flying dragon would crash into it and take 1d6 points of damage per 10' of movement.
13 cast levitate on an opponent to take them out of combat, perhaps later dismissing the spell so they fall to their death.

and many others.

I am fine with removing "creative spellcasting". Keep your creativity for roleplaying or for tactics... everyone should have the same knowledge about how spells work (DMs and Players) and if spells work in ways that one or the other is unaware of, that sounds like poor game design.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am fine with removing "creative spellcasting". Keep your creativity for roleplaying or for tactics... everyone should have the same knowledge about how spells work (DMs and Players) and if spells work in ways that one or the other is unaware of, that sounds like poor game design.

Yessss, lovely. I'm glad you're not designing 4E <shiver>

I love the way that you completely ignore that fact that people tell these stories of creative casting with such excitement and joy, but you're keen to see them smashed like a Freedom of Movement'd ship on the ocean floor

What's more important: sticking to the precise rules, or stories people tell ten years later with joy in their hearts?

 

[Zaruthustran]

I get the sense that they're targeting spells that break the game/make the game less fun. Stuff like "scry & fry", and other spells that let you simply bypass whatever the DM has come up with in terms of obstacles/adventure.

Like, maybe Dimension Door will require line of sight. Maybe Teleport will only work to and from specific stone teleport circles. Maybe Wind Walk and other spells will be shorter duration or have other limitations.

I'm all for it. In my home campaign, my players and I all agreed to drop Improved Invisibility, Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport. The game's better.

 

[TiTi____]

[...]
Example: One of my favorite memories involved creative spell casting happened when I was playing a 2e campaign way back; I was playing a wizard and somehow got separated from the party. I walked into a room and found I was vastly outnumbered 6 to one (Half-Orc Mercenaries we were sent to stop). In an act of desperation I casted a wall of ice on the floor (covering the entire room in a 1” thick slab of Ice, causing everyone to make checks to keep standing) then the following round I cast lightning bolt… into the slab of ice. Needless to say everyone in the room was fried (including myself) Thank god I had a ring of regeneration. (Which in our home game would turn to dust if it ever brought you back from the dead)

May I refer you this page, stating that ice doesn't conduct electricity?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03528.htm

Creative all good and well, but it still has to be possible

 

[olshanski]

Yessss, lovely. I'm glad you're not designing 4E <shiver>

I love the way that you completely ignore that fact that people tell these stories of creative casting with such excitement and joy, but you're keen to see them smashed like a Freedom of Movement'd ship on the ocean floor

What's more important: sticking to the precise rules, or stories people tell ten years later with joy in their hearts?

Frankly, I think there is plenty of fun to be had, and plenty of great stories to tell without breaking the rules.

If I am playing a "rules-lite" game in which description and storytelling should weigh in the equation, then by all means be creative. Hollow Earth rewards creative use of abilities when coupled with flavorful descriptions.

When I hear about a 3.5 player who defeated a giant by levitating it, or who blinded it with a light spell, I cringe... Is this an example of a bunch of people having fun, or is it an example of a pushy player exploiting a DM that doesn't understand the rules?
Likewise, I would cringe if someone told me about a game of Monopoly in which the banker gave himself free hotels via "creative accounting".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I get the sense that they're targeting spells that break the game/make the game less fun. Stuff like "scry & fry", and other spells that let you simply bypass whatever the DM has come up with in terms of obstacles/adventure.

Like, maybe Dimension Door will require line of sight. Maybe Teleport will only work to and from specific stone teleport circles. Maybe Wind Walk and other spells will be shorter duration or have other limitations.

I'm all for it. In my home campaign, my players and I all agreed to drop Improved Invisibility, Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport. The game's better.

Teleport only working on stone circles would be some sad stuff. Dimension door requiring LOS would be fine - we always played it that way in 2E anyway.

Scry and fry sucks, but the thing to do there is surely to nerf scrying spells, not movement spells, neh? I think Teleport could do with some more debilitating (and less "random death") consequences, like being dazed for five rounds after going through it, or something, but I wouldn't like to see it vanish. It's too... "D&D" for that fate.

I'll drop Improved Invisibility when the monsters do!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Frankly, I think there is plenty of fun to be had, and plenty of great stories to tell without breaking the rules.

If I am playing a "rules-lite" game in which description and storytelling should weigh in the equation, then by all means be creative. Hollow Earth rewards creative use of abilities when coupled with flavorful descriptions.

When I hear about a 3.5 player who defeated a giant by levitating it, or who blinded it with a light spell, I cringe... Is this an example of a bunch of people having fun, or is it an example of a pushy player exploiting a DM that doesn't understand the rules?

Good grief. This is a pretty bizarre attitude. Are you new to D&D or something?

I've been playing AD&D since long before there were rules for most actions. We've been making up rules on the spot for "creative" stuff long before "Hollow Earth Expedition" was even a braincell in the designer's mind.

Description and storytelling matter in MY D&D game, and they always have. I really disliked the way 3E decided to make rules for everything in extreme detail, and seemingly discourage storytelling, stunts, etc.

In 3.5E, I agree, people may be "misinterpreting" the rules when that sort of thing happens. They sure as hell weren't in 1E and 2E, which is where 90% of the stories you're relating come from! (About 3/4 of your examples are of idiocy, but the other 1/4? Cool stuff). I dunno about you, but I've never been "exploited by a pushy player" (being a pushy bastard myself), but I sure as heck have seen a cool idea from a player and been accomplice to making a cooler and more fun game.

Why arbitarily make a distinction between one RPG and the other in this regard btw? Description and creativity isn't good for D&D? Is that really what you're saying?