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

[WayneLigon]

The only thing I miss about 1.0 and 2.0 D&D, spell casters where able to think outside the box when it came to using their spells.

One man's thinking outside the box is another man's powergaming to wring extra unintended effects out of a spell that should have one effect. But I don't think it's led to less creative spell casting, at all; people still do exactly the things you described in every edition and that's not going to change.

I think that whatever they're doing with spells sounds like it's going to bring more spells into play. There are dozens of spells out there that can be used very creatively, but they never get any 'air time' because mages will usually load up on the big boom-zap Evocations and leave most of the other things uncast save in unusual circumstances. I'm thinking that the utility spells, the ones that don't do damage or have significant overt combat effects, will be the ones you don't have to worry about slots for. That'll mean more creativity as you can use them to set up conditions and events that let you get even more out of your mass combat spells.

 

[olshanski]

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?

I've been playing since 1976, purchased all my gaming supplies at the Dungeon in Lake Geneva.
I have lots of crazy fun stories about use and abuse of spells and abilities. Most of those stories come from the late 70s and early 80s. OD&D and AD&D was a much different game than D20 D&D. I honestly believe that the game of 4E D&D or 3.5E D&D is better served with accurate descriptions of what a spell's effects are. If I wanted a rules-lite game, I'd play a different system.

In my experience, most "creative" use of spells has been permitted once or perhaps twice by a DM, simply to reward the creativity, and then the DM either disallows the spell or reads the rules to figure out how its supposed to work and that "creative" use is never seen in the campaign again.

Grease has many creative uses on slopes and ropes that are not explicitly covered by the rules, and I am not squelching those ideas. I like knowing exactly how likely grease is to make someone fall or drop their weapon. I like to know how much of an improvement Grease gives to escape artist checks to get out of a grapple. If a spell has a use, lets hear about it. I'd rather not find out by surprise that "grease" coats the inside of a person's lungs and suffocates them, or causes them to float in water, or burns in a "grease fire" for 1d6X[caster level] damage per round to anyone trapped within.

In many cases, I've found that rules clarifications regarding spells are more helpful than not: for example, 3.5 removed some AD&D exploits regarding levitating an unwilling creature, casting feather fall to prevent arrows from harming you, preventing expanding air-pressure damage from spells like fireball (or deafening from lightning bolt).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In many cases, I've found that rules clarifications regarding spells are more helpful than not: for example, 3.5 removed some AD&D exploits regarding levitating an unwilling creature, casting feather fall to prevent arrows from harming you, preventing expanding air-pressure damage from spells like fireball (or deafening from lightning bolt).

To be honest, I strongly disliked the move away from physical realism to a forced "a wizard did it" kind of magic, wherein only the "game effect" of the spell matters, and other effects/realism are to be ignored, almost regardless of circumstances.

Rather than just expanding on what "utility" spells can do, I'd like them to expand a bit on the "extra effects" of combat spells. I just don't buy that you can put hundreds of thousands of volts through the air and not have additional effects beyond frying some guys, or set the air on fire in a 40' diameter and not cause problems beyond everybody losing some HP.

Similarly, if a spell is cold enough to freeze humans to death instantly, I'd like for it to have SOME effects on water, y'know?

So I'd say making combat spells have more effects is higher priority than making utility spells precisely codified.

 

[olshanski]

Similarly, if a spell is cold enough to freeze humans to death instantly, I'd like for it to have SOME effects on water, y'know?

So I'd say making combat spells have more effects is higher priority than making utility spells precisely codified.

I am on board with what you are saying 100%. I think the players and DM should both understand what spells (offensive and utility) can and cannot do.

 

[WayneLigon]

I just don't buy that you can put hundreds of thousands of volts through the air and not have additional effects beyond frying some guys, or set the air on fire in a 40' diameter and not cause problems beyond everybody losing some HP.

There's a number of reasons not to do it that way.

It's good for a 'magic is physics' world but in general it's just too damn much work.

It makes spells very, very prone to the physics or engineering major in the group running away with the show. It also makes even attempts at balance very problematic.

You can't get two people to agree on Latin translations. How in the world are you going to get them to agree on half-remembered classes taken half a lifetime ago, and then apply that to spell effects. Either way, someone comes out of the deal feeling like they got screwed badly.

 

[Gundark]

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.

I think this is what WotC is trying to do. I highly doubt the creative spellcasting is going away.

 

[Doug McCrae]

To be honest, I strongly disliked the move away from physical realism to a forced "a wizard did it" kind of magic, wherein only the "game effect" of the spell matters, and other effects/realism are to be ignored, almost regardless of circumstances.

Do you think invisible wizards should be simultaneously blind as light passes through the retina?

I agree with olshanski, creative interpretations of spells, such as killing a foe by using destroy water to remove the water in their body unbalance the game.

Balance is the great strength of D&D's class system, and has been improving with each edition. For wacky, totally unbalanced, stretch concepts to breaking point and beyond type gaming I prefer Amber.

 

[ptolemy18]

I worry about this too, particularly with the comments from WotC employees about how they're keen to "scale back" casters and remove "problematic" spells and so on, which, not coincidentally seem to be the ones most often used "creatively".

I completely agree with Sidonunspa, and RuinExplorer. If spellcasters' abilities extend solely to predictable tactical uses, and all their weird and high-end and DM-judgment-requiring abilities are nerfed out of the game (as all the threads on "Game Breaking" spells seem to continually whine about), then spellcasters become nothing but crummy fighters who can shoot ranged energy attacks. Basically what I fear in 4E is that combat is being so overemphasized that every class is being forced to compete on the fighters' turf.

Obviously SOME uses of spells are simply abuses, and need to be restrained by the DM, but this is up to the individual campaign. On this subject, that I refer everyone who has it to Jonathan Tweet's awesome essay on DMing in "Over the Edge" (hmm... arggh, I can't find my copy! Sorry... but trust me it's awesome...) (Jonathan Tweet -- what an ass-kickingly awesome RPG writer! I think he's why I like 3rd ed so much...)

But for the most part, spells should be open to creative, outside-the-box applications. They should also be able to replicate all the powers that you would expect to find in a high-fantasy setting, such as Flight, Invisibility, Polymorphing, Teleportation, etc. etc. What *level* these powers should come at is another question -- but if those powers aren't in the game at all, or are altered beyond recognition in the name of "balance" (like Darkness in 3.5), then you're destroying the Fantasy Adventure element in favor of the Game element.

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

Things like this can be cool the first time a player does them. But after that, you're stuck with letting a wizard blind every enemy he fights using a level 0 spell with no save. And if you let them do it once, they're going to cry bloody murder if you try to rule against it later on.

 

[Jer]

One man's thinking outside the box is another man's powergaming to wring extra unintended effects out of a spell that should have one effect. But I don't think it's led to less creative spell casting, at all; people still do exactly the things you described in every edition and that's not going to change.

Heh - I was thinking something similar. You can't really eliminate "creative spellcasting" from the game because "creative spellcasting" is just "exploiting loopholes/inconsistencies in the magic rules" - if they manage to come up with a magic system that has no loopholes and no inconsistencies and isn't completely boring as a consequence, I'll eat my hat.

Now, what you MIGHT see happen is less "creative spellcasting" overall if wizards aren't up against the wall with no spells but "Grease" and "Prestigitation" left in their repertoire for the day and they're trying to figure a way out of the mess the party is in - if the wizard always has some kind of attack spell handy the need for "creative spellcasting" is diminished and you may see less of it overall.