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

[grimslade]

There will always be creative uses for spells no matter how tight the rules. I remeber playing at an Living Greyhawk table where the GM claimed (half joking) that Servant Swarm was broken. The wizard player was extremely creative and well within the rules. He just sized up the situation and applied a spell that took advantage of it. That will not change even with at will or per encounter stuff.
I was worried by Chris Thomassons blog post about the quirky side effects of spells. Leave the quirk but conform it to the rules. All WotC needs to do is a little editting to catch spell artifacts, like Wind Walk providing an 80% chance of hiding in clouds or mist if you are dressed in white. In 3E that should have been a bonus to hide or concealment, but still fully emulatable in the rules.
I too am really curious about how illusions will be adjudicated in 4E. I love Illusionists and really liked the Beguiler from PHB II. I can see where some things can fit into the whole at will and per encounter. Distract and Daze could be at will. Specific illusions like Illusionary Wall and Net of Shadows could be per encounter. The meat of illusions, Major and Minor Image, though I can only see as per day Vancian spells. We shall see I suppose.

 

[Lanefan]

Part of the problem is things now defined as "creative" were standard procedure in older editions, the best example being the use of 'Light' to blind someone. (I'm still not at all sure why Light and Darkness had their range reduced to touch in 3e, nor why 'Light' had its level reduced; didn't it work fine before?) Another example noted above as "creative" was putting 'Silence' on an arrow and shooting it - well, that again sounds like quasi-standard procedure (though a rock or coin is more commonly used in my games). And when someone who is used to playing older editions tries the same thing in 3e and the DM says it can't be done, there's an argument.

Now, some of the tricks noted above e.g. creating water in a living being were illegal in older editions as well, while some others e.g. summoning an elephant in mid-air can easily be houseruled out by any DM.

The real place where creativity has been largely squeezed out is with illusions. In 1e, a Spectral Force (now called Major Image or something like that; the 3rd-level one) affected all 5 senses...including *touch*, which meant a cunning illusionist could actually make people think they were taking damage from illusions; and even if an illusion was not being used to cause damage, someone failing to disbelieve an illusionary wall would be able to "feel" it and even poke and prod at it looking for secret doors! (of course, the illusionist would have to supply the requisite "bonk, bonk" sounds from the poking and prodding as part of the illusion) Now, such illusions only affect vision, hearing, and smell (but why not taste???), which really cuts down the options and makes offensive illusion-casting a thing of the past.

People complaining wizards have nothing to do once their spells are cast should play illusionists under the old system...you could generate an illusionary warrior and send it charging into melee...if the foe failed to disbelieve (or didn't try) it'd be treated as another opponent that could even do 'damage' on a lucky swing, until it got hit, whereupon it (usually) vanished. Your one illusion could give a whole combat's worth of fun.

Lanefan

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm talking about using the PCs tricks on them after the PCs define the trick.

You can play that game and take revenge on the players, making things nasty for all involved, or you can step in and say, "no way," and disallow the exploit in the first place, saving yourself a lot of grief.

I think avoiding adversarial relationships with the players, even if you have to protect them from their own "cleverness", is probably a more productive way to carry on.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm talking about using the PCs tricks on them after the PCs define the trick.

I know.

What I'm saying is that I'd never do that. Even for an official RBDM like myself, it is beyond the pale to let the PC's do something which when turned around would be unfair to them.

Fortunately, I generally play with players too smart to ask for abuses of the rules, because they know that if I did allow them they'd be facing them sooner or latter and often in nastier ways or situations than they thought up. Afterall, the DM always has more resources than the players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Part of the problem is things now defined as "creative" were standard procedure in older editions, the best example being the use of 'Light' to blind someone. (I'm still not at all sure why Light and Darkness had their range reduced to touch in 3e, nor why 'Light' had its level reduced; didn't it work fine before?) Another example noted above as "creative" was putting 'Silence' on an arrow and shooting it - well, that again sounds like quasi-standard procedure (though a rock or coin is more commonly used in my games). And when someone who is used to playing older editions tries the same thing in 3e and the DM says it can't be done, there's an argument.

Now, some of the tricks noted above e.g. creating water in a living being were illegal in older editions as well, while some others e.g. summoning an elephant in mid-air can easily be houseruled out by any DM.

This is a good post, and right on the money - many of the 3E changes to avoid "exploits" frankly damn silly, and changed the game for the less thoughtful and more simply mechanical. The silence example is a good one - I'm pretty sure there are issues of Dragon where that's demonstrated as a valid tactic, but 3E chose to "nerf" it because why? Who knows...

I felt it was very very stupid at the time, and I hope 4E doesn't continue the trend, but rather reverses it and gives more spells more valid uses.

Doug McCrae - That sounds like shennanigans to me, Doug. No sane DM ever allowed destroy water to kill people, but plenty of sane GMs explained invisibility in the way you describe, only stating that the pupils were not covered, which I always thought was a slightly cute concept. Comparing the two is pretty damn silly and lusting for "balance" in a TT RPG is not a good thing. Players getting equal amounts of fun out of their characters and encounters going as expected is good, but "balance" is a mythical beast that you can chase into some very unfortunate places. The only genuinely "balanced" RPG would be one where everyone had exactly identical abilities, as I'm sure you're aware. Once rules have gotten past the "we made it up on the spot" place, and into well-considered and tested rules, then balance is just a matter of how much you're willing to sacrifice differentiation, really.

WayneLigon - That's just lazy talk though. I'm not asking for "realism" based on accurate physics. I'm asking for, if we must have all the utility spell effects possible and codified, then I want rules on how much and what Fireball sets on fire, rules on exactly how much water Cone of Cold freezes, and rules on what sort of amount of sound and general destruction Lightning Bolt causes. Just as utility spells can be used in combat, combat spells should be usable as utility, no?

 

[hong]

lusting for "balance" in a TT RPG is not a good thing.

Yes it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes it is.

Oh Hong, it's been so long since I had to deal with crazy balance obsession. It remains a fact that to achieve balance you must sacrifice differentiation and potential "creativity" with abilities, stunts, etc. How far are you willing to go down that road?

 

[hong]

It remains a fact that to achieve balance you must sacrifice differentiation and potential "creativity" with abilities, stunts, etc.

No it doesn't.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No it doesn't.

A congent argument, exactly like I remember

I think I'm going to put you on ignore now, otherwise I'll be dealing with monosyllabic playground-style responses to any kind of argument for the rest of my natural life, just like before

 

[hong]

A congent argument, exactly like I remember

Very congent indeed.

I think I'm going to put you on ignore now, otherwise I'll be dealing with monosyllabic playground-style responses to any kind of argument for the rest of my natural life, just like before

Sure you will.