D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Hussar]

I still make them roll.

And monsters (some of them) can see invisible and sense movement on the ground (tremorsense). Invisible and silence is not the end all and be all of stealth.

Nevertheless - my players look for ways to help their companions and I have never had the problem of the wizard grabbing all the attention.

Actually, that's a very good point.

The only way the rogue can actually be sneaky around certain monsters is if the Wizard helps him out. Nothing a rogue can do by himself can overcome the issues you have laid out.

But a wizard? No problem. Overland flight spell negates tremorsense. Ethereal Jaunt and now I have nothing to worry about at all. Or, just send in an Arcane Eye spell and do all the scouting with none of the threat.

Even if you've never had these problems in your group, can you not agree that these problems may exist in the system?

 

[Parlan]

Coming from Shadowrun, I don't see the flying silenced invisible wizard as a problem since I always assume that so much (or in some cases, any magic) is the same as loudly announcing your presence. I simply assume that people long ago took some precautions against magic (Detect magic is a cantrip, after all, so items detecting magic are cheap), so in many cases the rogue is less detectable by avoiding magic, and by knowing his way around mundance options better than the wizard.

It's a cantrip, but only lasts for a min/level. So sentries need permancied versions or the ability to cast it dozens of times on a typical shift.

How much is an item w/ permanancied Detect Magic?
How "realistic" is it for every/most every sentry to be equipped with one?

Even if that doesn't break your sense of verisimilitude for a significant number of encounters, it doesn't work.

It detects magic w/n a 60ft cone after a round of concentration. The mage is flying. He's moving so fast that he's unlikely to be in that cone on the sentry's turn.

If it does work, then it will also detect the rogue's magic items (probably more easily too, since the rogue is moving slower and thus more likely to actually be caught in the cone of detect magic).

So the solution to keep the wizard from sidelining the rogue by usurping his sneakiness is to have the GM make sneaking a non-viable tactic and sideline the sneaky rogue himself. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Mostly though I think that the spotlight stealing is not a rules problem, but a player problem. If you've got a player willing to outdo the rest of the party, then that's best dealt with by some talking between players, not by changing rules.

"Hey Wizard, you've spent 14 levels waiting to get these kewl spells. Please don't cast them b/c they're too kewl and make the rogue look like a putz. Have the rogue continue to sneak even though that's a less effective tactic for the party as a whole.

Oh, and don't cast any powerful damaging spells either. Now that we're at 15th level, most of the level-appropriate encounters are immune to Sneak Attack, so Rogue also feels sidelined by all the damage you do."

Is that fair to the Wizard?

 

[Parlan]

But a wizard? No problem. Overland flight spell negates tremorsense. Ethereal Jaunt and now I have nothing to worry about at all. Or, just send in an Arcane Eye spell and do all the scouting with none of the threat.

Good examples.

Look, it's not like every time I see a Wizard I drink the Hater-ade (Half the Calories, all the Hatin'!!). I just want the Wizard to excel at "wizard stuff". Admittedly, that's hard to define, but generally, knowing obscure facts (Know: Hist/Arcana) and blasting baddies with balls of fire.

I don't want the Wizard to be able to cast silence and invis and usurp the rogue's role, or Tensor's Transformation and usurp the Fighter's.

For that reason, I like the concept of Roles in 4e. Yes, I find the terms Controller, Leader, etc. a little paternalistic and cheesy, but I think they focused the designers' attention onto the niche that class should occupy. And, just as importantly, the other niches it should *not* occupy.

There are certainly work-arounds for these issues, but the more time and energy I have to devote to those, the less time I have to focus on the actual adventure.

 

[Alcamtar]

It's like D&D has spawned two caricatures of itself.

This post pretty much sums up how I see it. It's kind of left me in a no-man's-land where none of them look interesting any more.

 

[BryonD]

Even if you've never had these problems in your group, can you not agree that these problems may exist in the system?

I think the premise of your question is completely flawed.
User error does not establish a flaw in the system itself.

The level of user friendliness required may certainly vary from one group to another. But different systems serving the needs of different groups does not mean that either one has a problem.

I might as well say that a fast pitch batting cage has a problem with its system because I wiff at every ball it throws. If I'm talking to someone who can crush 17 out of 20, he is going to see the flaw in my claim that my misses signify a failure on the machine's part.

It may be true that there are other elements of the fast pitch machine that really could use some work. But if it functions for the intended user, then someone else not being able to use it is meaningless to the assessment.

 

[Hussar]

I think the premise of your question is completely flawed.
User error does not establish a flaw in the system itself.

The level of user friendliness required may certainly vary from one group to another. But different systems serving the needs of different groups does not mean that either one has a problem.

I might as well say that a fast pitch batting cage has a problem with its system because I wiff at every ball it throws. If I'm talking to someone who can crush 17 out of 20, he is going to see the flaw in my claim that my misses signify a failure on the machine's part.

It may be true that there are other elements of the fast pitch machine that really could use some work. But if it functions for the intended user, then someone else not being able to use it is meaningless to the assessment.

I would agree except, since you cut out the rest of the quote, how is it user error for the wizard to use the spells he has? It's not like he's going out of his way to make the rogue irrelavent. These spells are right there in core. I don't recall any sidebars stating that players should avoid those spells which make another class entirely superflous.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I might as well say that a fast pitch batting cage has a problem with its system because I wiff at every ball it throws.

You (in particular) might also say that turning down the machine to lob 60 mph pitches isn't likely to produce the next generation of power hitters.

 

[Hussar]

Because, y'know, to train people to hit balls, you must absolutely never let them hit them in the first place. Walk before you run? Piffle. You keep swinging impotently at a ball you can barely see and never, ever improve.

 

[thedungeondelver]

1E and OD&D, which pioneered concepts, created some classic adventures, but without a doubt clunked loudly as game systems.

...

2E, 1E and OD&D don't cut the mustard with regard to today's game design "technology" - today people want better.

Oh cool! Baseless snipes at other editions are OK again? Man, just let me clean off my calendar and I'll be posting some doozies about 4e shortly!

 

[BryonD]

Because, y'know, to train people to hit balls, you must absolutely never let them hit them in the first place. Walk before you run? Piffle. You keep swinging impotently at a ball you can barely see and never, ever improve.

Oh no, I 100% agree that one is good for beginners and the other is good for when you are ready to start actually playing.

Edit: Though it does seem you are suggesting that until now no good DMs could possibly exist. After all, we can never, ever improve.
I think there is a flaw in there somewhere.