"I know the spell to solve the problem!"

[Mort]

Feature - if the GM takes measures to limit the 15 MAD

Put in a schedule, and if the party waits eight hours while the wizard rests and prepares his new spells hey may be wondering what happened to that village they were trying to protect, and why are there columns of smoke rising from where it's supposed to be?

The Auld Grump, I have never had a big problem with it, and the one time they party assumed that they could just rest as they wanted... well, they learned otherwise.

For 3e at least, this completely ignores the easy availability of Scrolls, wands etc. (Scribe scroll is free to any wizard and low level utility scrolls, the worst offenders, are cheap and relatively quick to make).

Some specifics:

i]knock[/i] lets you pick a lock with 100% success and do it as quickly as a rogue can! And went through 2 locks per spell to boot. The wizard needs only a few scrolls (cheap) or for extra oomph a wand (I'm not sure knock was needed 50 times in 20 levels of adventure!)

wizard lock is worse in that a rogue cannot pick a wizard locked door. It either has to be knocked or battered down (although wizard lock makes that harder too. Further, it is permanent unless dispelled so very few resources wasted.

Both of these spells take a rogue and royally hose his niche (pathfinder at least made these spells arcana checks as opposed to auto success so there is that).


There are other offenders too of course: Comprehend languages and tongues, fly to mitigate/invalidate most terrain (which again are easily available on scrolls so no resource management issue) etc.

4e at least made most of these spells into rituals, giving them both a monetary and time cost (with the time cost being significant). Sure the mage can open the locked door, but it will cost 50 gold, take 10 minutes AND cost a healing surge (of which mages get the least of, I believe). The rogue on the other hand can do it in seconds, at no cost.


To answer the OP question:

It is a bug when it is too easy, steps on the toes of other classes, and in general all but replaces any skill use or creative thinking outside of "what spell do we use next" (which actually is not creative at all)

It is a feature when using the spell requires a trade off and a loss of efffectiveness (the wizard yelling ooga booga at a door for 10 minutes is a fine tradeoff to the effectiveness of the rogue) but can get the job done in a pinch.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A memorized Knock spell means the party's rogue has one less door to open.

It also means there is one less anti-foe spell in the wizard's toolkit, so more work for the rogue in combat.

 

[Mort]

A memorized Knock spell means the party's rogue has one less door to open.

It also means there is one less anti-foe spell in the wizard's toolkit, so more work for the rogue in combat.

No it doesn't (at least not in 3e, in 1e and 2e scrolls were much harder to come by and could be quests in and of themselves). As stated many times before, scribe scroll is a free feat and 2nd level scrolls are cheap (and don't lose their utility at high levels). Scrolls don't make great combat items, but they are amazing for utility and versatility outside of combat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No it doesn't (at least not in 3e, in 1e and 2e scrolls were much harder to come by and could be quests in and of themselves). As stated many times before, scribe scroll is a free feat and 2nd level scrolls are cheap (and don't lose their utility at high levels). Scrolls don't make great combat items, but they are amazing for utility and versatility outside of combat.

It does if your players don't play crafter casters.

...and in our group, that describes all of us. Nobody wants to spend that time or give up the XP, however slight that cost actually is.

Yes, the game provides ways to improve the casters options, but with the exception of scribe scroll, they all have a cost...they all involve build options. Out of the box, a spell slot used for utility means one that can't be used for attack or defense.

 

[AeroDm]

A memorized Knock spell means the party's rogue has one less door to open.

It also means there is one less anti-foe spell in the wizard's toolkit, so more work for the rogue in combat.

That's actually an interesting perspective. Where I think you're going is that it is simply a transfer of resources. The rogue does a bit less now and uses those resources later with the wizard having the reverse experience. I see two problems. The first is that different classes have different costs for different resources. In this case, the rogue theoretically had a lower cost to open the door and the wizard had a higher cost. To bring it back to the OP, I guess that would make this a feature.

The second problem is that, setting aside the character's experience, the players also have an experience. In this instance the rogue player just lost his moment to shine to the wizard player. Because he didn't actually save any resources, he won't gain any shine during combat, and so the player experienced a net loss. Rounding back on the OP, in this instance it's a bug.

 

[Mort]

It does if your players don't play crafter casters.

...and in our group, that describes all of us.

Again it is a free feat, free and available to anyone playing a wizard - at 1st level. The only way you give it up is if you use some variant rule. So If you have a wizard in your party you have this feat.

I suppose you can say you choose not to use the feat, but I can choose to play a fighter that for thematic reasons takes a -5 to all attacks. I just can't then say, fighters can't hit anything because my fighter can't.

[edit]: you edited your post after I had already started responding - just to make it clear that I am not cherry picking part of your post. My point still stands though. Your group's choice is just that, a choice (that does not make it in any way wrong, play what works for your group!). It is too easy in 3e for the Wizard, at minimal cost and completely by RAW to step on the toes of classes such as the rogue - and that is a bug.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The second problem is that, setting aside the character's experience, the players also have an experience. In this instance the rogue player just lost his moment to shine to the wizard player. Because he didn't actually save any resources, he won't gain any shine during combat, and so the player experienced a net loss. Rounding back on the OP, in this instance it's a bug.

It IS a question of perspective and perception: if the rogue's player is aware of the tradeoff- he's savvy; he hears the wizard's player gripe about not being able to help more in combat; whatever- he may be happy to play a larger role in combat.

OTOH, he may be that he would be ticked off for having not gotten to shine picking the locks while the moronic Mage should be learning spells that make combat easier for the party to win combats.

(I've seen both.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again it is a free feat, free and available to anyone playing a wizard - at 1st level. The only way you give it up is if you use some variant rule. So If you have a wizard in your party you have this feat.

You're missing what I'm saying: so far, no 3.X wizard in all our years of play has EVER created a magic item of any kind- they don't want to spend the XP.

 

[Mort]

You're missing what I'm saying: so far, no 3.X wizard in all our years of play has EVER created a magic item of any kind- they don't want to spend the XP.

See my edited post above as you edited yours to include the last bit after I had already posted.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suppose you can say you choose not to use the feat, but I can choose to play a fighter that for thematic reasons takes a -5 to all attacks. I just can't then say, fighters can't hit anything because my fighter can't.

A more accurate comparison would be choosing to run a fighter who uses lighter weapons and light-medium armor, thereby choosing not to use at least one free feat of his own, namely heavy armor proficiency. Possibly 2 if he's a TWF build, eschewing the use of his freebie shield proficiency feat.