"I know the spell to solve the problem!"

[pemerton]

Spells that can replicate or complement abilities are fine. They have their place when, for some reason, your group doesn't have a particular skill.

I don't get this. Even a high level rogue cannot substitute for a wizard - no AoEs, no disintegrate, no multi-target control (Rock to Mud, Sleep, Stinking Cloud etc). So why should the wizard be able to substitute for the rogue?

If we enter the dungeon without a rogue, I guess we have to find some other way round the door, just like if we enter the dungeon without a wizard, we have to find some other way to defeat the cave full of troglodytes.

Generally I think it is a bug; enough that I voted that way

<snip>

You want the wizard asking the rogue to do it 100% of the time and only covering the skill through magic if the rogue is down or missing.

I agree with your first sentence, and voted the same way.

But I don't particularly want the wizard covering it at all. Gandalf didn't have a knock spell, after all - he had to do the wizardly thing, or reading the runes and trying to recall/guess the password.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't get this. Even a high level rogue cannot substitute for a wizard - no AoEs, no disintegrate, no multi-target control (Rock to Mud, Sleep, Stinking Cloud etc). So why should the wizard be able to substitute for the rogue?.

Wand of fireballs, scrolls, staves, and Use Magic Device.

I haven't seen it much, but it can be done.

Just like the wizard can stand in as a badly incapable rogue the rogue can stand in as a badly incapable wizard.

Neither one exactly rocks the world while doing so....

The Auld Grump

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But I don't particularly want the wizard covering it at all. Gandalf didn't have a knock spell, after all - he had to do the wizardly thing, or reading the runes and trying to recall/guess the password.

Part of me loves the idea of this. When a particular skill specialty is not covered by a party, they have to start getting inventive and start thinking and sometimes this can lead to much more memorable play than having something auto-solved by the wizard.

On the flipside though, part of me thinks that magic can do some pretty funky stuff and so to restrict certain utility magic from a wizard's repertoire seems a little forced.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Walking Dad]

...

On the flipside though, part of me thinks that magic can do some pretty funky stuff and so to restrict certain utility magic from a wizard's repertoire seems a little forced.

...

You realize that the utility magic mage is just a fantasy RPG convention ungrounded in any other medium AFAIK.
Why should be magic able to do everything? Magic can do nothing in RL.

One could also see a Wuxia film and say:
"All people good at fighting are also able to fly and so to restrict the ability to fly from a warrior's repertoire seems a little forced."

 

[LurkAway]

You realize that the utility magic mage is just a fantasy RPG convention ungrounded in any other medium AFAIK.
Why should be magic able to do everything? Magic can do nothing in RL.

Thankfully, the D&D fantasy medium is not RL and so we don't need to worry about magic doing nothing in RL.

 

[LurkAway]

But I don't particularly want the wizard covering it at all. Gandalf didn't have a knock spell, after all - he had to do the wizardly thing, or reading the runes and trying to recall/guess the password.

I've been so used to the knock spell that I never thought of it before, but I think that Gandalf didn't have a knock spell because it doesn't make as much narrative sense... does he have a kindred connection with all doors that he can speak to doors, get on their good side and convince them to open for him? People will say, you don't have to explain magic -- that's why it's called magic. But I think that Tolkien was more disciplinary than that. He was very precise (if I remember correctly) that it was a specific rune on the dwarven door that had to be 'cracked' like a security password, and so it was an academic/rune-knowledge challenge, not an automatic door opening magic. D&D didn't bother with that verisimilitude. They needed a metagame mechanism to open doors for dungeons, so they made a knock spell. (Interestingly, in early D&D, I think this was viewed as a boon for the entire party, now, it's just stealing the limelight). So up to 3.5E, we got used to the knock spell as being integral to magic. At least, this is my theory....

EDIT: So what if some wizard utility spells help overcome physical challenges with a mental challenge. A mage makes a Knowledge/Intelligence check to somehow get psychic insight into the intricacies of a door lock, perhaps like a Tarot reading. He can then try to open the door by himself using that insight, but if there's a rogue in the party, he can confer that knowledge or mental image to the Rogue to give the thief an modifier or automatic success. I don't know, something like that. IMO, I would strongly prefer if the wizard didn't have a Knock power in that sense, but a more generalized skill/power that could be used in different contexts using the same 'power source' but not arbitrarily restricted to door locks.

 

[billd91]

You realize that the utility magic mage is just a fantasy RPG convention ungrounded in any other medium AFAIK.
Why should be magic able to do everything? Magic can do nothing in RL.

One could also see a Wuxia film and say:
"All people good at fighting are also able to fly and so to restrict the ability to fly from a warrior's repertoire seems a little forced."

But in mythic and fantasy literature, magic can do a lot. And since what we're going for here with RPG design is a toolkit for fantasy adventures, it makes sense for magic to be able to do a lot of things. The specific mechanics of the wizard may not be grounded in much more than ideas borrowed from Jack Vance, but the idea of a wizard doing relatively minor things is out there.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

A wizard Knock-scrolling a door takes *one day* of scribing the scroll. A rogue takes a full round with lock picks.

Maybe spending one day per lock on magic item creation isn't a problem in your campaign, but it would have been problematic in most of our campaigns.

A wand takes five days, which might be worth it, but requires a feat. Either magic item would be illegal in most cities in my games.

(Opening the lock is only half the problem solved, of course. There may still be traps.)

 

[steenan]

That's completely dependent on how the game is designed to be played and how the magic system is built. Replacing skills with magic is problematic in D&D. It is not in M:tA, Sorcerer, Nobilis, Unknown Armies, Exalted or even WFRP.

In general, utility magic is not a problem if at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:

- Everybody plays a spellcaster (or an equivalent)

- Magic is risky enough that using it for something that's not a life-and-death and may be solved without it is probably a bad idea (where risk should not mean losing the character, rather some significant problems and complications).

- Magic has a meaningful price or side effects that a caster typically won't be willing to bear with unless necessary (like an increasing corruption, having to offer more and more in demonic bargains, sacrificing own life force in a way that can't be easily recovered, sacrificing other people etc.)

- Magic use is limited in a meaningful way within the story structure of the game (eg. daily limit is not meaningful if you allow 15MAD while a per-adventure or per-session limit is more universally useful; long casting time is a meaningful limit in a high-paced game etc.)

- Flexibility of magic as a whole is very high, but flexibility of any given spellcaster is not (eg. they only know a handful of spells out of several hundred), so you can have a party consisting of a craft-mage, a combat-mage, a scout-mage and a talky-mage, but not a single caster character that does everything.



Also, a well-designed magic system never replaces role playing (and the same should hold for any other subsystem within a game). It should rather change how and when it happens.

A simple example may be a charm that is easy to use, but affects you in the same way as your target - you need to plan well how to use it and you have to roleplay yourself fascinated with the other person as they are with you.
Another example is a mind control magic in a game that does not handwave moral issues away but focuses on them. You may easily get people to do what you want, the real question is if it is worth it.

 

[Mort]

A wizard Knock-scrolling a door takes *one day* of scribing the scroll. A rogue takes a full round with lock picks.

Maybe spending one day per lock on magic item creation isn't a problem in your campaign, but it would have been problematic in most of our campaigns.

Yes having zero downtime solves the issue. But having no time between adventures, no time for the characters to do anything but adventure (not even a day or two) is a frantic pace, not one used in most campaigns. You're telling me your campaigns never have the "ok you guys saved x, again, take a much needed week off!" It's certainly possible and I have run a frantic pace campaign/game before - but I would not consider it the norm. And more importantly it's actually a fix on the issue (just like allowing sorcerers but not wizards for ex. would be) so can't really be used as an argument that there isn't one.

A wand takes five days, which might be worth it, but requires a feat. Either magic item would be illegal in most cities in my games..)

That is purely a setting issue. I can make mages/magic illegal in my campaign world and that would solve the problem too, but it does not address the mechanic issue.

(Opening the lock is only half the problem solved, of course. There may still be traps.)

Yes there might. Are all locked doors trapped in your world too?

And again, this is just knock - there are a host of low level offending utility spells.

Agaon, saying "they are illegal in my world" or "my players don't use them" addresses the issue for your world/campaign but can't really be used as justification why it's not problematic.