D&D 5E I want a return to long duration spells in D&D Next.

[ForeverSlayer]

Everyone gets treasure. Saying that someone can burn a significant amount of their treasure, that everyone can do, doesn't say much about what's special about their actual class.

Especially when the rogue needs to spend more of his treasure on his weapon(s) and armor than the wizard for basic functionality, so is behind the ball to start.

It's less obvious in a group that is not diverse and uses more random treasure. The DM goes "You find a wand of bark skin" and no one can use it, so the rogue goes "Well, I need a 10 on the die, but guess I'll take it". In my experience, that's fairly rare and that's effectively party treasure anyways. The rogue can eventually pick up, say, a wand of fireball, but it'll be with a horrible DC 14 and only 5d6 damage, at a point when the campaign has moved onto DC 22 12+d6 damages (or flat out save & suck).

But, sure. In infinite treasure land, the rogue does awesome with use magic device. In infinite treasure land, use magic device is so awesome that _everyone in the party takes it_.

That's just talking about the UMD skill.

That's not talking about all the other skills, plus class abilities like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Special Ability, Sneak Attack, etc...

These conversations are all about what "can" be done so the Wizard doesn't get to be the only one who enjoys that spotlight.

If we are going to trow in those limitations that actually happen in real life games then the same needs to go for the Wizard. Not all Wizards have just the right spell memorized, monsters who are standing in the right place, fail their saving throws, magic shops, having time to actually buff before hand, finding other spells besides your 2 per day etc...

I could say that a Wizard is highly dependent on certain things happening but every time that's mentioned the old "well it could happen" excuse pops up.

You can't turn a blind eye when it comes to the Wizard arguments but focus like a laser on other classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E saves were apparantly a weird development.
From Fighters having good saves in earlier editions to bad saves in later editions, and saving throw DCs being all over the place. You really didn't want any magic items that require a saving throw, because the DC would be ridicilously low. (And let's not talk about beating spell resistances with them). On the other hand,a twinked out spellcaster could have ridiciliously high saves that PCs could rarely hope to match. But on the other hand, a Dragon with his less CR then HD and all good saves would probably laugh at most of the time...

 

[Hussar]

See, what I don't understand is how showing that a rogue can be a second class caster, just to try to catch up to the caster, suddenly makes the rogue on par with casters.

Given characters of equal level should have roughly equal amounts of wealth, correct? So, the rogue has to sink a significant amount of his character wealth into making himself a second class wizard. The wizard, OTOH, hasn't actually spent any of his character wealth to out do the rogue. Add in character wealth, and suddenly the wizard has about 100 scrolls which means he's effectively no long worried about burning spells.

Note, by 7th level, you can have 100 scrolls for about 10% of your wizard's wealth. Not 3rd and 4th level spells by and large, true, but, most of the big utility spells (knock, invis, Alter Self, etc) are 1st and second level anyway.

And the wizard can craft those scrolls automatically.

 

[billd91]

3E saves were apparantly a weird development.
From Fighters having good saves in earlier editions to bad saves in later editions, and saving throw DCs being all over the place. You really didn't want any magic items that require a saving throw, because the DC would be ridicilously low. (And let's not talk about beating spell resistances with them). On the other hand,a twinked out spellcaster could have ridiciliously high saves that PCs could rarely hope to match. But on the other hand, a Dragon with his less CR then HD and all good saves would probably laugh at most of the time...

There's a lot more nuance to that issue of fighters having good saves in 1e/2e. Through 8th level, the fighter's saves aren't actually very good. It's only past that point where his saves start to really take off. And even then one major reason his saves appear better is because they improve at a faster rate than everybody else's (every 2 levels instead of 3 or more levels). Eventually, most other classes catch up with him again because their saves continue to improve a while after his plateau.

But I think the issue of saves needing work is a good one. 1e/2e saves improved with the hit dice/level of the target. The caster had extremely few ways to improve them (prayer being one of them) so expecting your spells to work on your opponents as your challenges got tougher became a less valuable strategy whereas, unless you're fighting dragons, in 3e it was a valuable strategy.

 

[billd91]

Which only reinforces my scepticism about Use Magic Device (=, as far as I can see, spend my treasure on pretending to be a caster - why not just retire the PC and build a caster!?).

Because of the most important reason of all - a caster isn't the character I wanted to play.

 

[Shadeydm]

Come back here with those goalposts!


Your first statement was that you had to stop because you couldn't get through the door without picking the lock. It was an absolute limit (the way a Wall of Force is to a non-wizard).

Now you are complaining that breaking the door will make things more dangerous. The implication being that taking a risk means you absolutely must stop.

You are also implying that breaking a door will make enough noise to alert the entire dungeon when e.g. combat and steel clashing against steel won't. Your first combat in a dungeon (unless it's a pure flat-footed gank) will alert the enemy far more than hacking through a door ever would.

Fundamentally, going in without a rogue doesn't make things impossible. But it should make your chances of remaining unnoticed lower - just as going in without a fighter makes combat more dangerous. But you can get through combats without a fighter and get through doors and traps without a rogue.

It's called humor not an absolute... but take issue with what you will. It's entirely possible you have never needed to open a door without kicking it in in your entire adventuring career.

What I am saying and will say again for the sake of completeness is I don't believe any class should be a requirement to play the game. I believe there needs to some overlap for the sake flexibility in problem solving. I don't believe a party without a rogue should be denied the use of a utility spell to resolve a problem that would otherwise be left for the rogue to handle. If the wizard is allocating spell slots to solving rogue problems because there isn't rogue I would expect the party to be happy. The idea that someone sulking at the table because the wizard opened the door just seems kinda sad and petty to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because of the most important reason of all - a caster isn't the character I wanted to play.

But if you realize that a caster can outdo your Rogue in the rogue's speciality, how much is there to be gained by playing the Rogue?

It is not in the disinterest of the player of the Rogue that he actually remains the absolute best in the aspects of stealthiness and trap-disarming, and doing so in "roguish" ways, rather than wizardy ways (e.g. using scrolls that replicate his class features, but in better).

The only one that has something to lose potentially is the swiss army knife Wizard that wanted to be able to deal with traps, stealth, traveling and combat as the best.

I almost think the spell caster classes could be fixed if they just had a _lot_ less spells they can cast at any given - and that includes the usage of scrolls.

If Next moves in a direction where scrolls are used for rituals but not generally instant-casting affairs, one aspect may be dealt with. Ifit then moves on to give the caster much less spells per day, maybe having all the swiss army spells could work - he would at any given day have to seriously think about which spells to prepare, and he couldn'tn just say "Ah, for the rest I use scrolls or" "I've got 10 3rd level or lower spell slots, let's fill them with utility magic". Even a 12th level Wizard should need to agonize whether he has to slot Invisibility or Knock, or rather simply a Fireball.

 

[billd91]

But if you realize that a caster can outdo your Rogue in the rogue's speciality, how much is there to be gained by playing the Rogue?

Hell, yes! That wizard can't sneak attack like I can. He has trouble dodging fireballs. I've got skills he has a hard time investing in while I don't care much about his. So he gets to walk about in broad daylight invisible, I can still hear him because I've got an easier time investing in my perceptive skills than he does with his stealthy skills. Better yet, he's smart enough to realize that invisibility works better on me because I have worked on being more stealthy than him.

I almost think the spell caster classes could be fixed if they just had a _lot_ less spells they can cast at any given - and that includes the usage of scrolls.

One of 3e's major points of friction was the ease with which magic items could be made. Of course, it's also an easy issue to fix were you to view 3e as a toolkit - an idea 5e is making more explicit by promoting modularity - disallow or otherwise restrict magic item creation (or any other particular element of it that gets stuck in your craw). If the wand of knock is a rare item rather than a fairly easy wand to make, it gets withheld for items that need to be opened after the rogue has already taken his best shot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's called humor not an absolute...but take issue with what you will.

When the only reason your example makes a coherent argument is your use of 'humour', it's probably not worth making. Or are you really saying you can't force open a door and therefore need to give up? If it is simply that it makes it harder, do you really have a problem with the idea that some classes can make some things easier for the party?

It's entirely possible you have never needed to open a door without kicking it in in your entire adventuring career.

I play 4e. My last monk and my last warlock were both about as good as a rogue at picking locks. For that matter my last 3.X character was as good as well - he was an artificer (but couldn't sneak worth a damn).

What I am saying and will say again for the sake of completeness is I don't believe any class should be a requirement to play the game. I believe there needs to some overlap for the sake flexibility in problem solving. I don't believe a party without a rogue should be denied the use of a utility spell to resolve a problem that would otherwise be left for the rogue to handle. If the wizard is allocating spell slots to solving rogue problems because there isn't rogue I would expect the party to be happy. The idea that someone sulking at the table because the wizard opened the door just seems kinda sad and petty to me.

And I'm saying that classic D&D fails miserably at your goal. Because the rogue is almost entirely unnecessary for problem solving - but the wizard and the cleric are both strictly necessary for solving a wide range of problems and allowing the party to do things they otherwise couldn't.

I'll believe that the wizard should be able to knock and cast invisibility when either the rogue is either significantly better at both than the spell gets, the rogue gets to teleport the entire party, or the wizard can no longer teleport or fly the entire party.

 

[Shadeydm]

And I'm saying that classic D&D fails miserably at your goal.

I did not say classic D&D nails it or was perfect in that regard. But yes some classes could help offset the lack of others. I think it was a good thing and I hope DDN does an even better job of it. Ideally I never want players to feel like they must play class X because noone else made one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I did not say classic D&D nails it or was perfect in that regard. But yes some classes could help offset the lack of others. I think it was a good thing and I hope DDN does an even better job of it. Ideally I never want players to feel like they must play class X because noone else made one.

And I consider that the type of characters people choose to play should also have an impact on the game. If the PCs actually wanted a stealth based game rather than a 'don't be riduculously noisy' game then I'd expect at least one of them to play someone able to pick locks.

In 1e (pre-UA), the fighter and the rogue were both entirely dispensible. Clerics were better on the battle line than fighters - they could heal as well. And the thief's numbers were terrible. Wizard and cleric on the other hand weren't. UA and 2e at least brought the fighter in to play - and in low level play you could replace the wizard with a bard.

3.X has its tier list. So it depends how hard you are playing what's removable.

In 4e I can't think of one non-removable class. The biggest party hole you come up with is no ritual caster. I've DM'd a party with neither defender nor leader, and it was great. A scout, a vampire, a thief, and a hunter (for those playing at home that's three dex-based strikers and a dex based controller who is almost as strikeresque as it is a controller) and every single PC had a stealth skill through the roof*. Missing classes: All the core four, any leader, and any defender.

* Level 8 and I don't think one of them had a skill of less than +15.

 

[Shadeydm]

And I consider that the type of characters people choose to play should also have an impact on the game. If the PCs actually wanted a stealth based game rather than a 'don't be riduculously noisy' game then I'd expect at least one of them to play someone able to pick locks.

In my experience one can't have a "steath based" game unless everyone buys in and can be sneaky. But then again just like I never said Classic D&D does this right I also never called for a "Stealth Based" game. I suppose now I should start spouting off about strawmen and moving goal posts but I'm not that much of a d**k.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh, so now we're counting house rules too are we? Where in the spell does it say that the MU needs to make any sort of check to find anything on his person? Of course, I'm sure that looking in my pocket to find something would be extremely difficult without being able to see. I can never find my keys in the dark.

Now ask your wife to do the same thing with her purse, except throw 30 sets of keys in there and ask her to pick the right one. A spell component pouch will be full of LOTS of things. Including a live spider. It's not a house rule.

Why? Why does Knock make any particular noise? How does fly make more noise than climbing a wall? Does the fly spell now come with WHOOSH sounds every time I move?

Because it requires speaking.

You've got a VERY strange definition of "most". Invisiblity is a second level spell. So is Knock. Spider Climb is first IIRC (been a while). I've still got SEVEN SPELL LEVELS that haven't even been touched yet. Never minding scrolls.

Assuming 17th level. What about 5th level or 10th?

As far as "crap AC" goes, his AC should be 2 worse than the thief's. After all, you've continuously talked about how characters in 1e don't have all sorts of magic items. So, our thief has an AC of 8 and the MU a 10.

And probably a dex bonus of some sort, but even so, that's a 10% difference. Also, I never said pcs didn't have any magic items. Armor is a pretty common item on the magic item tables. Bracers are not.

Since you brought up scrolls, I'd point out that well before the thief can read them, the MU can MAKE them, and he gets bonus XP for doing so.

And jump through hoops to do so. Here's an example requirement for a protection for petrification scroll: 1 oz giant squid sepia, 1 basilisk eye, 3 cockatrice feathers, 1 scruple of venom from a medusa's snakes, 1 large peridot, powdered, 1 medium topaz, powdered, 2 drams holy water, and pumpkin seeds.

Harvest the pumpkin in the dark of the moon and dry the seeds over a slow fire of sandalwood and horse dung. Select three perfect ones and grind them into a coarse meal, husks and all. Boil the basilisk eye and cockatrice feathers for exactly 5 minutes in a saline solution, drain, and place in a jar. Add the medusa’s snake venom and gem powders. Allow to stand for 24 hours, stirring occasionally. Pour off liquid into bottle, add sepia and holy water, mixing contents with a silver rod, stirring widdershins. Makes ink sufficient for one scroll. ONE scroll. Good luck mass producing those.



Enough with the insults. I'd put my players up against the best the hobby has to offer. Most of them have over 30 years of experience. My players tend to just play magic users who are magic users and not rogues.

I mean, good grief, why do you think that thieves had the lowest XP requirements? If a thief was equivalent to a MU, shouldn't their XP values be similar? All the other classes work like that.

Equivalent? Hardly. That's your problem. 1e classes are meant to represent an archetype first, game balance is secondary. The thief is best at what he does, a mu may be able to sub for him temporarily, but he'll always be subpar.

Look, I get that you have experience with players who are utterly incompetent when playing casters. I get that. But, believe us when we say that we have players who are not. We have players who are very, very good at taking the VAST resources that a wizard (or any other caster) gets and can make the thief look like a punk.

But I'm tired of the endless insults from you goading me into responding and then getting threadbanned for half the aggression you get away with. So I'll save us both the hassle and make the first addition I have ever made on any forum to my ignore list.

 

[nightwalker450]

I'd be for durations of:

Round - Lasts until the end of your next turn

Save Ends - Lasts until the end of your next turn, then the target rolls a save on each of their following turns (to fix the save ends worse than single round)

Short - Roughly an Encounter, or a Scene

Long - Multiple Scenes, approximately half a working day ~6 hours

Day - Until next day

Day (Saving Ends) - Target rolls a saving throw each day to remove

Day (Sustained) - As long as the spell is filling the slot and unable to be recast

NOTE: Save ends in this case isn't necessarily 4e mechanic, but whatever saving mechanic to be used (F/R/W check, or maybe even skill check). It could also be reflected by a Save Sustains effect (or Concentration check).

NOTE2: Next day, I'd probably do something like Sunrise, but that could be a campaign setting adjustment (Sunrise cleans the magic)

But basically this comes down to they are storytelling dynamics not solid egg timer usage.

 

[pemerton]

See, what I don't understand is how showing that a rogue can be a second class caster, just to try to catch up to the caster, suddenly makes the rogue on par with casters.

Given characters of equal level should have roughly equal amounts of wealth, correct? So, the rogue has to sink a significant amount of his character wealth into making himself a second class wizard. The wizard, OTOH, hasn't actually spent any of his character wealth to out do the rogue.

This is what I've been saying.

I don't believe any class should be a requirement to play the game. I believe there needs to some overlap for the sake flexibility in problem solving.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. 4e is based on such a model, for example (that's what roles are about).

The objection is to that overlap and flexibility all being concentrated in one particular PC, namely, the wizard with a well-scribed spellbook. The wizard can change his/her specialisation every day, and depending on that choice can substitute for, and in some cases completely overshadow, other PCs.

3E saves were apparantly a weird development.
From Fighters having good saves in earlier editions to bad saves in later editions

The purging of fighter saves is a natural consequence of turning saves from a metagame, results-based mechanic (which represented mid and high level fighters as tough survivors) to a simulation, process-based mechanic (which reflected the fact that fighters are neither especially agile nor especially determined and insightful).

1e classes are meant to represent an archetype first, game balance is secondary.

Gygax makes a pretty big deal in the intro to the PHB of the game, including the classes, being balanced.

 

[billd91]

Gygax makes a pretty big deal in the intro to the PHB of the game, including the classes, being balanced.

Which doesn't preclude them from being archetype first, balanced second.

 

[Hussar]

Because of the most important reason of all - a caster isn't the character I wanted to play.

But, this does kinda blow the arguement out of the water that in order for my rogue to be a good rogue, I should be doing all sorts of wizardly things using UMD. If I don't want to play a wizard, why should I have to spend considerable resources just to do what a wizard does for free.

As far as skills go, since we're going back to 3e, a wizard, with his Int bonus, likely isn't that far behind the rogue as far as skills go. Maybe two or three skill points per level. That's about it. Cleric? Oh, yeah, he's bottom of the barrel with the fighter for skills, but, wizard? Not so much.

But, I have to admit, it never ceases to amaze me the hoops that people will jump through to try to prove their point. Why does my MU keep all his spell components in the same bag? Including a live spider? I dunno about anyone else, but, we tended to have MU's that had a bunch of bags. I make noise to fly - speaking. Yeah, because apparently in some people's games I have to speak constantly to keep my spell going. Nor, apparently, can I whisper. And, it's funny. The rules allow for casters to create scrolls. But, some DM's simply cock block the character from doing so by picking and choosing specific elements of the books. Never minding, of course, that in a land with magic users, it's probably possible to BUY most of the items on that list. But, hey, whatever works right?

So, we achieve balance by utterly screwing one class every chance we get - must cast spells by shouting at the top of their lungs, cannot ever simply buy anything, that sort of thing, whereas the other class gets their magic goodies tailor made delivered to them, just to keep them on par with the casters.

Good grief, what does it take to get people to admit that there is a problem here?

 

[Hussar]

I really have to ask. Have we just spent the last several pages trying to decide if there are balance issues between the thief and the magic user? Really? People honestly don't see any balance issues here?

Wow. I would have thought this was a fairly obvious, non-contentious issue. But, then again, it's criticising older editions, so, I guess it becomes standard procedure to proclaim that there are no problems in any older version of D&D. Older versions must never be criticized and any criticism must be fought tooth and nail because we must never admit that any problems exist in older editions.

I dunno. It was easier to get players to play clerics in AD&D than single classed thieves IME. Every thief I ever saw was multiclassed. Heck, even Imoen in Baldur's Gate had six or seven levels of magic user just to make her interesting.

 

[billd91]

But, this does kinda blow the arguement out of the water that in order for my rogue to be a good rogue, I should be doing all sorts of wizardly things using UMD. If I don't want to play a wizard, why should I have to spend considerable resources just to do what a wizard does for free.

I don't have to do any of that. Those were potential options for any rogue to pursue if that's what they want to do. And, frankly, rogues do make great characters to fire off extra wands a group of PCs might have.

 

[billd91]

I really have to ask. Have we just spent the last several pages trying to decide if there are balance issues between the thief and the magic user? Really? People honestly don't see any balance issues here?

There are definitely balance differences. The question remains whether those differences are actually problems, and if so whether and how they should be fixed or otherwise dealt with.