While I can see how one might think that I still think it had plenty of pressure to be sure to have a character from each role. One of my groups was once faced with this issue because we only had three players. In the end we decided to do without a controller. In the end I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise since the role hadn't really existed before.
D&D 5E I want a return to long duration spells in D&D Next.
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Oh, come on. How much sophistry do we really need here? Like I said, I had no idea that this was even an issue. This was pretty much a completely understood thing that D&D has always had as far as I knew. Even in AD&D, the fact that thieves needed about half as much xp as MU's pretty much shows that even back then people recognized that thieves were sucking hind mammary.
It does absolutely boggle my mind the lengths that people will go to to avoid saying, "Hey, here's something that should probably be fixed because it's always been a problem."
FireLance
Legend
But it is a tradition to not fix things that have always been problems.
Ain't dog ma a bit ... challenging to deal with? Neonchameleon
Legend
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.
You can't have a stealth based game unless everyone wants to be underhanded. But in 4e you can run a stealth based game with a grifter as one of the stealthers despite no stealth skill due to skill challenges.
As long as they get to balanced. Which is easiest through a fairly homogenous system, and second easiest through exuberance and making sure that all classes really are the best there is at what they do (something 1e out of the box failed at until UA and 3e failed at).
There can be. And there often is from newbies - but it's something that gets much lower the better people understand the game IME.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Comparing a same-level thief to a same level wizard - yeah, they tended to be kind of weak. That's exactly why they advanced along different XP rates. That said, they held their own reasonably well in play. They certainly hauled some weight in your typical adventuring group.
The 1e thief's saving throws were a problem - they were the weakest set. But that did get substantially fixed in the sense that they were better integrated with the rest of the classes. In fact, they went from being dead meat around breath weapons to being the class mostly likely to survive a blast of dragon fire thanks to evasion. In fights, 3e rogues could crank out a lot more damage and hit better than they did in 1e. So, yeah, lots of changes were made to address the balance issues differently. Nobody's hiding that.
But the question remains - so some characters can do things other characters can't. The whole weird world manipulation powers of magic like gates and pocket dimensions come to mind. These are things some characters simply can't do because they don't wield magical power. Does that really need to be addressed with mechanical rules? I don't think so.
Actually, [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] introduced UMD into this discussion to explain how a rogue is able to substitute for a wizard. In response to my suggestion that, just because a party without a thief may not be able to pick locks, doesn't necessitate the wizard having a knock spell.
Yes. The wizard can trivially eclipse the rogue. The rogue, even with significant investment in UMD and items, can probably not eclipse the wizard at all (because of the DC and effect scaling issues) and certainly not trivially.
Balesir
Adventurer
Just as an FYI, 4e has such a ritual for an "invisibility" type effect - Travellers' Camoflage. Works great for scouting - unless you screw up and get spotted (the ritual effect boosts Stealth skill and helps conceal tracks, etc., but ends when initiative is rollled).
ROFLMAO - say what?? Um, yeah. OK... (snigger).
The problem is not that characters can do things others can't - it's that only some character classes can do things the others can't, as well as doing all of the things that other classes can. How is this so difficult to understand?
I think the confusion has to do with:
4E - High rate of change of Buffs (ie changing "all the time")
<3E - High duration of buffs (ie ON "all the time")
They are at two extremes. 4E forced accounting in combat round-by round with nearly every action in combat. 3E and prior had accounting at different time scales forcing accounting for every action at all times.
One is more fiddly, round by round headache, the other is more fiddly turn by turn, or hour by hour as different durations ended. Very few people usually account this carefully, or the 15-min adventuring day makes it moot, or whether a spell was up or not didn't actually matter in the context of the game, so it may actually be easier, but by RAW it is chronic accounting vs. 4E's acute accounting (yes, accounting is a disease,
)Whatever they do Re: durations, they need to apply boundary conditions:
What happens if the spell is "always on" (ie its duration is longer than than the refresh of the spell). How does this "always on" spell compare with actual "always on" feats, class features, magic items, etc.?
Take Bulls Strength. If I have a "always on" +2 str check, +2 attack, +2 damage how does this compare to the feats like Power Attack?
What about the other boundry: until start of next turn or instantaneous? Is Bull Strength even worth casting/memorizing if it is effectively only good for 1 action?
Can the spell exist between the boundries without over-shadowing another classes iconic features (ie knock spell vs rogues)? Can it be justified at a higher/lower spell level?
Efforts should be made to make sure spells don't go into "always on" mode via level, feats, features, etc and should ideally be min/maxed such that at best, a "on 50% of the time" can be achieved. I know "always on" spells are often very beloved, but that is not really what spellcasting is about (I am excluding rituals and item creation from spellcasting).
What happens if the spell is "always on" (ie its duration is longer than than the refresh of the spell). How does this "always on" spell compare with actual "always on" feats, class features, magic items, etc.?
Take Bulls Strength. If I have a "always on" +2 str check, +2 attack, +2 damage how does this compare to the feats like Power Attack?
What about the other boundry: until start of next turn or instantaneous? Is Bull Strength even worth casting/memorizing if it is effectively only good for 1 action?
Can the spell exist between the boundries without over-shadowing another classes iconic features (ie knock spell vs rogues)? Can it be justified at a higher/lower spell level?
Efforts should be made to make sure spells don't go into "always on" mode via level, feats, features, etc and should ideally be min/maxed such that at best, a "on 50% of the time" can be achieved. I know "always on" spells are often very beloved, but that is not really what spellcasting is about (I am excluding rituals and item creation from spellcasting).
[MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION], nice analysis, but I can't XP you again yet.
Those who are attacking the UMD skill, and the Knock and Invisibility spells, are defending differentiation. Those who are defending that skill and those spells are defending homogeneity and thieves being overshadowed by magic-users.
What Balesir said: this whole thief vs wizard thing isn't a complaint that thieves can do things that other PCs can't - it's a complaint that there is nothing a thief can do that other PCs (particularly Flying, Invisible, Knocking wizards) can't also do.
Those who are attacking the UMD skill, and the Knock and Invisibility spells, are defending differentiation. Those who are defending that skill and those spells are defending homogeneity and thieves being overshadowed by magic-users.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
There is, however, a problem with niche protection and maintaining abilities that no other class can do - the class risks becoming required. I want various degrees of overlap so that my players can choose to play a different mix of character classes and types without always having to play the big 4. I want abilities to be duplicated by magic items and other pieces of equipment to facilitate that as necessary.
Balesir
Adventurer
This strikes me as easy enough - make the "niches" stuff that is useful but not a basic essential. Examples:
- Healing in combat is a Leader schtick in 4e, but out of combat anyone can spend surges, so a Cleric/Leader is not strictly required.
- Opening doors with subtlety and stealth is a Rogue/Thief schtick - but anyone can batter one down.
Class "preserves" might give access to specific ways of solving problems - but not to the ability to solve the problem at all; I can see a system that works in that. In that system, for example, every spell would have a "work around" - the Wall of Ice could be chipped away or melted in time, the Prismatic Wall could be defeated, er, somehow - but if you have a Wizard in the party they'll just dispell it with ease and celerity.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
So why doesn't knock fit into this? Or invisibility? Or spider climb? Seems to me that these are alternate ways to solve the problem.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I am fine with the Wizard being able to fulfill all the niches of the Rogue - if that's the only thing he can do. (I may be allowing that he can change daily, but even that can be very powerful - if only one day requires a locksmithing and stealth expert, the Wizard can remain valuable th enext day, but the Rogue may be stuck with his skill set). But with magical items like scrolls and wands and with all the spell slots a 3E caster could have, he could occupy the roles of multiple characters at once. And that is not balanced.
Maybe Knock should be described this
You loudly ring a chime three times, and the door opens
Focus: A small chime (worth 10 gp or more)
Casting Time: 3 Standard Actions
Target: Up to 3 Locks within 100 ft you can see.
Effect: At the end of the duration, you can make up to 3 Intelligence (Arcana) Checks instead of Dexterity (Thievery) checks to open up to 3 selected locks. If a lock is protected by a magical ward to resist opening, you must first dispel the ward, using one of those checks. You can make multiple checks on a lock or a lock protected by a ward. You can spend no more than 3 tries to open a lock with this spell.
Special: You can also cast this spell to benefit another character - the character gains advantage on his first 3 checks to pick the lock or break it open.
The Wizard can open the lock with the spell, but it has clear disadvantages (loud chiming, exra handling for wards), but also one compensation - it gives you up to 3 locks to open - a Rogue can try as often as he likes (I am assuming retries are possible), so the spell is not wasted that easily.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I would have no problem with that knock spell
Balesir
Adventurer
They don't qualify because they aren't subsidiary, less advantageous ways to the same end - they are alternates that are as good as or better than the guy whose schticks stealthy lockpicking, hiding and climbing are supposed to be. As [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] suggests, you could make them sorse than the Rogue's skills; alternately you could give them a real price or significant disadvantage (like noise for the Knock, concentration for the Invisibility - so that you can't keep Silence up as well, for example - and reduced walking speed for Spider Climb, just as a few ideas thrown out at random).
For all classes, if they have a way to do what other classes specialise in that is less advantageous than the way those classes do it - fine. But if some classes have ways to achieve every other classes speciality with no discernible downside at a rate of one a day - not fine. A party composed entirely of one class should never be the "optimum pick", at any level.
Why does it matter anyway to be honest?
Why would your Wizard even go that route when there is already a rogue present?
The problem here is you aren't comparing like for like. The Wizard is able to mimic some of the rogue but not fully.
Basically what you want is to close off all doors to where no other class can doing anything another class can do.
In all my 30 years of gaming, I have never once seen a player try and mimic the actions of another when that class is already present in the party. I have had a few Wizards pack a few Knock spells just in case the rogue goes down but that's it. I've also had players who wanted roguish wizards so they had a few rogue like spells that were similar but hey that's okay, you can never have enough rogues in the party.
Are you going to get made if the fighter out damages the barbarian or vice verse?
The biggest problem I've seen with most of these Wizard arguments is the fact that they bank on the Wizard always having the right spell, monsters failing their saves, monsters standing in the perfect formation with their thumbs in their mouths, the Wizard having the best action economy on the planet and a whole slew of other things. Vacuums don't exist in real games so they don't belong in the conversation.
Dour-n-Taciturn
Explorer
You can game for 100 years, but trust me, from my years of playing, you can have magic users intrude on the function of other classes. I am not making up these examples, and you cannot insist that because you have never encountered it, that the issue does not arise. You can have a Druid with summoned brutes or a Cleric with War/Strength domain spells impinge on the Fighter; the Fly/Silence/Knock/Spider Climb/Invisibility spells, among others, impinge on the Rogue.
These last noted spells, as a small example, are not obscure choices that a magic user would mostly ignore, these, depending on level, are some of the most commonly selected; indeed based on specialization or domain, one has plenty of choice. Now if magic users such as Wizards had a much smaller spell slot allowance, then you have a point, but at least in 3rd edition and prior, this is simply not the case.
As for saves, some casters can effectively boost their save DCs, or more commonly, just target weaker saves on purpose, having made a creature knowledge check or using information from prior encounters to know such exploits. Some spells, including many higher level spells, have no saving throw.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
What saving throw is there for Knock? Monster Summoning? Etc.
What I cannot believe is that after all the analysis, and we're talking years of analysis and evidence being presented, we STILL have people standing around with their fingers in their ears, eyes closed and shouting that no problems exist.
What evidence would you need Forever Slayer to show that wizards can easily overshadow rogues/thieves? What would it take? Does someone at your table actually have to do it before you'll accept that it happens (and sometimes happens often) at other people's tables?
We're not talking about obscure options from some twenty year old splatbook. These are basic spells that have ALWAYS existed in the game. Why do you think, in the 1e DMG, there is a lengthy essay on how to deal with invisible PC's, but absolutely nothing said about hiding PC's? Why do you think that in high level modules, casters get absolutely hosed, spells removed from the game right, left and center, but the thief/rogue is never even considered?
Put it another way. If thieves were equivalent to other classes, why did they need HALF as much xp to progress in levels?
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Well, for once, if Knock is more reliable, then that can be a good reason to use it, for example then the Rogue fails.
The important aspect usually is that not just can the Wizard cover the Rogue's role, but he still covers additional roles.
The "good thing" about the Rogue is that opening locks is not generally a life or death situation.
In combat situations, things change ,and when a class's ability let it overshadow a Fighter, then that will happen - dead characters are generally not desired, so minimizing the risk of death is to be expected. But if a class can do that, then it would be better to have two of that class rather than that class and a Fighter.
Similar Threads
