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

[JRRNeiklot]

Seriously? You get to be entirely unseen for five solid minutes? And you consider that useless? What the hell do you want to do? Make the rogue entirely obselete, and dance your way down the hallway in plain sight rather than use the spell to augment a plan, making the challenging parts doable.

Suppose I want to eavesdrop on someone and find out just exactly when the One Ring is leaving for Mordor? 5 minutes won't cut it unless I'm EXTREMELY lucky. And why is the rogue obsolete? As others have said, it's more than likely the rogue who's gonna be the recipient of the spell.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Suppose I want to eavesdrop on someone and find out just exactly when the One Ring is leaving for Mordor? 5 minutes won't cut it unless I'm EXTREMELY lucky. And why is the rogue obsolete? As others have said, it's more than likely the rogue who's gonna be the recipient of the spell.

Well, maybe magic just doesn't have the solution for this problem? Maybe you need to come up with a Disguise and be a bit more stealthy? And in this scenario, being able to cast Invisibility may still help - in a single, crucial moment it may be the safest way to escape notice. But you cannot use it every round.

Isn't that one of the fundamental problems why magic is often so overpowered. "I want to do X. That sounds hard. Is there a spell for that?"

Metagaming speaking, the Invisilbity spell could be used perfectly fine in a skill challenge, for example. Maybe after you failed a stealth check, the DM narrates "you realize that you have moved yourself in a bad position - guards coming around the corner will likely spot you were you are hiding right now, and your disguise as servant does not give you right to be here. What do you do?" "Hmm. Oh, I know -I cast Invisibility - it only lasts about a round, but maybe I can use this to evade the guards notice". "That could work, I give you a success for that - they could still hear you, though, which may make it more difficult for you later. Roll a Stealth Check." "Damn this die - a lowly 12 total" "One of the guards notices something as you pass them, protected by your invisibility spell. He is a bit more suspicious, so you suffer a -2 penalty on your next check."

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I have a mind that Invisibility, and spells of similar potency, should be of a relatively short duration in order to lend weight to the skill of stealth (hide/move silent in 3rd Ed), rather than another means for casters to trump non-casters. Having a powerful spell effect last for a very limited amount of time renders it, to my impression of how magic should work, as more of a unique display of the arcane (or divine as may be), rather than a bland overarching utilitarian crux.

If you want a long term magic, apply rituals, as has been argued above, that way there is a more reasonable cost and casting time invested to, gasp, balance its power, rather than a reflexive action that overshadows skill, both in and out of combat.

The problem with this is comment is the fact that Invisibility doesn't trump Hide/Move Silent/Stealth.

For one thing Invisibility doesn't make you quiet, Detect Magic and See Invisibility doesn't detect you, and you can use your Stealth skill over and over and over again.

Invisibility is nice but you can't beat a rogue who doesn't have to poor resources into hiding and moving silent.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So the spellcaster climbs around. Is that a big deal?
And yes, invisibility is really good, but without other stealth, it's still vulnerable. Invisibility + stealth even better.

One important question: why assume that long duration magic benefits only the wizard/other spellcaster?

I wanted to XP you again but I have to share the wealth first.

Most of the time it's the other classes that benefit more from having spells cast on them.

An Invisible Rogue is a lot better than an Invisible Wizard, in my opinion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Suppose I want to eavesdrop on someone and find out just exactly when the One Ring is leaving for Mordor? 5 minutes won't cut it unless I'm EXTREMELY lucky. And why is the rogue obsolete? As others have said, it's more than likely the rogue who's gonna be the recipient of the spell.

That depends what you use your invisibility to do. If you want invisibility to be an "I win" button and to make all the sneaking ever into a trivial thing then no it won't cut it. But 5 minutes is more than enough time to get into a position from which you can hear the discussion while being somewhere out of sight. Which you have a better chance of doing than the rogue.

And why it wouldn't be cast on the rogue? Because there isn't one there. Because everyone that way inclined has decided to go for the better sneak - i.e. the wizard.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I wanted to XP you again but I have to share the wealth first.

Most of the time it's the other classes that benefit more from having spells cast on them.

An Invisible Rogue is a lot better than an Invisible Wizard, in my opinion.

See my statement above regarding targets of spells. As for an invisible Wizard being inferior to an invisible Rogue; apparently you have not experienced the insanity that is "The flying mage with improved invisibility what can shoot magic from no-where." Now Improved Invisibility is of much shorter duration, but my point regarding the effectiveness of an invisible Wizard still stands.

If you truly believe that Invisibility is on par or even of limited use for evasion in comparison to stealth/move silent, then we will have to agree to disagree, because having the capacity to simply remain unseen all day, silent or not, is far superior, IMO, to simple skill.

I feel the counter point crew here seems to be hung up on Invisibility; again, how about Spider Climb, Detect Traps? Whether the Rogue, Ranger, or Wizard, the later two spells render their mundane equivalents obsolete. This is not something I feel magic should do, especially when the duration makes the choice all but automatic.

 

[Shadeydm]

See my statement above regarding targets of spells. As for an invisible Wizard being inferior to an invisible Rogue; apparently you have not experienced the insanity that is "The flying mage with improved invisibility what can shoot magic from no-where." Now Improved Invisibility is of much shorter duration, but my point regarding the effectiveness of an invisible Wizard still stands.

If you truly believe that Invisibility is on par or even of limited use for evasion in comparison to stealth/move silent, then we will have to agree to disagree, because having the capacity to simply remain unseen all day, silent or not, is far superior, IMO, to simple skill.

I feel the counter point crew here seems to be hung up on Invisibility; again, how about Spider Climb, Detect Traps? Whether the Rogue, Ranger, or Wizard, the later two spells render their mundane equivalents obsolete. This is not something I feel magic should do, especially when the duration makes the choice all but automatic.

While I grant that some editions had bad spell combinations I don't really see this as a valid arguement for eliminating all of those spells. I think a better case can be made for limiting what if any spells can stack. What you consider mage superiority spells I think individually offer nice alternatives to requiring a party to have certain classes present to overcome certain situations. For example some people think that a knock spell is unfair to rogues. I think a knock spell is a great option for a rogueless party. I am of the belief that if my players don't want to play a rogue they should not be punished for it. Where you see spider climb as a mage spell win button I see it as a boon to the poor heavy armored cleric who would otherwise keep falling off the cliff the party has decided to scale. So in short i do see value to these spells and i don't think a party should be forced to pick a class from column A, B, C, D or be faced with class specific road blocks.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

See my statement above regarding targets of spells. As for an invisible Wizard being inferior to an invisible Rogue; apparently you have not experienced the insanity that is "The flying mage with improved invisibility what can shoot magic from no-where." Now Improved Invisibility is of much shorter duration, but my point regarding the effectiveness of an invisible Wizard still stands.

If you truly believe that Invisibility is on par or even of limited use for evasion in comparison to stealth/move silent, then we will have to agree to disagree, because having the capacity to simply remain unseen all day, silent or not, is far superior, IMO, to simple skill.

I feel the counter point crew here seems to be hung up on Invisibility; again, how about Spider Climb, Detect Traps? Whether the Rogue, Ranger, or Wizard, the later two spells render their mundane equivalents obsolete. This is not something I feel magic should do, especially when the duration makes the choice all but automatic.

Flying doesn't make you quiet so you are still detectable, as well from Detect Magic and See Invisibility. A bow wielder could just close their eyes and take the 50% miss chance to hit you while you are flying.

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's including all versions between then and now so I am familiar with this type of Wizard. It's not all that great to be be honest because there are lots of monsters who have no problem effecting you.

Why would you need to do this when there is a rogue already in the party? The argument of "well I could do this" doesn't hold a lot of water. You Wizard needs to pump spells into what the rogue does naturally, and still doesn't do it as well.

The of having those spells is to be able to do some rogue type things when the rogue isn't around. When there is a rogue it is better for your Wizard to focus on something else.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

While I grant that some editions had bad spell combinations I don't really see this as a valid arguement for eliminating all of those spells. I think a better case can be made for limiting what if any spells can stack. What you consider mage superiority spells I think individually offer nice alternatives to requiring a party to have certain classes present to overcome certain situations. For example some people think that a knock spell is unfair to rogues. I think a knock spell is a great option for a rogueless party. I am of the belief that if my players don't want to play a rogue they should not be punished for it. Where you see spider climb as a mage spell win button I see it as a boon to the poor heavy armored cleric who would otherwise keep falling off the cliff the party has decided to scale. So in short i do see value to these spells and i don't think a party should be forced to pick a class from column A, B, C, D or be faced with class specific road blocks.

Exactly!

Some people call that crazy notion teamwork.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

You may feel that a Rogue's stealth will not be trumped by effects such as Invisibility or Silence. You stated that the Wizard would have to expend significant resources to best the Rogue in stealth. You also seem to keep clinging to the point of who the target is, rather than the effect of the magic compared with its mundane counterpart. To re-iterate, an Invisible Wizard or even Pig-farmer Joe, will have a significant advantage over even Mr. Sneaky Pete the Rogue. See Invisibility or any counter spell effect now forces the opponent to expend their resources; ask yourself if you want to waste a spell slot on See Invisibility, unless you know you will be facing invisible opponents. BTW, a 50% miss chance (assuming you could locate the correct area) is pretty significant versus, say, 0%.

Eliminating long term effects was not something I am opposed to, at least not entirely, it's the action economy I feel is ill conceived and lends itself to exploitation. If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then you and I will have to drop this point of discussion. Examples of "you can still be heard", or "they can still hit you half the time", do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You may feel that the Rogue is superior without magical augment, and I have stated that I disagree. You stated that the Wizard would have to expend significant resources to best the Rogue in stealth, I have stated why I disagree. To re-iterate, an Invisible Wizard or even Pig-farmer Joe, will have a significant advantage over even Mr. Sneaky Pete the Rogue. See Invisibility or any counter spell effect now forces the opponent to expend their resources. A 50% miss chance (assuming you could locate the correct location) is pretty significant versus, say, 0%.

Eliminating long term effects was not something I am opposed to, at least not entirely, it's the action economy I feel is ill conceived and lends itself to exploitation. If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then I will respectfully decline further discussion on this point, since neither of us will reach a consensus. Examples of "you can still be heard", or "they can still hit you half the time", do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the Invisibility is not superior and that the Wizard isn't a superior rogue than the rogue is.

Can you have a roguish wizard? Of course you can but claiming a Wizard will make a rogue useless is simply not fact.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

Again, the target is not the argument here. Invisibility, even if it still allows limited detection, boasts minimal action economy for an effect that yields a significant stealth advantage over a significant period of time. Try to look beyond one spell, and see the forest of magical effects (Detect Traps, Rope Trick, Fly) that in one way or another, overshadow mundane effects, and are thus used as a magical crutch.

BTW. I can't argue until I'm blue in the face, because I don't write with my lungs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think a knock spell is a great option for a rogueless party. I am of the belief that if my players don't want to play a rogue they should not be punished for it.

If the rogue weren't in the game you might have a point. However the existance of such spells is punishing players for playing a rogue rather than a wizard. The wizard is sneakier, better able to get through doors, and can handle things the rogue can't.

What next? The clericless party should be able to turn undead and heal as well as a party with a cleric there? The wizardless party should all be able to fireball and teleport? Or is it just the rogue and the fighter who can be made irrelevant?

Where you see spider climb as a mage spell win button I see it as a boon to the poor heavy armored cleric who would otherwise keep falling off the cliff the party has decided to scale. So in short i do see value to these spells and i don't think a party should be forced to pick a class from column A, B, C, D or be faced with class specific road blocks.

Whereas I think that if a party picks a class from column D that claims to be the best at something then that class should damn well be the best at it. Anything else is false advertising. The game is lying to you.

And as for class-specific roadblocks, I agree that these should not exist. For them to exist at all is simply bad game design. And this is almost invariably a problem with casters in 3.X. Getting past locks can easily be managed without recourse to magic - you simply smash the thing. Getting past a Wall of Force without a caster on the other hand...

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If the rogue weren't in the game you might have a point. However the existance of such spells is punishing players for playing a rogue rather than a wizard. The wizard is sneakier, better able to get through doors, and can handle things the rogue can't.

What next? The clericless party should be able to turn undead and heal as well as a party with a cleric there? The wizardless party should all be able to fireball and teleport? Or is it just the rogue and the fighter who can be made irrelevant?



Whereas I think that if a party picks a class from column D that claims to be the best at something then that class should damn well be the best at it. Anything else is false advertising. The game is lying to you.

And as for class-specific roadblocks, I agree that these should not exist. For them to exist at all is simply bad game design. And this is almost invariably a problem with casters in 3.X. Getting past locks can easily be managed without recourse to magic - you simply smash the thing. Getting past a Wall of Force without a caster on the other hand...

How is the existence of such spells going to hurt the rogue?

What's there and what's actually used in real life games are two different things. A rogue will out perform a Wizard on anything roguish because the rogue's resources are unlimited and there are fewer things that will cancel out what a rogue can do.

Who is forcing you to memorize those spells when you already have a rogue in the party? Because you can is not a good enough reason. It's better to let the rogue handle being a rogue because he is better at it. Want the Wizard to contribute? Have him cast some spells on the rogue.

Class specific roadblocks only exist if your DM, for some reason, puts them in place knowing you don't have a class that can pass them. Campaign and encounters don't create themselves, there is a DM behind the wheel who is supposed to be creating those encounters to suit the party.

Using the arguments of "Well the DM could do this or could do that" holds no water when it comes to game design.

I don't want a game that ties the hands of the DM and Players behind their back because of something they "could" do.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

To take it one step further I could claim that the Wizard class is made redundant by the rogue.

Reasons:

1. Rogue has more HD.
2. Rogue has way more skills and skill points.
3. Rogue has better BAB.
4. Rogue has more class abilities.
5. Rogue can cast any spell and use any magic item in the game because of the UMD skill.

So technically I "could" argue that the Wizard is pretty worthless when compared to a rightfully built rogue.



You see where I am going with this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To take it one step further I could claim that the Wizard class is made redundant by the rogue.

Reasons:

1. Rogue has more HD.
2. Rogue has way more skills and skill points.
3. Rogue has better BAB.
4. Rogue has more class abilities.
5. Rogue can cast any spell and use any magic item in the game because of the UMD skill.

So technically I "could" argue that the Wizard is pretty worthless when compared to a rightfully built rogue.

1. Wizard can cast False Life, Bear's Endurance
2. Wizard has spells that work better than skills. Charm Person, Fly, Alter Self, Polymorph Self, Invisibility, Dominate Person. And he can change the spells he needs every day, or even keep a spell slot open to fill it later, unlike the Rogue, who, once he has spent the skill points, keeps them forever and if he ever regrets learning a particular skill or rather not learning a needed skill, he's totally out of luck. The Wizard can instead just scribe a few scrolls.
3. Tenser's Transformation. Polymorph Self, Shapechange. The Wizard can also inflict damage without making attack rolls, and when he'S making attack rolls, he usually attacks at a much lower defense than the Rogue (e.g. touch AC instead of full AC).
4. Wizard learns 2 new spells every level, gains new spell slots every level.
5. Wizard can cast half or more of the spells in the game without needing a skill or a magic item for it, and he can use all items based on spells he can cast.

Well, some of the answers are specific to 3E, but so was your list (no Use Magic Device before or after 3E.)

You see where I am going with this.

Misrepresenting the situation to make a point, instead of adressing the real concerns of D&D fans?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

1. Wizard can cast False Life, Bear's Endurance
2. Wizard has spells that work better than skills. Charm Person, Fly, Alter Self, Polymorph Self, Invisibility, Dominate Person. And he can change the spells he needs every day, or even keep a spell slot open to fill it later, unlike the Rogue, who, once he has spent the skill points, keeps them forever and if he ever regrets learning a particular skill or rather not learning a needed skill, he's totally out of luck. The Wizard can instead just scribe a few scrolls.
3. Tenser's Transformation. Polymorph Self, Shapechange. The Wizard can also inflict damage without making attack rolls, and when he'S making attack rolls, he usually attacks at a much lower defense than the Rogue (e.g. touch AC instead of full AC).
4. Wizard learns 2 new spells every level, gains new spell slots every level.
5. Wizard can cast half or more of the spells in the game without needing a skill or a magic item for it, and he can use all items based on spells he can cast.

Well, some of the answers are specific to 3E, but so was your list (no Use Magic Device before or after 3E.)


Misrepresenting the situation to make a point, instead of adressing the real concerns of D&D fans?

Rogue can cast the following:

• All Wizard spells.
• All Bard spells.
• All ranger spells.
• All paladin spells.
• All cleric spells.
• All druid spells.

Can the Wizard do this?

 

[keterys]

If the wizard takes use magic device, sure.

You might serve your cause better by looking at the rogue's actual abilities, rather than his ability to take one skill of many.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then you and I will have to drop this point of discussion. Examples of "you can still be heard", or "they can still hit you half the time", do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage.

Why? It worked for how many years? The spell being cancelled upon any attack is a great limiting factor. It's a great out of combat spell for reconnaissance, and good for the thief to backstab someone, that's pretty much it. There are other limiting factors as well. It's not going to be easy finding spell components when you can't see them. A wizard casting knock or spider climb or fly is going to make more noise than a thief picking a lock or climbing a wall. Invisibility has never even been a high priority for me to learn. As for knock, if a wizard casts it at all, it's after the thief fails his pick locks roll. I can't imagine a party actually complaining because the wizard managed to unlock the box with the loot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Invisibility has never even been a high priority for me to learn. As for knock, if a wizard casts it at all, it's after the thief fails his pick locks roll. I can't imagine a party actually complaining because the wizard managed to unlock the box with the loot.

Translation: As a wizard I can be a much better rogue than the rogue ever can. But it has never been a priority for me as a wizard because I have much cooler stuff I can do than be a rogue.

Right.