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

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

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.

That is the essence of the matter isn't it. That last little jibe about not hurting the Rogue's feelings seems to reinforce such a notion of spell supremacy. So we give the Rogue a try (bless his/her little heart), and if they fail, we'll rely on the Wizard, since those effects are much more reliable. If the party fails to detect a secret door because Perception/mundane detection fails, then magic should augment that ability, not simply trump it with an auto-success. The notion that all treasures or secret areas are owed to the party, and that there should be a spell to facilitate that in most if not all cases, well that takes away from the flavor for me.

UMD is essentially spell casting using a skill roll, so the Rogue now is functioning as a Wizard, Cleric, what-have-you. Again, it's not the class, it's the effect, and how exceptional durations may be over powered, at least without some cost significant to the caster.

If casting a spell makes too much noise, cast it while you're away from the area (you have 24 hours of effect for the Invisibility example), or from your Rope Trick, or use Silent Spell, or then Dimension Door over, etc., etc. As for spell components or spell choice, the former at least for the examples argued, are relatively common, and the later can be achieved by character design (school specialization, domain access, and so on).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That is the essence of the matter isn't it. That last little jibe about not hurting the Rogue's feelings seems to reinforce such a notion of spell supremacy. So we give the Rogue a try (bless his/her little heart), and if they fail, we'll rely on the Wizard, since those effects are much more reliable. If the party fails to detect a secret door because Perception/mundane detection fails, then magic should augment that ability, not simply trump it with an auto-success. The notion that all treasures or secret areas are owed to the party, and that there should be a spell to facilitate that in most if not all cases, well that takes away from the flavor for me.

UMD is essentially spell casting using a skill roll, so the Rogue now is functioning as a Wizard, Cleric, what-have-you. Again, it's not the class, it's the effect, and how exceptional durations may be over powered, at least without some cost significant to the caster.

If casting a spell makes too much noise, cast it while you're away from the area (you have 24 hours of effect for the Invisibility example), or from your Rope Trick, or use Silent Spell, or then Dimension Door over, etc., etc. As for spell components or spell choice, the former at least for the examples argued, are relatively common, and the later can be achieved by character design (school specialization, domain access, and so on).

Saying you can do XYZ on an internet forum is a lot different than what actually happens in most games. With the Wizard the arguments and the situations are always in the favor of the Wizard such as the perfect spell list, access to other spellbooks and spells easily, monsters that like to stand in perfect fireball formation.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

Saying you can do XYZ on an internet forum is a lot different than what actually happens in most games. With the Wizard the arguments and the situations are always in the favor of the Wizard such as the perfect spell list, access to other spellbooks and spells easily, monsters that like to stand in perfect fireball formation.

So you're stating that I made these crazy examples up, implying that they only occur in a very narrow set of circumstances, and thus proving how long duration of potent spells with little caster investment is thus justified? It would seem to me that you can say XYZ too, as opposed to what "actually happens".

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

I don't know how you got that from my post. A wizard can, by spending most of his spell slots, be a very poor thief, for a very short amount of time. Whoopee. He can go invisible, but he will still make noise and cannot hear noise nearly as well as a thief. If he manages to sneak up on someone, he can't backstab, and he'll do crap damage and have worse hit points and ac to survive the fight. He can open a locked door if he wants to burn a spell slot. And the thief can use scrolls once he reaches sufficiently high level. So he can do anything the wizard can do. I guess that makes the wizard useless.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

Not d20 /round or /minute or even /hour. That stuff can get tedious to track (though I like having the option for the few spells which do work better with a limited duration kept with a tracking die, like "Fly" being 8 hrs on a d8)

I want spells that are permanent until dispelled. Or spells that are permanent until a Save is made (and those saves only coming about under specific circumstances) I want spells that last a long, long time.

However, I also want these spells to be balanced. Just not balanced exclusively for combat. Rather let's see how valuable they are for for environmental exploration or conversing with NPCs.

Charm Person is great until certain requests or questions trigger saves. Invisibility is great too, but it limits your ability to affect your environment (hitting stuff). That both have traditionally had permanent durations makes them a helluva lot more useful (and fun) than some combat-only blink and you're done power.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Two words: Summon Monster (or Monster Summoning, depending on edition) - doesn't break invisibility.

There are other limiting factors as well. It's not going to be easy finding spell components when you can't see them.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So, because you personally do not use the spell to its full potential, no one does?

I don't know how you got that from my post. A wizard can, by spending most of his spell slots, be a very poor thief, for a very short amount of time. Whoopee. He can go invisible, but he will still make noise and cannot hear noise nearly as well as a thief. If he manages to sneak up on someone, he can't backstab, and he'll do crap damage and have worse hit points and ac to survive the fight. He can open a locked door if he wants to burn a spell slot. And the thief can use scrolls once he reaches sufficiently high level. So he can do anything the wizard can do. I guess that makes the wizard useless.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hussar]

Let me ask a question here, please.

When 3e came out, one of the persistent criticisms of 3e was that it was nothing but a glorified combat engine. It was Tabletop Diablo (and, yeah, that would be Diablo 1, ). Characters were all defined by their combat abilities, everything revolved around combat and CR and Wealth by Level. It wasn't a real role playing game.

Now, I don't think anyone in this thread agrees with that statement. Not at this point in time.

But, here's my question. Show that the statement about 3e is wrong without at the same time showing that the statement about 4e is wrong as well. What makes 3e more than a glorified combat engine that 4e is lacking? For bonus points, show the same for 1e and 2e as well.

 

[Hussar]

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

Not d20 /round or /minute or even /hour. That stuff can get tedious to track (though I like having the option for the few spells which do work better with a limited duration kept with a tracking die, like "Fly" being 8 hrs on a d8)

I want spells that are permanent until dispelled. Or spells that are permanent until a Save is made (and those saves only coming about under specific circumstances) I want spells that last a long, long time.

However, I also want these spells to be balanced. Just not balanced exclusively for combat. Rather let's see how valuable they are for for environmental exploration or conversing with NPCs.

Charm Person is great until certain requests or questions trigger saves. Invisibility is great too, but it limits your ability to affect your environment (hitting stuff). That both have traditionally had permanent durations makes them a helluva lot more useful (and fun) than some combat-only blink and you're done power.

And just one more comment.

I'm currently playing a Warlock in a Dark Sun game. I have a Daily power which allows me to turn into a pile of sand and move around. As such, I can pass through any opening larger than a grain of sand. Now, I'm not invisible, but, as a pile of sand in Dark Sun, I'm not exactly standing out. Between that ability and my Stealth skill, I can scout pretty darn well.

The power is sustainable as a minor action - meaning I can stay in sand form pretty much as long as I wish.

It would be pretty easy to have versions of invisibility that do the same thing. You can keep it going but it costs you actions.

But, claims that 4e lacks the versatility of earlier editions is very, very easily shown to be untrue.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

BTW, I don't know if the spell was errated or not, but the 4E Invisibility as now found in the character builder is Sustain Standard. You can only sustain it if the target is still within range, though.

 

[pemerton]

When invisibility got its duration reduced in 3.5 to 1 minute/level, it had already lost most of its utility. Players were no longer thinking of using it for long-term reconnaissance or spying - it had become a combat time spell. 4e made it even worse since its duration is for a turn (unless they've changed that from my printed copy).

I think you may be misreading your printed copy. The duration of Invisibility (Wizard Utility 6) is "until the end of your next turn (sustain standard)". In 3E terms, this is a duration of Concentration, with a maximum periof of concentration equal to 5 minutes.

BTW, I don't know if the spell was errated or not, but the 4E Invisibility as now found in the character builder is Sustain Standard. You can only sustain it if the target is still within range, though.

No errata. It read like this when printed.

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.

In "Tower of the Elephant", Conan breaks into a powerful wizard's tower without being spotted and without using an invisibility spell. He is, in D&D terms, a master thief.

I don't see what it adds to the game to make the rogue dependent on the wizard to be a viable sneak. (Putting to one side the points made by [MENTION=6692615]Dour-n-Taciturn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] that you may as well just use the spell on the wizard.) If you think buffing is an essential part of the game, let the wizard cast a buff that permits a reroll on a failed Hide check (maybe a Chameleon spell).

But the long-duration invisibility spell (in AD&D it lasts until dispelled, as long as you don't attack!) is to hiding like SoD is to hit points - an end run around the mechanics which to me at least serves no obvious gameplay purpose.

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.

My issue with this is that a rogue can't substitute for a wizard in a wizardless party - can't fireball, can't teleport, heck can't even go invisible (at least in AD&D - I'm not sure on the details of how 3E adjudicates Hiding).

A party without a rogue shouldn't be opening locks, just like a party without a wizard shouldn't be fireballing. They should be finding a workaround. Otherwise there is no point in class differentiation.

(A side-comment: it is strange that 4e, the first edition to clearly prioritise rogues over wizards as lock-openeres, is so often derided for its "same-y" classes - what is more same-y than a pre-4e wizard's invisibility, fly and knock spells that make the thief virtually redundant!)

 

[Shadeydm]

My issue with this is that a rogue can't substitute for a wizard in a wizardless party - can't fireball, can't teleport, heck can't even go invisible (at least in AD&D - I'm not sure on the details of how 3E adjudicates Hiding).

A party without a rogue shouldn't be opening locks, just like a party without a wizard shouldn't be fireballing. They should be finding a workaround. Otherwise there is no point in class differentiation.

(A side-comment: it is strange that 4e, the first edition to clearly prioritise rogues over wizards as lock-openeres, is so often derided for its "same-y" classes - what is more same-y than a pre-4e wizard's invisibility, fly and knock spells that make the thief virtually redundant!)

Yes of course when there is no rogue to open the locked dungeon door everyone should just turn around and go home thats much more fun!

 

[pemerton]

Yes of course when there is no rogue to open the locked dungeon door everyone should just turn around and go home thats much more fun!

Maybe they can try something else, just as - when there is no wizard to cast fireball - something different has to be done to beat up on the room full of trolls.

When it comes to locked doors, hammers, chisels and crowbars come to mind. I mean, in the real world people get through locked doors all the time without having to pick them or magically open them!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes of course when there is no rogue to open the locked dungeon door everyone should just turn around and go home thats much more fun!

You keep mentioning this strawman. But it is a strawman unless the door is literally unbreakable. Mind showing me all those unbreakable doors?

Of course if it were a wall of force and you didn't have a wizard you'd have to turn round and go home. Mysteriously in actual play the wizard has the problem you say the rogue does - but doors can be opened by the fighter and an axe.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

My issue with this is that a rogue can't substitute for a wizard in a wizardless party - can't fireball, can't teleport, heck can't even go invisible (at least in AD&D - I'm not sure on the details of how 3E adjudicates Hiding).

Not sure why you have an issue with something that isn't true.

Can't Fireball = Rogue's can use scrolls, staves and wands and other magic items.

Can't Teleport = Rogue's can use scrolls, staves and other magic items

Can't go Invisible = Ring of Invisibility, scrolls, staves, and wands.

The rogue is more than capable of doing all these things.

 

[pemerton]

Not sure why you have an issue with something that isn't true.

Can't Fireball = Rogue's can use scrolls, staves and wands and other magic items.

Can't Teleport = Rogue's can use scrolls, staves and other magic items

Can't go Invisible = Ring of Invisibility, scrolls, staves, and wands.

The rogue is more than capable of doing all these things.

What edition are you talking about? And what levels? Not to mention the item dependency that contrasts with the wizard.

In B/X an AD&D a thief has to be 10th level to use scrolls, and can't use other items.

Even in 3E, a 3rd level wizard can sub for a rogue, whereas I don't think a 5th level rogue has the same guarantee of using a fireball wand or scroll. The DC for a 5th level scroll is 25, for a wand is 20. The skill bonus for a 5th level rogue will be 9 ranks + 6 (say) for CHA. Which is 50% for the scroll, and better for the wand, but the wand is a big investment of a rogue's treasure. Whereas learning and then memorising a spell is a trivial investment of a wizard's resources.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What edition are you talking about? And what levels? Not to mention the item dependency that contrasts with the wizard.

In B/X an AD&D a thief has to be 10th level to use scrolls, and can't use other items.

Even in 3E, a 3rd level wizard can sub for a rogue, whereas I don't think a 5th level rogue has the same guarantee of using a fireball wand or scroll. The DC for a 5th level scroll is 25, for a wand is 20. The skill bonus for a 5th level rogue will be 9 ranks + 6 (say) for CHA. Which is 50% for the scroll, and better for the wand, but the wand is a big investment of a rogue's treasure. Whereas learning and then memorising a spell is a trivial investment of a wizard's resources.

I'm talking about 3rd edition and the UMD skill.

Item dependency can't be an argument because everyone gets items so if we are going to start moving the goalposts then I know not to continue with this conversation.

I always find it funny how wizards depend entirely on spells to do what they want to do but the minute another class finds a way to do the same thing, but with items, then it becomes an argument about item dependency.

If you are going to start arguments like this then you need to leave those goalposts exactly where they are.

 

[Shadeydm]

You keep mentioning this strawman. But it is a strawman unless the door is literally unbreakable. Mind showing me all those unbreakable doors?

Of course if it were a wall of force and you didn't have a wizard you'd have to turn round and go home. Mysteriously in actual play the wizard has the problem you say the rogue does - but doors can be opened by the fighter and an axe.

Yes of course its a strawman there couldn't possibly be anyone else in the dungeon right make as much noise as you want. It couldn't possibly be that the place will just empty out and kill us all.

As much of a strawman as this mythical wizard we keep hearing about that flies around in everyones campaign invisible, invulnerable and soloing all the encounters while the rest of the party sits outside in beach chairs waiting for thier cut of the loot.

 

[keterys]

I always find it funny how wizards depend entirely on spells to do what they want to do but the minute another class finds a way to do the same thing, but with items, then it becomes an argument about item dependency.

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_.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes of course its a strawman there couldn't possibly be anyone else in the dungeon right make as much noise as you want. It couldn't possibly be that the place will just empty out and kill us all.

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.

 

[pemerton]

Item dependency can't be an argument because everyone gets items

<snip>

I always find it funny how wizards depend entirely on spells to do what they want to do but the minute another class finds a way to do the same thing, but with items, then it becomes an argument about item dependency.

The difference seems pretty stark to me. Spells are an unlimited resource for a wizard. Items are a very finite resource for any PC. I mean, if we're going to talk about items then the Knock spell and Invisiblity spell are both unnecessary, because a wizard who wants to be able to sneak like a rogue can just use a Chime of Opening or a Ring of Invisibility.

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.

<snip>

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).

My comparitive unfamiliarity with 3E meant that I didn't factor in the pox save DC. 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!?).