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

[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.