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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shadeydm

First Post
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

First Post
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

First Post
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

Legend
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.
 


Hussar

Legend
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. :uhoh: 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

Legend
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

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
 

Remove ads

Top