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

[Shadeydm]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. 4e is based on such a model, for example (that's what roles are about).

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.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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]

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."

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]

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.

Which doesn't preclude them from being archetype first, balanced second.

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).

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.

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]

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.

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.

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."

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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

There are definitely balance differences.

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]

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.

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.

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).

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.

ROFLMAO - say what?? Um, yeah. OK... (snigger).

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.

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?

 

[jrowland]

I'm not sure if you are understanding me correctly. In 3rd edition, once you had a buff it was usually there for a while. In 4th edition you had modifiers coming at you left and right almost every single round, when you had one modifier going away two or three more may be coming in to take it's place. We used to go through I don't know how much scratch paper because of all the little nit picky modifiers that used to come up. 3rd edition was no where near as bad.

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, )

 

[jrowland]

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).

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION], nice analysis, but I can't XP you again yet.

But the question remains - so some characters can do things other characters can't.

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

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.