Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5984210" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think you may be misreading your printed copy. The duration of Invisibility (Wizard Utility 6) is &quot;until the end of your next turn (sustain standard)&quot;. In 3E terms, this is a duration of Concentration, with a maximum periof of concentration equal to 5 minutes.No errata. It read like this when printed.In &quot;Tower of the Elephant&quot;, Conan breaks into a powerful wizard's tower without being spotted and without using an invisibility spell. He is, in D&amp;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&amp;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.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&amp;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 &quot;same-y&quot; classes - what is more same-y than a pre-4e wizard's invisibility, fly and knock spells that make the thief virtually redundant!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5984210, member: 42582"] 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. No errata. It read like this when printed. 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. 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!) [/QUOTE]

Verification