Non-Combat magic?

[Serendipity]

Every body gets utility powers. And powers for wizards are called spells. But whether these utility powers/spells are useful out of combat I cannot say, we need more examples. hint hint WotC.

See, this is what I get for posting on the boards before my coffee.

I'm looking forward to 4e (very much) but this is really the first time I've hit that "zOMG they're changing stuff!" sort of reaction. A character class called a "Wizard" should, IMHO, be able to pull off more than a few tricks that elicit a sense of wonder.

 

[Derren]

Like fly?

Cheers, LT.

Fly means that you can escape most melee attacks or allows you to reach a flying enemy with melee attacks.
Spider Climb only means that you can climb very well but while doing so you can't attack very well (just one hand free).
The combat application of Spider Climb is much lower than the one of fly and very situational. Its very unlikely that such a spell is a utility power.

Spells like Spider Climb seem to be really problematic in 4E. They are (imo) not combat worthy enough for utility spells, too useful for cantrips and maybe too weak for rituals (depending on how rituals are implemented).

 

[The Little Raven]

Ah, thats the reason why WotC said over and over again that many good creatures are left out from the MM or changed into unaligned creatures because the PCs don't fight good creatures and therefore they are wasted pages...

And because good creatures are boring as hell.

Considering that your first sentence was false its not surprising that your are again wrong. It was said time and again that the only stats for NPCs which are interesting in 4E are combat stats. Everything else, like for example how the necromancer raises his undead army will be left out so that the DM can make it up by himself. And guess what, "make it up" means "follows no rule".

Uh, no. Maybe you should educate yourself on how NPCs work before you spout off this ignorant nonsense. Having different rules from PCs doesn't mean NPCs don't follow rules.

 

[Serendipity]

It just stands that what isn't unbalanced needs to be redefined by the game designers.

Indeed, but then balance is seldom that objective. For example, I don't consider Rope Trick terribly unbalancing.

 

[Derren]

And because good creatures are boring as hell.

Because...?
When the PCs are not supposed to be the good guys they can also be used as enemies. So why are they boring?

Uh, no. Maybe you should educate yourself on how NPCs work before you spout off this ignorant nonsense. Having different rules from PCs doesn't mean NPCs don't follow rules.

Okay, then in my ignorance I must have missed where the rules for the 99 year wish ritual of the Pit Fiend is codified, because thats the kind of abilities we are talking about.
But I am sure you will point me to where those rules are stated as you are apparently so knowledgable about 4E
I'm waiting.......

 

[The Little Raven]

Because...?

Because absolutes are lame.

When the PCs are not supposed to be the good guys they can also be used as enemies. So why are they boring?

Because absolutes are lame. As are limited-use monster concepts presented in a core book. Thus, you make them easily expandable to nearly any situation by no longer claiming absolutes in terms of alignment.

Okay, then in my ignorance I must have missed where the rules for the 99 year wish ritual of the Pit Fiend is codified, because thats the kind of abilities we are talking about.

No, you're trying to change we were talking about to that. You said, flat out, "NPCs don't follow rules and because of that don't need written out abilities and rituals," which is a load of crap. The Pit Fiend, which you've chosen as your example, has plenty of abilities written out for it, and obviously follows rules. The fact that a fluff consideration, the wish ritual, doesn't have mechanics (because it doesn't need them) does not mean that NPCs don't follow rules.

But I am sure you will point me to where those rules are stated as you are apparently so knowledgable about 4E

Try reading the Pit Fiend entry, which is full of game mechanics (aka rules). It follows rules.

 

[Derren]

Because absolutes are lame. As are limited-use monster concepts presented in a core book. Thus, you make them easily expandable to nearly any situation by no longer claiming absolutes in terms of alignment.

I guess all the devils and demons are also lame (absolute evil).

You said, flat out, "NPCs don't follow rules and because of that don't need written out abilities and rituals," which is a load of crap.

Trying to weasel your way out of this, aren't we? A little hint, try reading the full post or even the whole discussion instead of quoting a sentence out of context only to flame others.

 

[DandD]

Indeed, but then balance is seldom that objective. For example, I don't consider Rope Trick terribly unbalancing.

I wouldn't either, if it were relocated to a much higher level. Although with now unlimited uses of mage hand, if your goal simply is to have a rope hold up, you can simply let it be (although the mage hand isn't that strong). It's the combination with being able to disappear safely in a unreachable pocket dimension that makes it not balanced at lower levels. But putting it up much much higher, like Fly, that would do the trick.
I mean, seriously, creating pocket dimension is a lower-level spell than flinging a fireball? Yeah, right, back to the rebalancing-evaluation-table with you, you wannabe-2nd level spell.

 

[The Little Raven]

I guess all the devils and demons are also lame (absolute evil).

Devils aren't absolute evil. They're corrupted evil. Fallen from their intended purpose into the debased beings that they've become. Prisoners who seek to break their prison and corrupt reality to their purpose, selling their services in order to collect the power to do so.

Demons, yeah... I've never really been a big fan.

Trying to weasel your way out of this, aren't we? A little hint, try reading the full post or even the whole discussion instead of quoting a sentence out of context only to flame others.

If they exist (not guaranteed as 4E seems to be build around the "The PCs are the good guys" idea and NPCs don't follow rules and because of that don't need written out abilities and rituals) they would be rituals in 4E.

Let's see.

"If they exist they would be rituals in 4E." - In reference to Animate Dead/Summon Devil/Demon. Most likely a true statement (except for some specific examples).

"Not guaranteed as 4e seems to be build around the "The PCs are the good guys" idea." - You're saying that Animate Dead and Summon Devil/Demon are not guaranteed to exist in the game, since the game is built around the PCs being good guys. The "good guys" comment is wrong, especially in light of the reduction of alignment's role, and the removal of 3e's "Good is the best alignment" philosophy. Since the PCs aren't just the "good guys," and we have a class who has a variant predicated upon making pacts with devils (warlock), it's somewhat silly to assume that this non-existence "good guy" clause would prevent summoning demons or creating undead from ever being in the game.

"NPCs don't follow rules and because of that don't need written out abilities and rituals." - This means that NPCs don't follow rules (which is false) and don't need written out abilities and rituals (which is also false). The pit fiend has several abilities written out, one of which summons other devils. He's got mechanics that place him as an elite, making him the equivalent of 2 monsters. That demonstrates an NPC using rules and having abilities written out, one of which you claim is not guaranteed to be in the game, despite it being in the game. Sure, we haven't seen whether players can get the ability to summon demons yet, but then again we haven't seen something like 95% of the game's content.

Now what context did I miss...or rather, what context are you now trying to apply to your plain statement?

 

[WhatGravitas]

Spells like Spider Climb seem to be really problematic in 4E. They are (imo) not combat worthy enough for utility spells, too useful for cantrips and maybe too weak for rituals (depending on how rituals are implemented).

Actually, I think Spider Climb has a lot of combat applications - similar to the Eladrin's Fey Step - it helps you with navigating the terrain. There's a ledge? Climb up and hence you can avoid melee. And even with only one free hand, you can sling spell! Hang on the ceiling, throw spells down - for melee monsters without excessive reach, you're effectively flying.

So I think Spider Climb is a bad example for your position.

But I see your point - some spells are really falling into that gap - spells you want to use quickly (i.e. no ritual), but have no direct combat appliance - thinks like detect thoughts, a spell to transfer a quick telepathic message to a close target, basically more powerful tricks. I also want to see what prestidigitation will look like now.

Cheers, LT.