Rituals take too long and creative casting is dead

[Lurks-no-More]

Now I remember what I disliked about 3e: every party needed to have a pixie.

Flight + invisibility at will = total scouting.

p.s. Why twenty-one feet?

Silence has an area of effect twenty feet in radius; this way, the pixie stayed outside the AoE, and could hear the rest of us telling where to move the silent area.

 

[eldoen]

In particular I find it offensive when people attack on grounds of Grammar and spelling.

1.) we are on the Internet and have an international audience so you may not know the Language skills of the person. English is not the only language in existence, and does have multitude of exceptions that do not transfer to other languages well. It is also not a Phonetic language, and borrows spelling(and grammar rules) ad hoc from other languages.

2.) you also do know the physical status of the person on the other end. Be it from physical disabilities or from external events, some people have to work harder at using language skills.

I personally over the years have had people in my groups that English was not their first language, and even was married to a gal who didn't even speak but basic English. I personally was involved in a car accident when younger and have to work very hard at my English skills as most of that area of my brain is damaged.

All I ask is a little consideration when replying to different people as We are in the US with a Language which has some of the Lowest literacy rates in the world in comparison to other languages.

El

 

[Primal]

I see all of these as features, not bugs.

And as far as "creative casting," I'm sorry, but using grease to grease something isn't creative.

I just have to tell a story from one of our Menzoberranzan (Drow) campaigns here. The PCs (all drow male commoners) were supposed to enter a party, which they were not invited to. So we all bought costumes, and one of the PCs was a wizard, and so he asked to see the master of ceremony and informed that the "party wizard" and his entourage of performers had arrived. The master of ceremony asked: "Oh? And who is this fellow, then?", and pointed to a flamboyantly-dressed drow wizard. The PC wizard insisted that the other one was an imposter, so the master of ceremony asked both of them to prove their claim.

The real "party wizard" went first and cast breath-taking illusions, but the PC wizard replied: "That is impressive, but my magic is stronger. Look -- my spells will bring even spiders down from the walls!". He cast... nothing more impressive than a simple 'Grease'-spell, but it *did* make the nearby wall so slippery than the numerous spiders crawling on it slid down to the floor. The real party wizard tried to protest, as he was thrown out, that it had been a simple spell, but symbols are powerful, and in the drow society there's nothing more symbolic than Lolth's children -- the spiders. Needless to say, the PC wizard got a huge "idea" award for his clever use of 'Grease'.

 

[broghammerj]

It was used to delay a boat from sinking during a combat, which allowed them to save a significant number of people and kill more enemies - I was quite surprised when it happened and it was a very good in combat use.

This is a perfect example of creative casting at its finest.

 

[broghammerj]

Seriously, did your wizards prepare nothing but Comprehend Languages, Magic Mouth, Tensor's Floating Disc, etc? If so, I guess you better have hoped that situation came up. Now they can use that spell without even wasting space having to memorize it.

This sounds more like a complaint who from someone allowed wizards to cast spells out of their spellbooks whenever they wanted, instead of actually having to memorize them. If so, well, that wasn't in the rules either, so what's to stop you from houseruling the same thing in 4e?

In fact I often prepared utility spells. There were often wasted, but when they did work they usually advanced the plot, made a combat more memorable, etc.

Perhaps my play style is a bit different than most. I don't think I tried to beat the DM or "win the game". Divination and teleport spells were rarely memorized because we knew they woudl screw up the DMs story.

I also laugh at all of those people who say that they never memorized utility spell and then say magic could replace all the other characters. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

 

[broghammerj]

If a rogue in 3e ever got to shine while doing thief-related things, the wizard must be unconscious. Between Invisibility, Silence, Knock, and any number of illusion spells (some of them cantrips), a brain-dead wizard can out-thief a rogue any day. And let's not forget Charm Person.

But who plays DnD with a guy who trys to move in on my character's schtick? I don't know about you but I play with my friends.

In games terms...why would a wizard who has chosen to ally himself with a party that includes a rogue waste his precious spells on invisibility, knock, and illusions.

 

[Mort]

In fact I often prepared utility spells. There were often wasted, but when they did work they usually advanced the plot, made a combat more memorable, etc.

Perhaps my play style is a bit different than most. I don't think I tried to beat the DM or "win the game". Divination and teleport spells were rarely memorized because we knew they woudl screw up the DMs story.

I also laugh at all of those people who say that they never memorized utility spell and then say magic could replace all the other characters. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

In 3.5 it was very easy to have your cake and eat it too - with scrolls. Scrolls were perfect for spells such as knock, comprehend languages, etc.

In my experience this was what truly broke the game at high levels - caster could memorize all the combat effective stuff - so dominated combat. And they could scribe scrolls relatively cheaply - so dominated outside of combat too.

 

[broghammerj]

In my experience this was what truly broke the game at high levels - caster could memorize all the combat effective stuff - so dominated combat. And they could scribe scrolls relatively cheaply - so dominated outside of combat too.

Again why waste time scribing scrolls if you have a perfectly competent rogue in you party.

As for high levels....lots of things were broken. My high level dual pick wielding ranger (dwarven minor was his story) could never generate as much damage as the barbarian or fighter. This was regardless of magic users

4E makes everything revolve around damage. Now everyone does the same damage, they just call it something different depending on class.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

But who plays DnD with a guy who trys to move in on my character's schtick? I don't know about you but I play with my friends.

In games terms...why would a wizard who has chosen to ally himself with a party that includes a rogue waste his precious spells on invisibility, knock, and illusions.

Agreed. Besides, these stories seem to indicate that the entire party went everywhere together. Need to sneak into the castle? Don't send just the rogue, we will all go! We should infiltrate the bandit camp to get more information. Nah, don't worry fighter, we will all go with you! I mean, there wasn't a way to split the party up before? Or, you know, have the DM limit what spells the casters would have?

At least once a week, I read some posts that seem to indicate that the major problem wasn't with 3.x and previous versions, it was with the group's dynamics. As Brog mentioned, these seem to be strangely competitive games.

 

[Mort]

Again why waste time scribing scrolls if you have a perfectly competent rogue in you party.

The rogue has to roll to pick a lock, it takes minutes unless he takes a significant minus to go quicker. Any lock a rogue can pick (and many he couldn't) a 3e wizard can open in 6 seconds with no chance of failure. Same goes for many utility spells, yes a rogue might be able to do it - but a wizard can do it as well or better and he can still do many things the rogue can't - this is bad design.

or put another way, if a party has a wizard, a rogue isn't necessary, the player can pick another schtik that he wants.

As for high levels....lots of things were broken. My high level dual pick wielding ranger (dwarven minor was his story) could never generate as much damage as the barbarian or fighter. This was regardless of magic users

Sorry but nothing could dominate combat like an effective wizard or other effective spellcaster. it's not all about damage, it's mobility, battlefield control and just all around usefulness.

4E makes everything revolve around damage. Now everyone does the same damage, they just call it something different depending on class.

This is one of those broad generalizations that doesn't hold true upon any examination; even from the limited playtests I've seen - 4e has more focus on mobility, tactics and other considerations that 3e ever did. Different classes have different roles and focuses in combat - but apparantly 4e makes the cardinal sin (to some people) to dare to make other classes as effective as the wizard and cleric.