Rituals take too long and creative casting is dead

Majoru Oakheart said:
Seriously? Anyone ever cast Make Whole in combat? I know if someone tried that in our group the conversation would go something like this:

Last Saturday, matter of fact. Turned out to be vital to our success. Of course, the only reason I had it memorized was because we were supposed to be having an off-day, and my cleric cohort memorizes a standard suite of non-combat spells when he's not expecting a fight.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

monboesen said:
Have you heard of scrolls and wands?

In 3ed both are easy and cheap to create when dealing with low level spells. That means spellcasters more or less have unlimited use of utility spells if they want it.

All of which still cost some money, which not all wizards are going to be willing to spend, particularly for some of the spells that need some duration like invisibility. But if they do, that still frees the party up from needing a rogue to focus on those things, meaning it's not tied to the 4 main roles... not a bad thing from where I'm standing. Freedom to play the sort of game you want to play isn't a bad thing.
 

But if they do, that still frees the party up from needing a rogue to focus on those things, meaning it's not tied to the 4 main roles

Are you arguing that you need a rogue more in 4e?

All you need is someone to spend a couple of feats on skill training and you will have a perfectly fine trapmaster, sneak or face character.

Far more flexible in the role department than 3e IMO.
 

monboesen said:
Are you arguing that you need a rogue more in 4e?

No, what I'm arguing is that there was nothing wrong with the approach taken by previous version of the game. And lots of the complaints being tossed out here are largely based on hyperbole since notable trade-offs were involved.
 

broghammerj said:
Why does the "quickest" ritual take 10 minutes? Take something like discern lies which is level six. A shady man walks into a bar, approaching the adventurers with a proposition. "Excuse me sir. We are not ready to enter into conversation for ten minutes. Do you mind if I do a little light reading from my book here?"
.......
On the flip side I may enjoy playing the other multitude of classes much more because there is so much more to do.


I think that was the point from a design standpoint. Wizards historically tend to end up with a set of abilities that makes nearly everything a skill based class might do irrelevant.

Consider this situation: You have a player with a rogue who wants to do the typical cat burglar role. You have spell casters in the party with Knock, Spider Climb, Fly, Levitate, Detect Traps, and Silence. So what do you need that Rogue for?

More broadly, I suspect that any spell from previous editions which could invalidate entire skill challenges are moved to rituals.

END COMMUNICATION
 

for the old timers here, we already had a version of the rituals thing in AD&D. remember lankhmar? circa about 1985? every magic user spell cast in that world took 10 times longer than in the regular (greyhawk at the time) world. and if i remember correctly, it sucked the big one. made the magic user useless. of course, now with unlimited magic missiles that actually can miss (what kinda heresy is that!?!?), i guess they think 4e solves that problem.

i dont see the big deal with 3.x spell casting. any problems i had with it were solved with one page of house rules modifying about a dozen spells. end of problem. it seems that wotc overdid it a lot with the whole new system.

i agree that creative casting is dead. they made this whole thing too combat oriented, and blended the class abilities and powers too much. its a terrible system. rituals suck except for a few powerful campaign altering spells like astral projection, polymorph, and wish, for example.

as for the magic user doing the thief's job, sure, he can do it, but at the expense of other more needed spells. i might memorize one knock spell, for if the thief failed. i needed those never miss magic missiles too badly to waste on knock. scrolls were a good backup, sure, but i'm not using thief skills type spells too much, because i dont want the door to explode on me. i am not putting myself in the line of fire of glyphs of whatever deathtrap the dm was throwing at us.

plus it is a cooperative game. i am not going to steal the glory from my other players who are playing a thief for a reason-- they like thieves. why would i ruin their fun? also, this might seem like heresy to some, but i took away the thief ability to backstab when in combat. the only time he can backstab is when he gets the surprise check, and never in a combat situation when someone is facing off against a fighter and the thief just happens to be behind the guy. rogues dont exist as a concept in my campaign. they are all variants of thief. thieves specialize in getting something from someone for nothing. their role in the group is commensurate with that concept. their role is not the everquest or warcraft mmorpg type of backstabber extraordinaire.

and as a magic user, when i was in a city setting i sure as hell memorized a different spell list than when i was in a dungeon. tongues, charm, suggestion, detect lie, invisibility etc all made the list. less fireballs, more utility spells. but again, i didnt steal the thief's job. he can do one thing over and over again. i am limited in my memorzation. while the thief skulked about, the magic user was in the mage guild doing magic user stuff. usually selling magic gear in town, or learning his new spells.

all these spells that allegedly make the magic user too powerful as compared to the other classes have been around since the 70's. why all the bitching that 3.x made the magic users uber? if anything, the fighter type classes are now uber to me. i held off casting fireballs and lightning bolts because in an average round the low to mid level fighters easily outperform it, with cleave and great cleave.

again, 1 page of house rules for spells made our gaming experience balanced and fun by twinking some of the spells and other rules so that i as dm can make the campaign i want to create.

4e is over the top and not needed.

joe
 
Last edited:

In a world where you have wizards Knocking open every door wouldn't people figure out a way to stop them? Either by enchanting the door with a anti-magic field or adding a hidden trap that isn't connected to the locking mechanism that poisons whoever opens the door. Which the rogue could possibly find and disable.
 

hornedturtle said:
In a world where you have wizards Knocking open every door wouldn't people figure out a way to stop them? Either by enchanting the door with a anti-magic field or adding a hidden trap that isn't connected to the locking mechanism that poisons whoever opens the door. Which the rogue could possibly find and disable.
So now we have two choices: radically change the world to accomodate a legacy ruleset in which mages can do everything; or change the ruleset so that it facilitates playing in the sort of world that many players prefer (ie pseudo-medieval in which not every locked door is also trapped or antimagicked). It's not really surprsing that WoTC went the second way, is it?

billd91 said:
Actually the wizard could not completely overshadow the rogue, because he always had a limited number of castings while the rogue could pick locks, search for traps, pick pockets, and sneak around all day long.
But if skulking, lockpicking etc only come up on average about two or three times per session of play, then the wizard's spells will do the job.

billd91 said:
As I saw it, that was a STRENGTH of the game design because it meant there was some possibility of redundancy in the party. If the rogue got himself cacked or if the party didn't have one in the first place, you still had options available to you, even if somewhat limited.
The corollary of this is that, when no wizard or cleric is available, the thief or fighter should be able to fill their shoes. This was obviously not viable in 1st ed AD&D, and I think most would deny that it is viable in 3E either.

In any event, it's an odd argument for having a class that is universally good at everything that such a class allows for redundancy of other classes. The logic of this argument is that Divine Power is a game-making spell rather than a game-breaking one.
 

pemerton said:
So now we have two choices: radically change the world to accomodate a legacy ruleset in which mages can do everything; or change the ruleset so that it facilitates playing in the sort of world that many players prefer (ie pseudo-medieval in which not every locked door is also trapped or antimagicked). It's not really surprsing that WoTC went the second way, is it?

I don't really see it as a binary rules design choice. Personally I would have simply given the 'Knock-esque' spells a failure chance. In 3.x terms, perhaps the effect of a knock spell is that the wizard can make an immediate Open Locks check with a skill modifier of caster level + Int mod + wizard's ranks in Open Lock. Or something similar - that's just off the top of my head. Charm could modify Diplomacy, Spider Climb could modify Climb, etc.

Simply toning down the 'I win' factor of magic would have been a better choice than cutting utility/skill spells out of the game altogether.

pemerton said:
But if skulking, lockpicking etc only come up on average about two or three times per session of play, then the wizard's spells will do the job.

If the wizard's preparing two or three Knocks, two or three Invisibilities, and a Spider Climb every morning, that's a big hit to his spell capacity unless he's extremely high level. Those are spells he won't have when it comes to combat, which means the rogue gets to do more backstabbing than he would if the wizard had loaded up on big kabooms. It can balance out.

I'm not arguing that the do-everything-brilliantly wizard wasn't a problem in 3.x - it's just that I think that toning down the reliability and effectiveness of his utility spells would be a better solution to the issue rather than eliminating them completely or reducing them to out-of-combat rituals only. Sure, let the Rogue be the king of lock-picking, but if the wizard wants to spend a spell slot on it, at least let him have a go...
 

billd91 said:
Actually the wizard could not completely overshadow the rogue, because he always had a limited number of castings while the rogue could pick locks, search for traps, pick pockets, and sneak around all day long. Wizards had much more significant resource management if they wanted to perform some of the rogue or other skill monkey's job.

You are running a very strange campaign if a rogue actually wants and needs to pick locks, search for traps, pick pockets and sneak around all day long.
 

Remove ads

Top