Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 4270552" data-attributes="member: 5948">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.  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...</blockquote>

Verification