"Siloing" Class Abilities

[Irda Ranger]

"I really need to attack, but I only have Phantom Steed ready."


"Use it as an attack spell, the horse runs over the enemy for 1d6 damage per caster level."

Better yet, summon him up and put the Paladin on his back. Insta-warhorse.

 

[Glyfair]

"I really need to attack, but I only have Phantom Steed ready."


"Use it as an attack spell, the horse runs over the enemy for 1d6 damage per caster level."


No idea if that's even close (I doubt it.) I just had the image flash in my head.

I agree. "Siloing" implies you store abilities that are similar together. I don't see how you get "make spells more versatile" from "siloing."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree. "Siloing" implies you store abilities that are similar together. I don't see how you get "make spells more versatile" from "siloing."

Looks to me like two different approaches for the same goal.
It might be hard to pull the versatile spells off with all spells we have these days, but ... well, maybe D&D 5, or PHB II for D&D 4.

 

[Treebore]

Sounds to me like threads of "Wizards are too powerful/broken" will not be a thing of the past in 4E.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Looks to me like two different approaches for the same goal.
It might be hard to pull the versatile spells off with all spells we have these days, but ... well, maybe D&D 5, or PHB II for D&D 4.

I doubt that versatile spells will happen. Part of the entire design process from 3.0 all the way to near the end of 3.5 has been to REMOVE versatility from spells.

This is the reason that sleet storm is a separate spell from ice storm and the reason that polymorph was turned into a number of spells that turn you into one form each.

The idea is that if a spell has different uses that you choose when you cast it, it becomes a "better" spell than one that only does one thing. So, if one spell has 2 uses, ALL spells have to have 2 uses or they will become spells that no one uses.

Also, the other problem is that if a spell has two uses, one will always be more powerful than the other since it's impossible to balance all choices exactly. So, for instance with polymorph, changing into an Annis Hag was almost always a better choice than changing into a Badger. If you cast the spell to change into a Badger, it might as well be a 1st or 2nd level spell. However, the Annis Hag might be too powerful to be a 5th level spell.

If, for instance, you made a spell like phantom steed which could either be used to trample everyone in a 20 foot radius for 1d6 per level OR could also be used the same as phantom steed. Well, no one would prepare fireball or phantom steed again since they could just prepare the more versatile spell. Simple answer, right? Make it one level higher. Except it's likely that there is a spell at a higher level that has ONE effect that is better than either of the 2 effects in this new spell(unfortunately, level 4 is a rather barren level in 3.5 to use this as an example, IMHO). This makes the spell with ONE good effect better than the one with two effects...in this case.

Unfortunately, it is really hard to figure out where the spell belongs and really hard to balance.

At any rate, I believe they are referring to having spell slots for damaging spells and different spell slots for utility spells where you can't prepare one type of spell in the other slots.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Also, the other problem is that if a spell has two uses, one will always be more powerful than the other since it's impossible to balance all choices exactly.

Not if you give spells a combat-oriented and non-combat oriented use. Or give spells a reverse purpose. Examples:

Phantom Steed: Can be a steed or trample in a long line.
Fireball: Can go boom or create a hollow sphere of fire, dealing damage if you pass through.
Tongues: Allows target to speak in tongues or forces target to speak in a certain language.
Resilient Sphere: Encapsules target or creates a barrier, that effectively gives DR 5/--.

That way, you only have to balance the offensive uses against each other and the non-offensive uses against each other.

And don't forget: We already have a bunch of useless spells. Like cone of cold.

I'm pretty sure that wih enough time, you can get very varied spells with multi-purpose use.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Nikosandros]

Where does this horrible word "siloing" come from anyway?

I agree with the design decision, but the term is just horrible.

 

[Merlion]

Wouldn't need to go that far. All they have to do is change the Vancian stuff to use the "Readied spells" idea from Arcana Evolved. Then the caster readies fireball and phantom steed that morning. If he needs either, he burns a slot, and goes.
.

I would love this to death, as the AE/AU magic system is probably my favorite of all systems I have seen in games. However, they have stated that Vancian magic will still be in, but that it will no longer be all that a wizard has. This implies, to me, that the actual spellcasting will still work the same as ever, or at least still be basically the Vancian fire and forget system, but that Wizards are now basically going to have limited-use supernatural or spell like abilities as well.

Not sure I like the sound of this. If phantom steed is too weak move it down a level otherwise a caster character should have to make choices between utility versus combat.

Well, like has been mentioned, this is basically the oposite of what they are trying to do. They don't want you to have to always choose to be good at one thing and suck at or be incapable of another anymore. They don't want a wizard to have to either not have enough combat spells to contribute to combat throughout, or not have the spells to help in non combat situations either.

The trick of course is balancing it. I'm all for the concept, but if its taken too far it will simply make challenges unchallenging.

I doubt that versatile spells will happen. Part of the entire design process from 3.0 all the way to near the end of 3.5 has been to REMOVE versatility from spells.

I agree. Also, he didn't seem to be talking about an increase in the versatility of spells. He seemed to be talking about either a difference in how spells or stored, or could simply have been referencing the fact that since Wizards will apparently have magical abilities other than just their spells, what spells they prepare will be less important.

To me, "siloing" means that wizards will have several separate slots (or groups of slots) - one for utility spells, one for offensive spells, and one for defensive spells (for example)

This is a definite possibility. However, I think having multiple sets of slots would be a bookeeping nightmare, so I hope they don't go that route. I've played a highish level wizard, and keeping track of one set of slots is bad enough.



I think we are missing some critical piece of this. We don't know enough yet about the non-spell magical abilities wizards are being given, nor about this whole business of "per day" and "per encounter" and wether it applies to prepared spells or only to the other abilities.

But it sounds to me as though a Wizard may be able to prepare multiple spells in a slot, or perhaps some spells have become abilities wizards can use in other ways, thus freeing up spell slots.

 

[Jhaelen]

To me, "siloing" means that wizards will have several separate slots (or groups of slots) - one for utility spells, one for offensive spells, and one for defensive spells (for example).

Sounds likely. However, I'll go nuts if this means the number of spells a wizard can memorize will be triple the number of spells he could memorize in 3rd.ed.

What I'd like to see is a much lower number of known spells and no classes at all which have access to every spell on their list (like clerics/druids), unless the list is small (like the dread necromancer's or the beguiler's).

I'd also like it if they had a very small number of spell slots but chosing spells for those slots could be done in a relatively short time (or even on the fly involving some risk of failure) and changed several times a day. The 'Earthdawn' rpg uses a magic system like that - and of course it's also similar to the ToB maneuvers.

These changes could speed up creating npc casters significantly.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not convinced by this idea...

The consequence could be that every single wizard must be 1/3 blaster, 1/3 protector, 1/3 trickster. It doesn't sound like you have an option, but a restriction, if you cannot choose even to be 100% blaster or 100% trickster.