Spellcasting Sacred Cows

[steeldragons]

True enough. Wandering monsters make a heck of sense. But then again, the party Wizard will have a rope trick or some other spell prepared to keep the party out of their reach.

Not necessarily. I, personally, never had a spellcaster stocked up with Rope tricks. And if they had memorized it, they more than likely used it to evade a certain combat moreso than hide the whole party. But then, Rope Trick is a relatively rare spell in my games.

But I could certainly see (and have read the story hours) where this is "standard procedure." And...ya know...bully for those groups. Thinking outside the box (or maybe "inside the rope trick" as the case maybe. haha) and foiling the DM's planned Wandering monsters. Nothing in the game/rules says players shouldn't try to survive! Nor should DMs try to keep PCs from doing so!

Now, suddenly, the DM has to have Wizards or guards with anti-magic-rods patrol the area, which is much less probable in your average dungeon. Seriously, I've seen my share of different playstyles, but seemingly all had in common that, given the chance, the party would use failsafe methods against nasty surprises.

Well then, there's that. haha. That is your experience. It does not match mine. I am happy to say.

Sounds to me that that is the DM's responsibility then. To limit the "failsafes" in "makes sense" game terms...or to think outside of HIS box without imposing on the players' justifiable tactics. To just place "anti-magic rods" everywhere or have every foe suddenly be an adept magic-user shows, to my humble opinion, distinctly limited thinking on the DM's part.

Up the number of foes. Up the number of encounters. Up the number of traps or environmental issues that might deplete a party's resources. The mage will run out of spells sooner or later.

Fine, let them sleep in a Rope Trick (you [the DM] were foolish enough to give it to them in the first place). But how much fun is "Ok, we're in this space of white for the next 8 hours....again....great." It will get old and/or, after a time, the party will increase in power to try new tactics.

The fault of a "faulty" or unimaginative DM is not the fault of the system nor requires "rules" to say/dictate otherwise.

Cheers and happy gaming.
--SD

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Please elaborate. 4e has the attack and utility spells with At-Will, encounter and dailies, and then you added rituals on top of that. Are you saying that this is the mechanic that worked well? It really didn't work for me.

My limited 4e experience is that Daily powers still could create the 20 minute adventuring day problem with some groups. But where it broke down for me was the "mundaneness" of spells. I'll fire off another at-will spell. OK, I'll do it again. More? Here you go.

For me the specialness of spellcasters was in making choices. Do I cast now, or do I wait for a better situation? Can the fighters prevail or should I toss my last 4th level spell for the day and finish this now? I was perfectly OK with the idea that perhaps I couldn't do something every round, but when I did, I knew it would make a difference.

A lot of the problem is that the Vancian system in pre-4e simply didn't ever quite work out that way. At low levels (below 5th or so) the caster player was always doomed to run out of any meaningful way to contribute fairly quickly (or simply sit on his hands thoughout the earlier encounters, same thing). After that point they had enough slots that they effectively weren't going to run out of spells. It almost worked for some adventures for a little while in the middle 4 levels or so, but after that you had enough slots and probably other ways to generate magical effects that it started to break down again pretty quickly.

The 4e solution OTOH actually DOES work pretty well, and if you notice even pre-4e D&D gradually began to recognize that and move slowly in the same direction. First you had cantrips (and then orisons), then you got an INT bonus to spell slots, which just shifted things so that low level casters were less likely to run out at all. Magic wasn't THAT special, at least low level magic.

4e at-wills not only give casters something to do, they grant a bit of flexibility in terms of what they're focused on doing. Each caster has a couple tricks and there are a lot of different permutations you can generate from those basic choices.

You certainly still have quite a few choices to make. You've got maybe a couple daily powers and have to decide how to deploy them, and even your encounter powers force you to make choices about how and when to employ them.

Agency is really the biggest problem that Vancian casting contributes to though. There's simply no way to give other classes nearly the same level of flexibility when compared to a class that can select from a large list of open-ended effects.

That could be solved without ditching Vancian casting but it requires either or both of a couple of things. Either each specific caster needs a very narrow niche set of things they can do, so you get rid of the omnibus wizard and cleric and replace them with highly focused schools/domains/subclasses that are each only good at one type of effect. The other thing you can do, which 4e did, is to make the more world affecting spells expensive and time consuming to cast. They're still potent problem solvers but far less likely to be win buttons and stop competing with attack type powers for slots at lower levels.

The more you look at the issues, the more your solution starts to look more like 4e, which really did a pretty good job of both limiting casters and still letting them do awesome stuff.

 

[tuxgeo]

Type: Conjuration
Level: 3
Casting time: 4 segments
Area of Effect: 10' radius plus 5' per caster level
Duration: Instantaneous
Components: Verbal , Material, Somatic

Description: The Sacred Cows spell immediately summons forth d4 fully grown Burmese Bulls in mid-air that are flung in the direction of the target area of effect. Reflex saves are allowed to avoid being hit by the blasting bovines.

Those struck take 10d10 damage and are knocked prone and stunned for d4 rounds but are also Blessed (as the spell) at the same time. Additional saves against magic apply for half damage by those who are hit. The Blessing effect lasts for d6 rounds.

The caster may opt to direct each Sacred Cow to a different target within the area of effect.

Material component: an oxtail; Somatic & Verbal: hold one's index fingers up to the sides of their head, pointing upward, and incant "Mooo" three times.

< snip >

There's my two cows...er...coppers.
--SD

(1) Could we have Brahman Bulls instead of Burmese Bulls? They're just that much more Indian, hence potentially truer to the source of the phrase, IMHO.
(I wouldn't steer you wrong.)

(2) Also, Sacred Cows, mon: the female of the species. They give milk, and that generosity is part of why they're sacred. (At least, add cows as an option?)

 

[Tilenas]

Up the number of foes. Up the number of encounters. Up the number of traps or environmental issues that might deplete a party's resources. The mage will run out of spells sooner or later.

Fine, let them sleep in a Rope Trick (you [the DM] were foolish enough to give it to them in the first place). But how much fun is "Ok, we're in this space of white for the next 8 hours....again....great." It will get old and/or, after a time, the party will increase in power to try new tactics.

How does upping the number of obstacles solve the problem of the 20-minute adventuring day? If anything, it exercabates it.

I agree that the system should not cover for shoddy DMing, but seriously, in a rules-heavy system like 3e or 4e, what power does the DM have to prevent exploits like this (for lack of a better term), other than outright banning the whole item? Player entitlement is a big issue in later incarnations of the game.
What is the DM going to do if the the level-3 Wizard picks that spell as one of his two freebies? As I see it, it's either one big ban-fest or playing a different game altogether, because the RAW does simply not support the kind of play where casters are forced to preserve their spells.

But we are getting further and further away from my original point: balance. 20-minute adventuring day or no, my main concern here is that the system allows casters to nuke a certain number of encounters, retreat, and come back later fully charged. Verisimilitude aside, that's something I'd like to see ended for the sake of having more balance between casters and non-casters.

 

[Sammael]

I don't think there are many sacred cows when it comes to spellcasting mechanics. However, one particular peeve I had with 4E was that it relegated most spells to combat use only, and dramatically shifted the availability of certain spells at certain levels.

I'm fine with moving spells up or down a level (cue OOTS joke now), but making it so that sustained flight isn't available until epic levels is unacceptable in my book.

My proposed solution to the balance issue is to make all "problematic" spells require an action to be sustained. In the economy of actions, this is a big deal. Sure, you can maintain both fly and invisibility at the same time, but if you do, you won't be able to move or cast anything else!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think there are many sacred cows when it comes to spellcasting mechanics. However, one particular peeve I had with 4E was that it relegated most spells to combat use only, and dramatically shifted the availability of certain spells at certain levels.

I'm fine with moving spells up or down a level (cue OOTS joke now), but making it so that sustained flight isn't available until epic levels is unacceptable in my book.

My proposed solution to the balance issue is to make all "problematic" spells require an action to be sustained. In the economy of actions, this is a big deal. Sure, you can maintain both fly and invisibility at the same time, but if you do, you won't be able to move or cast anything else!

The problem is that's sort of just saying "it was such-and-such a way in 1e, thus it has to be that way forever", which is fine with things that were OK in 1e, but a lot of spells were either too low or too high level by a lot compared to their actual utility and effect. 4e got clever and ranked things by the category of effect in a much more logical fashion, generally. If you're going to improve spell casting and make it work better in the game you're going to have to be willing to make some significant changes to 'spell levels'.

Some things can be limited by action economy, yes. Invisibility in 4e for instance uses this technique. It also just grants total concealment effectively, which means you still aren't always hidden (and I guess that was true to a certain extent even before 4th, though the AD&D rules tended to be pretty ambiguous on what that meant). Other things like flying are only somewhat restricted by a technique like that. You still gain a huge amount of mobility, which tends to restrict the DM on what sorts of challenges will be effective.

I think people somewhat overestimate how much spells were 'shifted to combat use'. There are certainly a LOT of spells that are not much use outside of combat, but that was always true. About 90% of utility spells are quite useful outside of combat, and whole classes of attack spells are too. This would include things like walls, zones that block LoS, all summons, many conjurations, and a goodly number of other spells. In at least some situations a LOT of spells can be used creatively. I've seen quite a bit of this kind of thing in my games. Really just about as much as in AD&D, except the spells are a lot less like to be just "well, I cast X and that wraps up the problem". Anyway, rituals really help out a lot there, and they're really in some ways more flexible than even old Vancian spells were.

 

[Aramax]

over resting groups get all sorts of random encounters thrown at them,even in safe places there Hounds of Tindalos and Dream Warriors,

Make them suffer!(but then thats my motto for every problem )

 

[DonTadow]

True enough. Wandering monsters make a heck of sense. But then again, the party Wizard will have a rope trick or some other spell prepared to keep the party out of their reach. Now, suddenly, the DM has to have Wizards or guards with anti-magic-rods patrol the area, which is much less probable in your average dungeon. Seriously, I've seen my share of different playstyles, but seemingly all had in common that, given the chance, the party would use failsafe methods against nasty surprises.

I hate wondering monster, a poor mechanic for the game design. Essentially, the game is saying that adventurers in the middle of an adventure should not get too many nights rest. And must nap frequently throughout the day. What are they a couple with a new born baby.

Wandering monsters are the things they edit out of the movie and book. I edit it out of my game. Unless its plot relevant or location relevant (sleeping in a seriously dangerous dungeon or an enemy is chasing down the party). If the party fails a watch, a neat little chart chalks up what happened, a loss of food and rations or a single round of cinematic combat.

 

[steeldragons]

How does upping the number of obstacles solve the problem of the 20-minute adventuring day?

Um...cus, presumably the mage will have to use more of his resources?

If anything, it exercabates it.

How? I truly do not see how.

I agree that the system should not cover for shoddy DMing, but seriously, in a rules-heavy system like 3e or 4e, what power does the DM have to prevent exploits like this

I have no idea, not ever playing in those systems. And thank the gods for it. All the more reason the "NEW" D&D should get back to DM driven options/power.

If your DM is not/can not be intelligent enough to make the game what he and the players want, regardless of what the rules say....I do not see why they're playing RPGs.

(for lack of a better term), other than outright banning the whole item? Player entitlement is a big issue in later incarnations of the game.

Precisely. So we should be catering to player entitlement becauuuuuse ...um...wait, what?!

What is the DM going to do if the the level-3 Wizard picks that spell as one of his two freebies?

A 3rd level wizard has two "freebies"?! Um..why...what...huh?

As I see it, it's either one big ban-fest or playing a different game altogether,

Yeah, ya mean D&D?

...because the RAW does simply not support the kind of play where casters are forced to preserve their spells.

They don't huh? Who's talking "forced"? 3 and 4e I assume you're talking about...So a player of a spellcaster should NOT be careful with their resources then. Great...sounds like great fun. Hey! I know, How 'bout I just go play a video game or read a comic....I don't need to actually do anything with a character of my own. Great. Good fun.

But we are getting further and further away from my original point: balance.

That was the original point? I thought it was about these 2 "Sacred Cows" the OP posted about.

20-minute adventuring day or no, my main concern here is that the system allows casters to nuke a certain number of encounters, retreat, and come back later fully charged.

Uh...right. You're obviously reading a different thread than I am.

Verisimilitude aside, that's something I'd like to see ended for the sake of having more balance between casters and non-casters.

"More balance" between casters and non-casters...Um...you understand that "casters" are people who have use of magic, right? Non-casters...do not. They've been "balanced" out the wazoo due to the whining and crying of players for the past 10 or so years. Thank 4e for "fixing" the "imbalance" between casters and non-casters.

Dude...I do not know what game you are playing...I just know, I am very happy to not be playing it. There's this fantasy role-playing game called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." [1e] Check it out some time.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I had the '15 Minute Adventuring Day' with exactly one group.

Then they found out that while they were napping the bad guys were making productive use of the time. They were kind of shocked that I allowed them to fail, just because they wasted three days while the bad guys stayed busy.

Failure should always be an option.

The Auld Grump