[SPELLS and MAGIC] Design Discussion

[BryonD]

I'd prefer it to be a fairer split, but mobile Total Concealment and not touching a surface makes it danged difficult for anyone else to compete.

I pretty much agree.

I think the issue at hand though deals with Listen and Spot checks, so examples that invalidate that condition are rather off topic.

I do agree that magic can trump skills in general.

An even more simple example would be: You need to climb a tower, who is better a rogue with high climb or a wizard with spider climb?

I still want hide and move silent to interact correctly with spot / listen. Rolling these two pairs into a single Stealth/Perception pair is perfectly fine, but doesn't change the case by case.

Magic trumping skills does not bother me in the least.
Skills should function properly regardless of the presence or lack of magic.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Magic trumping skills does not bother me in the least.

Skills should function properly regardless of the presence or lack of magic.

I'd prefer that the invisible rogue is better at Stealth than the invisible wizard, the rogue with Spider Climb is better than the wizard at Climb, and the rogue with knock (somehow, roll with me here) is better than the wizard at opening locks.

Ditto for detect traps, detect secret doors, etc.

I'm not looking to decrease the utility of magic in any case, but rather would prefer it to have an additive effect to the raw skill of the beneficiary.

I certainly don't have a philosophical problem with the wizard casting his spells on the rogue with the sure knowledge that the rogue is going to be even better with the wizard's help.

That's just flat-out at odds with the current philosophy that the wizard should be able to tell the rogue to sit down and shut up because he can do everything better.

 

[BryonD]

As a core design philosophy I am 100% with you. But it must be applied in a thoughtful, case-by-case manner.

Invisibility is not about sneaking. Invisibility is about not being reflective of light in the visible spectrum. Maybe that sounds like a quibble. But it is important. The rogue is better than the wizard at sneaking. Invisibility has no impact on that. But, if the wizard is invisibility, he can not be seen, sneaking or not. Does that give the wizard a huge advantage in sneaking? Yes.

The second any action merits a Sneak check, the rogue will be better. So your criteria is met. The rogue is better. Just walking up to a guard should require silence. The rogue is better. Now, you added fly in to the mix. This STILL doesn't make the wizard better at sneak. But it does make sneak irrelevant to the attempt at moving up to the human guard. This does not bother me.

Does Spider Climb harm your game? If spider climb provided a +10 to climb checks, would your game be better? As it stands, with spider climb you don't fall. So if you made it a skill check the difference would be moot until some point in time at which a wizard player botches a roll and falls. So your spider climbing wizard just fell. You have firmly established the superiority of the rogue in this application. But I don't see that you have increased fun.

Knock I can actually see as a good choice. When the spell is cast upon a locked item, any lock, even magical, may potentially be unlocked and the caster (or secondary target if you rather) gains a +10 to Disable Device. That works for me. Find Traps as a skill bonus is reality already.

I don't accept the "sit down and shut up" position. Spells are limited resources. I find the wizards are better than rogues position to be just as unfounded in actual play as the wizards are better than fighters.

When sneaking is not required, the issue is moot. When sneaking is required, either: frequently it is true that multiple instances of sneaking are in order in a relatively short time, thus demanding multiple castings; or things go sideways and the wizard better have those spells ready for resolving the problem. Even when just one "sneak" event is in order, having the rogue use his infinite supply of sneak is usually the better option. And, a flying invisible rogue getting into a good position is also frequently a better option than sending the wizard on recon because the rogue is better equipped to get in and get back out.

 

[BryonD]

What chance should a mook guard have of detecting an invisible flying wizard? (assume the wiz has Dex 10 and 0 ranks in stealth)

What is the basis for your answer?

 

[booboo]

I'd prefer that the invisible rogue is better at Stealth than the invisible wizard, the rogue with Spider Climb is better than the wizard at Climb, and the rogue with knock (somehow, roll with me here) is better than the wizard at opening locks.

Ditto for detect traps, detect secret doors, etc.

yes it seems that every body has to roll for everything they want to do but so often magic users atomistically succeeds

 

[ValhallaGH]

As a core design philosophy I am 100% with you. But it must be applied in a thoughtful, case-by-case manner.

As annoying as it may be (that's a lot of work), BryonD is correct here.

But, if the wizard is invisibility, he can not be seen, sneaking or not. Does that give the wizard a huge advantage in sneaking? Yes.

However, not being seen and not being detected are wildly different animals. Myth, legend, and fiction are filled with examples of people detecting the presence and approximate location of invisible beings. The methods vary, and it is never frequent, but the precedent seems to provide a guideline for us to follow.
Oddly, I actually like the OGL invisibility rules. Under those, invisible characters are (excepting serious noise on their part, or counter-magic on the defender's part) undetectable further than 30 feet away. Within 30 feet, it is a DC 20 / 30 Spot/Perception check to note that a creature is nearby, and a 30 / 40 to note exactly where it is; this allows even a commoner to locate a (lazy) invisible creature.* When forced to actually hide, being invisible provides a massive bonus (+20 to +40) to checks; enough to counter the "hiding while attacking" penalties. So far, so good.

My issue is that not enough people understand them and use them correctly.

Does Spider Climb harm your game? If spider climb provided a +10 to climb checks, would your game be better? ... But I don't see that you have increased fun.

Why not have Spider Climb only provide a Climb Speed? That gives a +8 to Climb, take 10 under stress, normal defense while climbing, and lets you move at the indicated speed as long as you succeed at climbing. Now the Rogue with spider climb is better at climbing than the Wizard with spider climb, though both are pretty freaking awesome (Str 8 Wizard still has a 17 Climb that lets him traverse many surfaces). Then slap a DC on perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surfaces (around 60, maybe more, trying to retain that "impossible! Unless you're epic" feel) and you're rocking out.
Of course, you've decreased the Wizard's fun some, since now he can't climb on most dungeon surfaces (removing the "I'm Spider-Man!" effect) without actually knowing how to climb.

Knock I can actually see as a good choice. When the spell is cast upon a locked item, any lock, even magical, may potentially be unlocked and the caster (or secondary target if you rather) gains a +10 to Disable Device. That works for me.

Me too.


*Concealment is way too effing good. All my military training emphasized the value of cover over concealment, because cover will actually stop bullets while concealment just means the other guy is trying to get lucky. Cover means that lucky (or aimed) shots will still miss because they can't punch through the cover.
OGL concealment is the best damn thing ever. 20-50% immunity to all attacks, including critical hits. Only total cover can compete, and that's only if it doesn't allow the attackers to target you (directly or indirectly).
This is bad from an immersion standpoint (which I've already hit upon) but more importantly from a fun standpoint; I've lost track of how many confirmed critical hits I've seen miss because of concealment. In every case, everyone at the table (even me, the rat bastard DM that enjoys killing PCs because it means I'm winning [bad habit, and one I'm breaking, but it's still true]) thought that was weak-sauce.
An alternative rule would be very welcome.

 

[GlassJaw]

OGL concealment is the best damn thing ever. 20-50% immunity to all attacks, including critical hits.

Concealment doesn't prevent critical hits but it does negate sneak attack.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Concealment doesn't prevent critical hits but it does negate sneak attack.

You misread him.

If the attack misses due to concealment, it's prevented. Even if the attack was a crit.

(We don't notice that in our games because we roll for miss chance before rolling the attack.)

 

[BryonD]

However, not being seen and not being detected are wildly different animals. Myth, legend, and fiction are filled with examples of people detecting the presence and approximate location of invisible beings. The methods vary, and it is never frequent, but the precedent seems to provide a guideline for us to follow.
Oddly, I actually like the OGL invisibility rules. Under those, invisible characters are (excepting serious noise on their part, or counter-magic on the defender's part) undetectable further than 30 feet away. Within 30 feet, it is a DC 20 / 30 Spot/Perception check to note that a creature is nearby, and a 30 / 40 to note exactly where it is; this allows even a commoner to locate a (lazy) invisible creature.* When forced to actually hide, being invisible provides a massive bonus (+20 to +40) to checks; enough to counter the "hiding while attacking" penalties. So far, so good.

My issue is that not enough people understand them and use them correctly.

This I accept. I'll even one up you and offer that DC 10 + Stealth / 20+ Stealth and 20+Stealth / 30+ Stealth could very reasonably replace 20/30 and 30/40.

Why not have Spider Climb only provide a Climb Speed? That gives a +8 to Climb, take 10 under stress, normal defense while climbing, and lets you move at the indicated speed as long as you succeed at climbing. Now the Rogue with spider climb is better at climbing than the Wizard with spider climb, though both are pretty freaking awesome (Str 8 Wizard still has a 17 Climb that lets him traverse many surfaces). Then slap a DC on perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surfaces (around 60, maybe more, trying to retain that "impossible! Unless you're epic" feel) and you're rocking out.
Of course, you've decreased the Wizard's fun some, since now he can't climb on most dungeon surfaces (removing the "I'm Spider-Man!" effect) without actually knowing how to climb.

You are now designing a wizard spell for the rogue's sake. You should design spells for the spell's quality's sake.
Is Spider Climb a broken spell? Does it need to be nerfed? (cause you just nerfed it) If it does need to be nerfed, then rename it. Because you just repeated the Darkness mistake. You have a spell called Spider Climb that fails to allow someone to climb like a spider. So you now have a spell called Monkey Climb, or somesuch, and it works as you describe. Fine. Do I as a player ever bother to take this spell or do I throw it on the once every four or five years of play utility stack?

Now, if you do declare it is broken as is and make this change, then my first move will be to introduce you to a new spell. It is called Spider Climb. It is a L2 wizard spell. Do you think my spell is broken? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess no. So, my second level spell is balanced, if not notably weak, and it still has the exact same impact on the rogue.

So nerfing a spell doesn't solve the problem.

*Concealment is way too effing good. All my military training emphasized the value of cover over concealment, because cover will actually stop bullets while concealment just means the other guy is trying to get lucky. Cover means that lucky (or aimed) shots will still miss because they can't punch through the cover.
OGL concealment is the best damn thing ever. 20-50% immunity to all attacks, including critical hits. Only total cover can compete, and that's only if it doesn't allow the attackers to target you (directly or indirectly).
This is bad from an immersion standpoint (which I've already hit upon) but more importantly from a fun standpoint; I've lost track of how many confirmed critical hits I've seen miss because of concealment. In every case, everyone at the table (even me, the rat bastard DM that enjoys killing PCs because it means I'm winning [bad habit, and one I'm breaking, but it's still true]) thought that was weak-sauce.
An alternative rule would be very welcome.

Alternative rule: Roll for concealment first. Only if a valid attack is established does the attack proceed. You will never see another crit nullified ever again.

Your own example supports that concealment produces the attacking hoping to get lucky scenario.
How many times in your games has anyone ever scored a critical hit against a target with full cover? I'm betting it has a better track record than concealment does at warding off crits.

Now it may be partly the rules and partly lazy dming (I'm speaking for myself here) in that cover, and primarily partial cover, gets short-changed in regard to armor class bonus. If plate armor can get up to +10 an AC, then being 75% behind a brick wall should be in that ballpark. But I'll be the first to admit that it is way to easy in the heat of dice-rolling to just agree that line of sight exists and then treat the attack as normal. Give some +7 AC bonuses and not only will you get a lot more misses, cover will really cut down on crits.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Is Spider Climb a broken spell? Does it need to be nerfed?

It's about unity of mechanics.

You have a spell called Spider Climb that fails to allow someone to climb like a spider. So you now have a spell called Monkey Climb, or somesuch, and it works as you describe.

Actually, spiders and monkeys use the exact same rules for climbing, RAW. There's no functional, mechanical difference between the ways that spiders and monkeys scamper up a blank wall.

The spell also already works as Valhalla described, and pretty much as I intended. (Haven't read it in a while.) It's already better cast on a rogue than a wizard.