D&D General TSR to WoTC shift--OR--the de-prioritization on Exploration spells/classes

[Greg Benage]

Or it once was, at any rate.

I think 5e incentivizes non-DPR, control spells in combat more than ever. As hit points become more bloated, spells that neutralize enemies without reducing them to zero become even more valuable. Maybe even more so in 1D&D if they're dialing back DPR a bit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My rule of thumb boils down to if it would or could blow your invisibility if you did it, it's combat.

Invisibility is ruined if you cast any spell. So by your logic, light, goodberry, knock, wizard eye, etc are all combat spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've always run it that it makes a wooshing sound (like when a gas stove ignites). Which isn't soundless, but is hardly loud either. The armored guards falling over is still more than likely the primary consideration as to whether anyone hears anything (the same as sleep).

In 5e we have several spells, like Thunderwave, that explicitly call out that they're audible at 300 feet. Fireball has no such rule, and in point of fact the 5e PHB describes it as a low roar, so clearly even in 5e fireballs are not intended to be loud spells.

I mentioned above how we won't ever have total agreement and that's OK, but you will never convince me that "it's a stretch to think sleep is more discreet than a fireball."

First you said it didn't list any sound, then you say a low roar (so that changed). A low roar is still a roar. And an explosion (it says that too) is still an explosion. I'm sorry, but I find it a bit silly to argue that sleep is not more discreet than a fireball.

 

[Alzrius]

Invisibility is ruined if you cast any spell.

Is that how it was in AD&D 1E? I skimmed my PHB and DMG, and couldn't find where it says that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is that how it was in AD&D 1E? I skimmed my PHB and DMG, and couldn't find where it says that.

In AD&D, it's only dispelled if you make an attack. Spells don't ruin it.

 

[Nikosandros]

In AD&D, it's only dispelled if you make an attack. Spells don't ruin it.

Non-offensive spells don't ruin it. If you attack someone with a spell, it's broken.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Non-offensive spells don't ruin it. If you attack someone with a spell, it's broken.

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

 

[Mort]

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

the 5e invisibility spell explicitly ends if the target of it casts a spell period (attacking with a spell, or intent to harm, is not a factor):

So yes, sleep would break it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

the 5e invisibility spell explicitly ends if the target of it casts a spell period (attacking with a spell, or intent to harm, is not a factor):

View attachment 269491

So yes, sleep would break it.

They were asking about 1e, not 5e. If you read my post above that, for 5e I myself said any spell breaks invisibility, which would mean any spell is a combat spell by Lanfan's argument.

 

[Mort]

They were asking about 1e, not 5e. If you read my post above that, for 5e I myself said any spell breaks invisibility, which would mean any spell is a combat spell by Lanfan's argument.

Sorry, hard to keep track when multiple editions are in play.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I used them in my 2e games. In hindsight, I would not do so again. It lead to people complaining "why did that PC get more XP than I did?" and having to explain every time I awarded experience. And with the subjective XP bonuses for role-playing, there was some grumbling a few times.

Yeah, I only played in one AD&D game that used the individual rewards.

However the other games tended to have generous rewards for things like good roleplaying and achievement of goals. There were some individual rewards, but oftentimes it was for the entire party.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry, hard to keep track when multiple editions are in play.

I hear that. I'm very guilty of losing track of which edition is currently being talked about. Especially when you come back an hour or day later and have had different topics fill your headspace since then.

 

[Mannahnin]

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

PH page 70: "The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she or it attacks any creature. Thus, the spell caster or recipient could open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, etc., but if any form of attack is made, the invisible creature immediately becomes visible."

I always saw a Sleep or any offensive spell ruled as being an attack in AD&D, per the "any form of attack" language.

 

[Nikosandros]

It doesn't say that. And since sleep doesn't require an attack roll nor does it have a saving throw, it wouldn't be considered an attacking spell regardless.

That's quite an original interpretation. I've never seen any table that ruled that you could cast fireball and maintain invisibility. Check also the description of improved invisibility: "This spell is similar to invisibility, but the recipient is able to attack, either by missile discharge, melee combat, or spell casting and remain unseen." It is quite obvious that any offensive spell will break invisibility. BTW, sleep is listed (quite naturally) as an offensive spell in the DMG.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's quite an original interpretation. I've never seen any table that ruled that you could cast fireball and maintain invisibility. Check also the description of improved invisibility: "This spell is similar to invisibility, but the recipient is able to attack, either by missile discharge, melee combat, or spell casting and remain unseen." It is quite obvious that any offensive spell will break invisibility. BTW, sleep is listed (quite naturally) as an offensive spell in the DMG.

Fireball requires a saving throw, so it stands to reason that it would be considered an attack spell (something not really defined in 1e). Sleep requires no attack roll or saving throw. And as I've said, it can be an offensive spell, but it's also a utility spell and isn't always an offensive spell. Light and enlarge are also listed as offensive spells in the DMG*. Are you arguing those are combat spells that would always break invisibility?

* you're leaving out the context of that list. that list isn't describing all offensive, defensive, or other spells, nor does it try to categorize the spells into those buckets as some hard and fast rule. That list is solely for the purpose of choosing which spells a MU starts out with, because in 1e, they begin with one offensive, one defensive, read magic, and one other. So that table just tells you which spells you can choose, based on that rule. Looking at that list, and it's easy to see that many of the spells fit in multiple categories if you were really truly wanting to categorize them as offensive, etc.

 

[Mannahnin]

Fireball requires a saving throw, so it stands to reason that it would be considered an attack spell (something not really defined in 1e). Sleep requires no attack roll or saving throw. And as I've said, it can be an offensive spell, but it's also a utility spell and isn't always an offensive spell. Light and enlarge are also listed as offensive spells in the DMG. Are you arguing those are combat spells that would always break invisibilty?

At my table Light would do so if cast upon the eyes of an enemy to blind them, and Enlarge would do so if cast upon an enemy such that it would harm them, such as while they were in a too-small space and damage would ensue.

(again for casual readers, reminding that we're talking about AD&D here)

 

[Nikosandros]

Fireball requires a saving throw, so it stands to reason that it would be considered an attack spell (something not really defined in 1e). Sleep requires no attack roll or saving throw. And as I've said, it can be an offensive spell, but it's also a utility spell and isn't always an offensive spell. Light and enlarge are also listed as offensive spells in the DMG*. Are you arguing those are combat spells that would always break invisibility?

* you're leaving out the context of that list. that list isn't describing all offensive, defensive, or other spells, nor does it try to categorize the spells into those buckets as some hard and fast rule. That list is solely for the purpose of choosing which spells a MU starts out with, because in 1e, they begin with one offensive, one defensive, read magic, and one other. So that table just tells you which spells you can choose, based on that rule. Looking at that list, and it's easy to see that many of the spells fit in multiple categories if you were really truly wanting to categorize them as offensive, etc.

All the spells that you mentioned will break invisibility if cast on an enemy. Should you, for whatever reason, cast sleep on a willing ally, I agree that invisibility would not be broken.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fireball requires a saving throw, so it stands to reason that it would be considered an attack spell (something not really defined in 1e). Sleep requires no attack roll or saving throw. And as I've said, it can be an offensive spell, but it's also a utility spell and isn't always an offensive spell. Light and enlarge are also listed as offensive spells in the DMG*. Are you arguing those are combat spells that would always break invisibility?

* you're leaving out the context of that list. that list isn't describing all offensive, defensive, or other spells, nor does it try to categorize the spells into those buckets as some hard and fast rule. That list is solely for the purpose of choosing which spells a MU starts out with, because in 1e, they begin with one offensive, one defensive, read magic, and one other. So that table just tells you which spells you can choose, based on that rule. Looking at that list, and it's easy to see that many of the spells fit in multiple categories if you were really truly wanting to categorize them as offensive, etc.

At my table Light would do so if cast upon the eyes of an enemy to blind them, and Enlarge would do so if cast upon an enemy such that it would harm them, such as while they were in a too-small space and damage would ensue.

(again for casual readers, reminding that we're talking about AD&D here)

Bolded for emphasis. Also, both light and enlarge allow a saving throw in your scenarios (thus making it an attack spell) and sleep does not.

But back to the whole point of my OP:

Spells
In TSR era D&D, utility spells were important, and often more important than combat spells. Most old school players knows how only a newbie Magic User takes Magic Missile at first level, the real powerful spell to take was either sleep or charm person. Spells like levitate, knock, teleport, invisibility, and dispel magic were very important. Sure, you also had combat spells, but crowd control was more important than DPR: hold person, sleep, stinking cloud, etc. If I were to make a guess, I'd say over 50% of your memorized spells were utility spells. Again, bypass monsters and traps (which there were a lot of), and get to the treasure.
In modern D&D, I'd say close to 75% of cast spells are combat encounter orientated. That's the style of play. Along with a philosophy of "every character should be able to overcome any challenge" (as opposed to how TSR emphasized a team niche aspect), there isn't as much of a need to spend your spells on exploration or utility spells--some other class has a power to help with that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

All the spells that you mentioned will break invisibility if cast on an enemy. Should you, for whatever reason, cast sleep on a willing ally, I agree that invisibility would not be broken.

I disagree. Again, sleep does not require a saving throw or attack roll.

 

[Nikosandros]

The presence of a saving throw is immaterial. If you cast sleep on an enemy, it is an attack.