D&D 4E Why Vancian spellcasting is good for the game (and should mostly be in 4e)

[ptolemy18]

I should note that Invisibility doesn't eclipse Move Silently. Being invisible doesn't make you any quieter.

Invisibility Eclipses HIDE.

Hmm..sort of. If you are Invisible, the way it's been ruled in every game I've ever played is, no one can see you... UNLESS they have "See Invisibility" on, of course, in which case there you are, standing out in the middle of the room, looking embarrassed. If you have incredibly high Hide, on the other hand, then even if your opponent can See Invisible, you are so good at hiding in those nooks and crannies and blind spots that they can't see you. Like a Shadowdancer character I used to play. So, Hide and Invisibility aren't *exactly* the same... and if Invisibility still trumps Hide in most circumstances, remember that rogues don't need to expend "spell slots" to Hide. They can do it all they want.

Anyway I agree with KarinsDad that Invisibility has already been consistently nerfed, nerfed, nerfed from 1st edition and it's at about the breaking point. Pretty soon it'll be just like Darkness in D&D3.5, a spell that doesn't even create darkness anymore, just a dim area. My feelings when I saw that change: WHAT A RIPOFF! A spell called Invisibility should turn you invisible. A spell called Darkness should create darkness. The point of a fantasy game is to replicate the cool things that are possibly in the fantasy genre. It is not to create 100% absolute game balance. Doing that is allowing the Game aspects to get in the way of the Fantasy aspects. Now, maybe the level of the Invisibility spell should be raised, or something, but Invisibility should not removed altogether, nor should Fly, or Polymorph, or any of the other "broken" spells that people always complain about. The way to get around these abilities is to give the enemies matching counter-abilities (but not *all* the time, or the players will get annoyed because you're just preventing them from using their cool powers).

Actually, like felon, I like to play more low-magic games myself, too. But that's what I use house rules for, or 3rd party low-magic campaign supplements like Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas.

 

[ptolemy18]

I just don't accept that magic like invisibility trumps so much. Like saying "Fly breaks the game because then someone can just fly over the wall into the castle's courtyard". Obvious solution: forts and castles don't have big gaping courtyards and huge open unlocked windows/doors along the towers/roofs.

Have a problem? Have your campaign world address it with internally consistent logic.

I agree with Rechan on this. I agree times a million zillion.

 

[Rechan]

Well, firstly, I disagree with the sentiment, but second, this is not entirely true.

If you are Invisible, the way it's been ruled in every game I've ever played is, no one can see you... UNLESS they have "See Invisibility" on, of course, in which case there you are, standing out in the middle of the room, looking embarrassed. If you have incredibly high Hide, on the other hand, then even if your opponent can See Invisible, you are so good at hiding in those nooks and crannies and blind spots that they can't see you. Like a Shadowdancer character I used to play. So, Hide and Invisibility aren't *exactly* the same... and if Invisibility still trumps Hide in most circumstances, remember that rogues don't need to expend "spell slots" to Hide. They can do it all they want.

I think you're over-analyzing. I said Invisibility negates Hide because it was being said that Invisibility made move silently useless. Which is just not true, because invisibility doesn't make you silent. You roll listen versus MS.

And you're right, someone with See Invisibility will see you. Just like someone with Blindsense will see you even if you're good at hiding.

 

[Felon]

I agree with Rechan on this. I agree times a million zillion.

It's easy to agree emphatically with a good sound bite.

I think you're over-analyzing. I said Invisibility negates Hide because it was being said that Invisibility made move silently useless. Which is just not true, because invisibility doesn't make you silent.

And as has been explained, just hearing something often doesn't mean anything. So a character cries "invisible wolf" every time the wind blows a branch or shutter, or a rat overturns some rubble, or there's any series of creaks or thumps? Now that's over-analyzing. And for the counter-measures you're speaking of to be in place, they pretty much have to do that.

More to the point, there won't be separate skills for Hide and Move Silently in 4e, so the discussion should be moving in that direction.

 

[Rechan]

It's easy to agree emphatically with a good sound bite.

Now you're just starting to get rude.

Look, Felon. We have established that You and I have totally different expectations about a Fantasy world. We're not going to meet in the middle either way, and we both think we're right. You've all ready made your case, I've made mine. Do you see any point to continuing this?

More to the point, there won't be separate skills for Hide and Move Silently in 4e.

Source please?

 

[gizmo33]

2. Spells are "stored" or "prepared" in slots
This generally means less bookkeeping, at least when compared to a spell point system.

I never understood this. Why does it require less bookkeeping to keep track of one number than it does to keep track of potentially dozens of spells, which ones you know and which ones you have memorized/prepared?

 

[Merlion]

I never understood this. Why does it require less bookkeeping to keep track of one number than it does to keep track of potentially dozens of spells, which ones you know and which ones you have memorized/prepared?

I think we actually agree here. I've played a high level wizard in 3.x with the Vancian system, and theres quite a bit of bookeeping.

I dont think thats gonna change too much in 4e. Maybe a little less, since if its a reserve type deal where your per encounter and per day stuff is based on your prepared spells, you may switch out less often.

 

[Felon]

You've all ready made your case, I've made mine. Do you see any point to continuing this?

Well, it seemed to me that you were continuing this line of discussion about invisibility only displacing Hide and not Move Silently. I figured I'd weight back in if you were.

 

[Rechan]

Well, it seemed to me that you were continuing this line of discussion about invisibility only displacing Hide and not Move Silently. I figured I'd weight back in if you were.

No, I wasn't continuing it with you. I was clarifying my point to someone else who I thought had misinterpreted it.

 

[coyote6]

Hmm..sort of. If you are Invisible, the way it's been ruled in every game I've ever played is, no one can see you...

IMO, invisibility is a Hide booster now; it doesn't make it completely useless. It's only a DC 20 Spot check to notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 ft. While it's a DC 40 to really pinpoint their location, but only a DC 20 to notice that something funky is going on; try and run past 20 random people, and odds are one of 'em will notice something weird. Get in a room with some of those high HD monsters with Spot at +20 or more, and you *will* be noticed.

So, if they want to remain undetected, invisible characters need to move slowly and carefully -- kind of like if they were trying to move while hiding. Plus, hiding is much easier to do with invisibility, since you automatically have concealment and can thus use the Hide skill. So, smart invisible people still Hide, IME.

And they also stay way away from dogs, lots of magical beasts & animals, and bugbears, among other critters. Things with Scent that smell something they aren't expecting (hey, there's an elf in my bugbear camp) and/or can't see are liable to be a wee bit suspicious and/or noisy.

(Now, if you want to talk spells I dislike, it's the latter-day scent-removal spells from Spell Compendium & some earlier book; they make it too easy to be nigh-undetectable, combined with invisibility.)