Will all spells be attacks?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Not true. I noticed that the durations of spells got shorter and shorter as 3e went onwards.

True, as the philosophy of D&D became closer and closer to that of 4e.

And it offends me that my argument is getting lumped into "Wizards should get to pwn everyone". Yeah, liking creative options and non-combat uses for magic = just wanting to outshine everyone at the table.

I'm saying that there are both magical and non-magical creative ways to solve problems.

Sure, you could use Animate Rope or something to wrap around an enemy's legs in the middle of combat before. Which is a creative way to solve a problem magically.

However, you could also try using bluff to trick a monster into stepping into the coil of rope and having an ally pull on the other end.

Removing Animate Rope as a spell doesn't eliminate creativity. It instead eliminates one option you had before. An option only available to casters, I might add. Now casters have to think of solutions the same way everyone else had to. Without simply looking at their list of spells and having the options pretty much handed to them.

Actually, in a way there is a balance vs problem solving issue. For instance, it's all fine and dandy to say that a player is being really creative by casting rope trick and luring the enemies into the room with ghost sounds and then dropping down with surprise in order to get a surprise round against their enemies. But from a balance point of view, you've just given the wizard an advantage in combat that their spells were not meant to provide. They get a surprise round(with the enemies in the position you wanted them to be in) when a fighter in the same position wouldn't.

And this side effect happens with most non-combat spells. Creative use of low level spells(and a lenient DM) can allow you to defeat monsters WAY above the CR you could normally defeat without them.

 

[Rechan]

Obviously, we won't know for absolute certain until the books are out, but all indications are that the 4E Wizard primarily specializes in damage dealing area attacks and battlefield control spells. The previews mentioned above, however, show that the wizard has access to certain short-duration utility spells (invisibility, mirror image, fly), although the nature of those spells may be surprisingly different from previous editions.

I think this goes back to the 4e Dev team talking about "What a Wizard is" and finally deciding "Wizards blow things up". I'm not someone who says wizards = beginning and end of the cosmos. But looking at the various fantasy literature, wizards didn't do a lot of blowing things up. Perhaps "Battle Mage" "Evoker" or "War Wizard" is more appropriate than a word associated with "Wise old guy in a funny hat and robes that makes things happen with the wave of a wand".

I mean, if they're going to carve up "What each magic using class does", then they should have called it what it is.

I'd note that previous editions didn't have a lot of spells useful for making floating castles, creating monsters or conducting "wizardly experiments." Such things were usually the province of DM handwaving. I'd expect that to stay the same in 4E.

2nd edition had a lot of leeway with things.

Short answer: we don't know. An informed guess is that some non-attack battlefield control spells will appear in 4E.

Other utility spells may be in (I think Phantom Steed is confirmed).

Do we know that Phantom Steed is a spell, or a ritual?

 

[Cadfan]

How about where's Erase? Unseen Servant? Alarm? Tenser's Floating Disk? Magical Aura? Animate rope? Magic Mouth? Rope Trick? Spider Climb? Pyrotechnics? Tiny hut? Illusionary Script? Secret Page? Shrink Item? Secure Shelter? Arcane Eye? Just to name a few.

Many of those aren't suited for a standard action in a combat round for your "Fight Porn", but they also seem fairly silly to take ten minutes to accomplish. And while they don't fit into the "Fight Porn" paradigm, they're regardless options for creative play, and also very useful to both mundanes and adventurers.

Actually, most of that list is composed of excellent rituals.

The following are all definitely rituals in my book: Unseen Servant, Alarm, Floating Disk, Magic Aura, Magic Mouth, Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Illusionary Script, Secret Page, Shrink Item, Secure Shelter.

All of these are used out of combat, have long (in some cases VERY long) durations that make them worthwhile even with a 10 minute casting time, and all have absolutely no reason from a game design perspective to ever trade off with combat magic. I should point out that if some of these aren't in 4e, I'll hardly feel bad- some of them are highly redundant. Does a Wizard really need 3 different low level techniques for carrying heavy objects, or can Mage Hand cover the lot of them?

Pyrotechnics is a straight up combat spell.

Of the remainder, Erase and Animate Rope can die anytime they like.

The ONLY interesting items in that list are Spider Climb and Arcane Eye, and I haven't got answers there.

 

[FadedC]

When I play a futuristic game, I never hear complaints about how technology is overused and overshadowing everyone's skills.

In a futuristic game it's common for eveyone to have access to the same level of technology, thus there is litte reason to complain. Plus most skills in a futuristic game involve USING technology.

I think there's no question that the mage will have fewer options in 4e in terms of doing things like animating ropes and hiding a page within a page. In general it seems that spell casting classes are losing options while every other class is gaining them. So in the end casters may have more utlity then non spell casters, but not by such an overwhelming margin. Personally think that's a good thing, but obviously some may disagree.

 

[Mort]

And I'm not. Therefore, the existance of this discussion.

So explain to me how a rogue is supposed to hide a page within a page? Or make a page unable to be seen by someone who looks at it?

sleight of hand and fast talking as they always have. The "magic" solution is 1) too easy and 2) can only be countered by other magic. I dislike both of these consequences.

When I play a futuristic game, I never hear complaints about how technology is overused and overshadowing everyone's skills.

Really? One PC has great tracking skills - another PC has a technological doohickey that allows him to mimic what the tracker can do plus has other doohickeys that do a wide range of other stuff. How is the first PC not hosed?

In a futuristic game, there's no problem if everyone has access to the same (samish) technology - but if some PC's can overshadow the others you have the same problem as the magic/non-magic problem.

 

[Rechan]

Doubelpost.

 

[Rechan]

sleight of hand and fast talking as they always have. The "magic" solution is 1) too easy and 2) can only be countered by other magic. I dislike both of these consequences.[/quote]
HOw the hell do you slight of hand or fast talk a secret page in there, or simply prevent people from reading information from a page when you're not in there when they are?

Magic 1) Allows options that don't exist in the real world and thus 2) allow James Bond in Greyhawk.

Really? One PC has great tracking skills - another PC has a technological doohickey that allows him to mimic what the tracker can do plus has other doohickeys that do a wide range of other stuff. How is the first PC not hosed?

And when the tracker has the technological doohickey, he's not hosed in the first place.

In a futuristic game, there's no problem if everyone has access to the same (samish) technology -

Correct!

but if some PC's can overshadow the others you have the same problem as the magic/non-magic problem.

And I'm not suggesting that they should.

 

[Rechan]

I'm saying that there are both magical and non-magical creative ways to solve problems.

Sure, you could use Animate Rope or something to wrap around an enemy's legs in the middle of combat before. Which is a creative way to solve a problem magically.

However, you could also try using bluff to trick a monster into stepping into the coil of rope and having an ally pull on the other end.

Removing Animate Rope as a spell doesn't eliminate creativity. It instead eliminates one option you had before. An option only available to casters, I might add. Now casters have to think of solutions the same way everyone else had to. Without simply looking at their list of spells and having the options pretty much handed to them.

The point of having the abilities of your class is being able to solve solutions with your class's abilities.

A wizard can't push a boulder down a hill on some enemies if he has weak strength. A fighter can. Does that mean that the fighter shouldn't be able to because he can and the wizard Can't?

You seem to be saying "There should be non-magical creative uses; eliminate magical ones".

Actually, in a way there is a balance vs problem solving issue. For instance, it's all fine and dandy to say that a player is being really creative by casting rope trick and luring the enemies into the room with ghost sounds and then dropping down with surprise in order to get a surprise round against their enemies. But from a balance point of view, you've just given the wizard an advantage in combat that their spells were not meant to provide. They get a surprise round(with the enemies in the position you wanted them to be in) when a fighter in the same position wouldn't.

Except that a fighter could have come up with another plan. Just because the wizard did it with a spell doesn't give him an advantage. A rogue could've used ventriliquism, or tossed a stone, or a dozen other tricks. The magical means is just there as one tool in a kit, not the trump card that you're making it out to be.

The way you make it out to be, because a rogue has a good climb skill, and he climbs up above the door to get a good ambush position, that's unfair because the rogue has that option and has created it because he has a good climb skill.

Furthermore, spellcasters sacrifice hit points and other benefits to be able to do things that others can't. Shoudl the wizard PC complain that he doesn't get to fight in melee? And in older editions, spellcasters had to fill those casting slots up with non-combat spells to ACHIEVE those creative uses; that rope trick could've been a much more effective spell. Are you saying that's not a suitable sacrifice?

Magic is only a crutch for a party when the other players refuse to use their heads. The problem isn't the magic, it's the unmotivated nonmagical players.

And this side effect happens with most non-combat spells. Creative use of low level spells(and a lenient DM) can allow you to defeat monsters WAY above the CR you could normally defeat without them.

And?

Not only that, but magic isn't the only means. I've heard of a 3rd level party that defeated a hydra. Simply because they could out run it. It chased them while they shot it, it suddenly gave up and tried to run away, they chased it and continued to shoot it, it turned around and chased them - rinse repeat. It wasn't intelligent enough, nor did it have any other options, and so it was plinked to death.

Fantasy literature is filled with stories of weak people pulling off great, big things by just being clever. And that should be rewarded, not discouraged.

 

[Mort]

Not only that, but magic isn't the only means. I've heard of a 3rd level party that defeated a hydra. Simply because they could out run it. It chased them while they shot it, it suddenly gave up and tried to run away, they chased it and continued to shoot it, it turned around and chased them - rinse repeat. It wasn't intelligent enough, nor did it have any other options, and so it was plinked to death.

Fantasy literature is filled with stories of weak people pulling off great, big things by just being clever. And that should be rewarded, not discouraged.

Sorry to sidetrack but:

Genuinely curious. How do you plink a D&D hydra to death - their regeneration is ungodly?

 

[Mort]

Fantasy literature is filled with stories of weak people pulling off great, big things by just being clever. And that should be rewarded, not discouraged.

To relate this to your previous liking of magic solutions - if there is an obvious, available and easy magic solution - how does that not discourage other fun creative ones?