Will all spells be attacks?

[Rechan]

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?

Because there isn't an obvoius, available and easy magic solution.
It's not obvious because it requires some serious thinking-outside-the-box

It's available at the price of a slot your more effective spells could've been in, and if your DM even allows it. Not to mention that the money/time you used to GET that non-combat spell, you could've used it for something that applies in far more situations.

It's not easy because it may not work at all, the simple actions of the NPC might bypass it completely. It's hard because the trick only works in one or two narrow situations. Not to mention getting the rest of the party to go along with it.

I see no difference in a Rogue PC putting skill points into Craft: Traps and making a snare, versus a wizard spending one of his daily spells in making a snare. They're both expending character resources to perhaps accomplish a small effect in a narrow situation.

 

[Stoat]

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".

In general, I think you're right. I think the 4E Wizard is going to look a lot like War Wizard or Evoker. "Wizard" is a legacy term that's got a lot of resonance with folks, and I'm sure that's why it remains the name of the class.

2nd edition had a lot of leeway with things.

Could you elaborate? I played a lot of 2E, and I don't remember any rules/spells that would let a wizard create a flying castle or breed an owlbear. Flying castles existed, certainly, and owlbears were described as the result of a mad wizard's experiment, but I don't recall anything other than DM fiat being available to explain them.

 

[FadedC]

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?

Hmm....so the wizard can manipulate reality, fly through the air, summon magical steeds, turn invisible and do endless other things. And the fighter can......push heavy objects. Yeah that seems perfectly balanced. And it ignores the fact that there are spell casters out there with decent strength scores (particularly clerics).

Don't get me wrong, the wizard should be able to do more "stuff" then the fighter by nature of being a wizard. And he will be able to do all most of the things I just mentioned in 4e. But I don't think the gap should be as big as you seem to be going for.

 

[Rechan]

Could you elaborate? I played a lot of 2E, and I don't remember any rules/spells that would let a wizard create a flying castle or breed an owlbear. Flying castles existed, certainly, and owlbears were described as the result of a mad wizard's experiment, but I don't recall anything other than DM fiat being available to explain them.

I can't think of any off the top of my head, Mr. Ermine. But realize I used "Flying castles and creating owlbears" as a general example of the uses of magic, not specific spells that function.

But the aforementioned 'using telekinesis and charming ogres to build a castle faster than paying a hundred peasants to do it'.

 

[Felon]

The setting is only implied as far as the books. You aren't required to use it.

An implied setting isn't just about a pantheon or the names of fictitious historical figures. It includes all of the things we're talking about here: magic spells create short-term, close-range effects, magic rituals create long-term or far-reaching ones. That's not representative of the the way magic works in the fantasy genre on the whole, but that's the way it works here in D&Dland.

 

[Mort]

Because there isn't an obvoius, available and easy magic solution.
It's not obvious because it requires some serious thinking-outside-the-box

It's available at the price of your more effective spells, and if your DM even allows it. Not to mention that the money/time you used to GET that non-combat spell, you could've used it for something that applies in far more situations.

I have yet to see a DM that doesn't allow scrolls. the wizard pens the scroll when he has time and is free to use his valuable spell slots for something else. I played a mage in a campaign - it's too easy to have any spell you need available at relatively little cost - if you put any thought into it at all.

It's not easy because it may not work at all, the simple actions of the NPC might bypass it completely. It's hard because the trick only works in one or two narrow situations. Not to mention getting the rest of the party to go along with it.

Because of the explosion of spells and most DM's willingness to let them in wizards have a broad access to anything they need. So lots of tricks and lots of options I don't think the situations are as narrow as you are saying.

I see no difference in a Rogue PC putting skill points into Craft: Traps and making a snare, versus a wizard spending one of his daily spells in making a snare. They're both expending character resources to perhaps accomplish a small effect in a narrow situation.

The wizard crafts a scroll, yes he expands resources but it's delayed and he has the scroll (knock for example) as well as whatever spells he chose that day. The rogue has only what he put his skill points into.

More importantly the wizard can prepare for a wide variety of situations - if he knows what's coming you simply cannot catch him flat footed - even if he doesn't he can still have a very wide variety of tricks through wands, scrolls and spells.

The rogue can only be prepared for what he has skill ranks in - a much narrower set. Yes he may also (at higher levels) be able to use scrolls, wands, etc but since he can't make them hismself its a costlier and less sure proposition.

 

[FadedC]

I can't think of any off the top of my head, Mr. Ermine. But realize I used "Flying castles and creating owlbears" as a general example of the uses of magic, not specific spells that function.

But the aforementioned 'using telekinesis and charming ogres to build a castle faster than paying a hundred peasants to do it'.

Actually those 2 examples don't work in current D&D either. Telekinesis has an increadibly short duration and only really produces bursts of force....nothing that would be useful in castle buildind. The duration on charm is longer but still significantly less then a day...your ogres would just run away or rebel when it wore off.

And yeah no rules for owlbears or cloudcastles in any edition either....it was just assumed that things like that were done behind the scenes through undefined ritual type effects....exactly like in 4e.

 

[Felon]

Could you elaborate? I played a lot of 2E, and I don't remember any rules/spells that would let a wizard create a flying castle or breed an owlbear. Flying castles existed, certainly, and owlbears were described as the result of a mad wizard's experiment, but I don't recall anything other than DM fiat being available to explain them.

The Epic-Level Handbook had a spell that allowed you to create levitating real estate.

 

[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.



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.

I'm going to put it to you this way:

Magic overshadowing everyone happens because you have two people playing two different classes completely who want to do the same thing.

More importantly, the problem of magic overshadowing the other guy is because the wizard, in previous editions, could say "Today I'm going to overshadow the Rogue, tomorrow, the Fighter, the next day, the Psion, the following day, Somebody Else."

Me, I think it's a real rude move to horn in on someone else's territory when they build their character around that. It's rude for the wizard to decide to do the rogue's job for him.

But when the rogue's player has built his rogue to do something else, like running jumping tumbling swashbuckly finesse fighting, and not trap setting and espionage, the wizard doing that isn't overshadowing.

I will tell you right now, I love MacGuyvers. People using little tricks to get real clever effects. Tactics and planning way ahead of time and the plan all comes together. To me, it doesn't matter if my guy uses move silently + hide and the Disguise skill, or magic to do recon and the site's floor plans, then sneak in and infiltrate the enemy's fortress, and set up a distraction. It doesn't matter to me if my guy is using completely mundane tools, technology, psionics, mundane+magical tools, or purely magical, what matters is that that's the niche that really excites me, and all that matters is that I get the desired effect from my planning.

Yet what I'm hearing is that "I shouldn't be able to use magic because that would mean you're too powerful and overshadowing someone else". And if my guy is using magic to do the above, I'd gladly give up the ability to throw around fireballs, polymorph and stoneskin.

This is why I went positively nuts over the Beguiler. They had rogue skills + illusion/enchantment magic. They were very very weak in combat, worthless against mindless/undead/construct enemies, could not sneak attack, and I couldn't find or disarm traps worth a damn, so a rogue would have still been useful. But I loved being able to deceive and sneak and use my spells creatively to help my party.

It would really anger me if I built my character to do this and someone stepped in, snapped their fingers and made ti happen, and hadn't put the effort into it that I did. But that can happen without magic, and that isn't an issue of the magic, but an issue of not communicating with players, and bad behavior at the table.

Or in other words, what you are saying to me sounds like "The Swordmage is horning in on the Fighter because the Swordmage is using Magic to do what the Fighter does". They are both defenders.

 

[Rechan]

Actually those 2 examples don't work in current D&D either. Telekinesis has an increadibly short duration and only really produces bursts of force....nothing that would be useful in castle buildind. The duration on charm is longer but still significantly less then a day...your ogres would just run away or rebel when it wore off.

Yes. I know. I'm not saying that 3e is perfect by a long shot.

But I see 4e is worse in this regard.