Will all spells be attacks?

[Rechan]

I'm more saying that the solutions to problems should be equally possible with only a slight advantage for one class over another.

If the fighter has to roll 10+ in order to make his strength check to push a boulder down a hill then the wizard should have either the same chance or slightly better or worse. He shouldn't be able to cast a spell that instantly succeeds. He shouldn't have a chance so low that he'll never succeed, even on a 20.

Except that in 3e and previous, the wizard had to waste a slot to do that and the fighter just had to roll a die (something he could do endlessly unless your DM makes you save vs. hernia).

Right now, the current philosophy says that wizards should be able to succeed on almost anything without rolling because magic can solve all problems. The balance in 3e is supposed to be "You have to sacrifice combat power to get these benefits and you can only use them limited times per day."

Since all classes are balanced in combat in 4e, you can't give wizards any non-combat benefits that simply succeed because they are magic without giving the same benefits to the other classes.

Incorrect.

The 4e philosophy is that Combat and combat abilities are not a balance with what you can do outside of combat.

In 3e, a rogue can't do a whole lot IN combat because the theory is that he dominates the field out of combat. And a fighter can't do much OUTSIDE of combat because he dominates the field IN combat.

With 4e, the assumption is that everyone should be balanced IN combat, and everyone balanced OUT of combat. We haven't seen what people can do OUTSIDE of combat, aside from mentions of skill challenges. But there may be outside-of-combat roles or something ELSE that we don't know yet.

I'm saying that one advantage should be balanced against an equal powered advantage in another class.

I dislike that, simply because there are some abilities that you just can't balance. So, what do you balance "You can talk to animals" with? Or "You can walk on water"? "You can look into the hearts of men"? "You can make something out of nothing"? "You know and can invoke the true name of the oak tree"?

I'm saying that having a spell which says "Opens all doors" is an advantage over a skill which says "You might be able to open a door if you roll high enough, a bunch of doors will be too hard for you." It also means that rogues no longer have an advantage from taking that skill.

Here's the problem there, or how I would impose the nuance:

A rogue can decide which door to open, and use his skills to do so discreetly.

Any spell that "Opens all doors" isn't going to do so quietly. In fact, that spell is going to open all doors in the immediate area at the same time and it's going to do so with such a loud fury that anyone within half a mile heard it.

The advantages are askew, but so are the disadvantages.

Compare that directly to rope trick that can only be foiled by: Spellcasters who have the appropriate spells and have cast them at the exact moment the trick has been attempted.

Unless you have a ranger or an animal that can track via scent, discover that people have disappeared, and proceed to build a nice bonfire underneath the area.

I really don't care about whether an end result is reached by magic or reached by whatever explanation is given, just that a PC can do it. I like systems that say "Here is the end result, or the mechanic to achieve goal x, you can flavor the method that it is delivered any way you want". So an area effect damage can be from "I cast a fireball" to "I ran around and punched everyone in the face".

If a non-magical fighter wanted to make a floating castle, then he takes the Leadership feat, uses his followers and cohorts to go get some rock that floats naturally, and he has them build a castle out of it. End result: Floating castle, no matter how it was done.

Not really. Frankly, if the wizard has a spell that says that it sticks all enemies in a 20 foot radius to the ground I'm disinclined to spend my brainpower coming up with a grand plan where I find the perfect location, get a net and suspend it from the ceiling, rig a trigger mechanism, and plan an ambush. Instead the plan becomes: "When we see the enemies, the wizard sticks them to the ground." It's not that we refuse to think, it's that magic is much easier.

Sure, unless the wizard in the party doesn't get that spell, or doesn't want to do that, or that doesn't fit his character theme. If I'm playing a Trapsmith, by god that's what I'm doing because that's what my character is.

True, but this isn't exactly a case of the rogue's non combat skills being just as powerful as a wizard's spells. This is just a poorly designed monster being beaten easily.

It was an example of smart tactics used to overcome a more powerful challenge.

To me, a challenge should be a challenge. It shouldn't be easily bypassed with a simple application of one of your powers. Being creative should be rewarded...with advantages. It shouldn't be rewarded with an immediate win.

I don't ever believe I've seen "Okay, you came up with something clever, you automatically succeed".

 

[JohnSnow]

Eberron is the kind of world that has these kinds of issues in spades. Rich Baker seems to think that 4e does a much better job of modelling this kind of noncombat magic than 3e/3.5e did - the prospect seems quite promising. I think you'll find this post directly addresses your concern by someone who is in the know, likes what you like and is very happy with how 4e handles it.

Credit where credit's due. That was (Eberron creator) Keith Baker, aka Hellcow, not (4E Scramjet Team Lead and Forgotten Realms designer) Rich Baker.

It's still a good point. But I think the infernal bovine should get the credit for the posts that are actually his.

 

[Mort]

Credit where credit's due. That was (Eberron creator) Keith Baker, aka Hellcow, not (4E Scramjet Team Lead and Forgotten Realms designer) Rich Baker.

It's still a good point. But I think the infernal bovine should get the credit for the posts that are actually his.

Oops well so much for my memory - Fixed it in the post thanks.

 

[Rechan]

Eberron is the kind of world that has these kinds of issues in spades. Keith Baker seems to think that 4e does a much better job of modelling this kind of noncombat magic than 3e/3.5e did - the prospect seems quite promising. I think you'll find this post directly addresses your concern by someone who is in the know, likes what you like and is very happy with how 4e handles it.

FYI, I have his blog on my RSS feed; I'm aware of what Mr Baker has said.

Why are you assuming there are only a few rituals?

I'm assuming rituals are what happened to the 3e problem spells, so they're less broken.

Can you name one form of noncombat, "civil engineering" magic that would require a six-second casting time?

Not require, perse. But I go back to "Animate rope" as an example; it has lots of non-combat uses, but a few combat uses.

However, one power that comes to mind is from a 3rd party psionics book. The name escapse me, but it basically dug a 5' hole in 4 adjacent squares. (If you modified it, it could do so in stone, or go straight DOWNwards). This had a combat application or two, but it had some serious non-combat applications.

 

[sukael]

However, one power that comes to mind is from a 3rd party psionics book. The name escapse me, but it basically dug a 5' hole in 4 adjacent squares. (If you modified it, it could do so in stone, or go straight DOWNwards). This had a combat application or two, but it had some serious non-combat applications.

So make a ritual that temporarily animates a set of golem shovelers to dig for you.

People seem to be missing the fact that 4e wizards will have far fewer normal spells known (and, at least so far, no limit on rituals). Would you really ever bother taking animate rope as a spell if it took up one of your 15 (or whatever) maximum known spells for ever and ever, instead of just a spot in your spellbook and one of fifty-something prepared spell slots for the day? I have the feeling that part of the point of spells (rather than rituals) being limited much more isn't to limit play styles, it's to keep from wasting page space on things that nobody would ever pick over vastly more generally useful effects like flying at will (even if temporarily), or blasting the head off anybody who attacks you.

 

[Rechan]

People seem to be missing the fact that 4e wizards will have far fewer normal spells known (and, at least so far, no limit on rituals). Would you really ever bother taking animate rope as a spell if it took up one of your 15 (or whatever) maximum known spells for ever and ever, instead of just a spot in your spellbook and one of fifty-something prepared spell slots for the day?

Depends on how much use I can get out of it. I've known some people who can milk Prestidigitation for hours.

I have the feeling that part of the point of spells (rather than rituals) being limited much more isn't to limit play styles, it's to keep from wasting page space on things that nobody would ever pick

Looking at some of my 3e books, I have to disagree. Given a lot of the stuff (like MAPS FOR EVERY PRC), there are a lot of junk in there I imagine they don't expect a lot of use for.

 

[Hellcow]

I'm assuming rituals are what happened to the 3e problem spells, so they're less broken.

I'm just doing a quick skim of things, so I haven't had a chance to read through the whole four page thread. However, let me hit a few points within the limits of what I can say.

Powers are effects designed to be used in an encounter (whether a combat encounter or a noncombat encounter - for example, a power that improves your skill check during a skill challenge).

Rituals are spells designed to be used out of combat, a fact enforced by their longer casting time. A ritual is, quite literally, a ritual; it's unlikely you'll be able to do it in a minute, let alone six seconds.

The effects of rituals cover many of the noncombat effects of traditional D&D... not just a few problem cases. I'll go ahead and name one and dearly hope that it's not one of these shocking revelations that gets spread across the internet within five minutes - "KEITH BAKER ANNOUNCES RITUAL!!!" - gentle repose. Is this a spell you really need to be able to use in the heat of battle? Not in my opinion. But it's a good spell for a healer to have. Under 4E, you don't have to sacrifice combat efficiency to be able to perform this ritual; each character can do certain things in combat, and certain things out of combat. And looking to Eberron, there's ways to make a professional mystic embalmer who can perform the gentle repose ritual without having to make him a cleric.

That's not going into what it takes to perform the ritual or anything like that. But yes, one of the reasons I like rituals is because, in my opinion, they support the concept of non-combat magic being used to perform useful functions in society far better than Vancian magic.

But hey, that's me.

 

[Rechan]

The effects of rituals cover many of the noncombat effects of traditional D&D... not just a few problem cases. I'll go ahead and name one - gentle repose. Is this a spell you really need to be able to use in the heat of battle? Not in my opinion.

Well, that depends. There's a creature in one of the Paizo manuels that's a cadaver golem (Poor man's flesh golem). Gentle repose slows it.

Yes, I understand the notion that you are driving. But that doesn't seem to really help the "Utility spells used to make traps or other clever tricks to deal with problems".

Thanks for stopping by, Hellcow.

 

[fnwc]

Well, that depends. There's a creature in one of the Paizo manuels that's a cadaver golem (Poor man's flesh golem). Gentle repose slows it.

Perhaps... but the fact that one would specifically have to know to cast gentle repose on it (a non-standard use of the spell) and then have it memorized while encountering the creature is such a corner case that I don't think it is a very good argument.

I mean, it's a cool combat use of a spell that is otherwise strictly utilitarian; that being said, I think I prefer the new 4e ritual system (from what I know of it) over the way 3e handles it.

 

[DandD]

Just one question please, Hellcow. Are rituals restricted to Power Sources? Meaning for example, can a Wizard perform a Raise Dead-Ritual?