Wizards in 4E have been 'neutered' argument...

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure that is a neat trick (Although the rules fiend in me wonders if the spell was stilled and silenced). This is exactly the reason that I like mage hand and prestidigation being at wills in 4th edition. After all, a 4th edition wizard would have gotten the same effect with mage hand.

As a side note: A really large number of these stories seem to be based on the application of the Grease spell. Is that because there are only a few spells in 3.5 that are really that flexible?

Well, a 3.X mage could have used Mage Hand to do that as well, though not "at will" unless he had taken a particular Feat.

As for Grease? It gets used a lot because its a popular spell with both combat and non-combat applications. In a sense, its the quintessential low-level flex-use spell, just like MM and Sleep are frequently cited in low-level combat discussions.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They were not the circumstances or context I was talking about. I was referring to very situational occasions where a simple spell could have surprisingly inventive usefulness, not a simple I-win-button to be mindlessly mashed. Perhaps I should give you a simple example from our game:

Social Event and Banquet but we needed to talk to the Prince immediately without his back-stabbing fiance next to him to hear the conversation (and thus inform the cult she was working for). We needed to spirit him out of there without causing a fuss. We tried one or two things to talk directly to the prince but nothing would seem to work within the faux "politeness" of the banquet. Then at the toast, everyone cheers raises their glasses including the fiance but a grease spell makes her dump the red wine all over her dress. She quickly excuses herself, runs out in embarassment (a few extra victory points and cheers for that!) and we get to talk to the Prince directly with recently acquired but irrefutable evidence against his Fiance. The province saved by a grease spell.

I'm not talking about cheesy recipes (as highlighted by another poster) but simple inventive opportunities; happenstances that only come around every so often. Could a diplomacy check have worked? Possibly but a little risky and time-consuming. Could an outright accusation have been made? Of course but with serious repercussions at getting at the cults head - they would have been forewarned. Grease spell? Perfect!!!

Again you take what I was saying out of the context it was delivered. I was referring to a minor encounter that was a resource speed bump for the party - not a "challenge for the whole party".

No of course it didn't. It took away most of the interesting and imaginative tools that a wizard could use though.
Save or dies fine. Giving simple monsters so many hit points that numerous rounds of hit point erosion are required... not so fine.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

The 4e Wizard could use Prestidigitation to make a wine stain appear upon the fiance's dress. He could also use mage hand to tip over a wine glass as a waiter passed by the fiance. I'd even allow a page 42 use of Grease (admittedly somewhat wasteful as it's a daily) or an ice spell to slick up a wine glass, as per your example. IMO, 4e hasn't harmed creative spell usage. The tricks just aren't necessarily always the exact same tricks from earlier editions.

The fact that everyone plays the same ablative game is preferable to me and my group. If they'd given all non-casters instant death attacks (the fighter can chop the dragon's head off in one swing) I think it might have worked okay, though I admit it would not have been the game for me (my group avoided insta-death in earlier editions like the plague).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Sure that is a neat trick (Although the rules fiend in me wonders if the spell was stilled and silenced).

At that point there was a cheer and raising of glasses, so the wizard's casting was ruled to be suitably disguised - it was just the perfect moment and so off the cuff... a really nice casting of a spell.

This is exactly the reason that I like mage hand and prestidigation being at wills in 4th edition. After all, a 4th edition wizard would have gotten the same effect with mage hand.

Putting on my own DM's hat, mage hand creates a spectral hand which I'm not too sure is strictly invisible (is it ghostly in appearance)? The rules seem to be vague on whether the object is allowed to be attended by someone (if so, then mage hand would seem to be an excellent tool for disarming combatants). As such, I'm not too sure it would conclusively work (I know that the 3.5 version of Mage Hand would not work with an attended object). Someone mentioned prestidigitation but the range here would be too close having to be within 10ft. (The range on the grease spell was about 35/40ft.) As well, it is not as natural as a dropped crashing glass to get attention (with evidence of the grease being unnoticeable). Possible but maybe not quite as effective.
Hmmm... it's a maybe (and certainly worthy of being paid by a supportive 4e DM looking to reward inventiveness despite the clunky tools) but not a certainty.

As a side note: A really large number of these stories seem to be based on the application of the Grease spell. Is that because there are only a few spells in 3.5 that are really that flexible?

Well you had prestidigitation and mage hand in 3.x anyway... but all the illusion spells were ripe for imaginitive use. Unseen Servant was also one of those spells that could be nicely used. But to answer your question, Grease is just a damn useful spell in a lot of scenarios and I suppose the slapstick possibilities with it are just fun and so it is always a good spell to have close to hand.

As far as my own example was concerned, I just wanted to demonstrate that wizardly effects didn't have to be powerful to be really useful but at the same time, they were heavily dependent upon circumstance, inventiveness and timing, and not an "I-win" button to be repeatedly mashed until success was assured.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fanaelialae]

At that point there was a cheer and raising of glasses, so the wizard's casting was ruled to be suitably disguised - it was just the perfect moment and so off the cuff... a really nice casting of a spell.

Putting on my own DM's hat, mage hand creates a spectral hand which I'm not too sure is strictly invisible (is it ghostly in appearance)? The rules seem to be vague on whether the object is allowed to be attended by someone (if so, then mage hand would seem to be an excellent tool for disarming combatants). As such, I'm not too sure it would conclusively work (I know that the 3.5 version of Mage Hand would not work with an attended object). Someone mentioned prestidigitation but the range here would be too close having to be within 10ft. (The range on the grease spell was about 35/40ft.) As well, it is not as natural as a dropped crashing glass to get attention (with evidence of the grease being unnoticeable). Possible but maybe not quite as effective.
Hmmm... it's a maybe (and certainly worthy of being paid by a supportive 4e DM looking to reward inventiveness despite the clunky tools) but not a certainty.

By that logic, the fiance could have noticed that her hand was suddenly covered in a layer of grease. Many DMs also wouldn't consider a toast a sufficient distraction to cover the verbals and somatics of spellcasting. Regardless of edition, the DM is capable of either working with a creative player or against them. Grease is as much of a "maybe" with regard to subtly "disarming" the fiance in 3x as 4e.

Well you had prestidigitation and mage hand in 3.x anyway... but all the illusion spells were ripe for imaginitive use. Unseen Servant was also one of those spells that could be nicely used. But to answer your question, Grease is just a damn useful spell in a lot of scenarios and I suppose the slapstick possibilities with it are just fun and so it is always a good spell to have close to hand.

As far as my own example was concerned, I just wanted to demonstrate that wizardly effects didn't have to be powerful to be really useful but at the same time, they were heavily dependent upon circumstance, inventiveness and timing, and not an "I-win" button to be repeatedly mashed until success was assured.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Little creative things like that weren't what the "I win" button was about. In your scenario the party rogue could have just as easily sauntered over to speak with the fiance and used Bluff to "accidentally" spill his wine on her.

The problematic "I win" buttons were the serious game changers like Web, Invisibility, Fly, Forcecage, and Wish, which could get results far beyond the wildest dreams of the non-caster classes.

Using grease in the aforementioned manner was somewhat clever. Casting Tasha's Overactive Bladder to get rid of her, on the other hand, would not have been. Much of the time, IME, casters were quite more the latter than the former.

 

[Nifft]

Social Event and Banquet but we needed to talk to the Prince immediately without his back-stabbing fiance next to him to hear the conversation (and thus inform the cult she was working for). We needed to spirit him out of there without causing a fuss. We tried one or two things to talk directly to the prince but nothing would seem to work within the faux "politeness" of the banquet. Then at the toast, everyone cheers raises their glasses including the fiance but a grease spell makes her dump the red wine all over her dress. She quickly excuses herself, runs out in embarassment (a few extra victory points and cheers for that!) and we get to talk to the Prince directly with recently acquired but irrefutable evidence against his Fiance. The province saved by a grease spell.

(...)

[4e] took away most of the interesting and imaginative tools that a wizard could use though.

Prestidigitation
You perform an amusing magical trick, such as creating a dancing wisp of light, freshening a wilting flower, making a coin invisible, or warming a cold drink.
At-Will Arcane
Standard Action Ranged 2

Effect: Use this cantrip to accomplish one of the effects given below.
• Move up to 1 pound of material.
• Create a harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint music, or a strong odor.
• Color, clean, or soil items in 1 cubic foot for up to 1 hour.
• (etc.)

Hey look, that still works.

So now you're on-board with 4e being awesome and supporting imaginative Wizards, right?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

The 4e Wizard could use Prestidigitation to make a wine stain appear upon the fiance's dress. He could also use mage hand to tip over a wine glass as a waiter passed by the fiance. I'd even allow a page 42 use of Grease (admittedly somewhat wasteful as it's a daily) or an ice spell to slick up a wine glass, as per your example. IMO, 4e hasn't harmed creative spell usage. The tricks just aren't necessarily always the exact same tricks from earlier editions.

Oh exactly exactly... and we have creative use of other folks abilities... but I suggest they take thievery skill if they want to exploit subtle timing and similar things to conceal there arcane activities. Its one of the witchy skills you know, not just for the gypsy witch.

But there is further one could go...

For instance maybe a magic missile could be used to break a lamp across the room if you wanted a distraction. A rogue could do similar with a small coin.... and since somebody else did the distraction you would be even less obvious. . The party warlord might pull out his diplomacy to make sure the toast was not only loud but drew the attention of the people most likely to notice your surreptitious magic.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

By that logic, the fiance could have noticed that her hand was suddenly covered in a layer of grease. Many DMs also wouldn't consider a toast a sufficient distraction to cover the verbals and somatics of spellcasting. Regardless of edition, the DM is capable of either working with a creative player or against them. Grease is as much of a "maybe" with regard to subtly "disarming" the fiance in 3x as 4e.

I suppose this is what I meant by circumstances. The toast was with over a hundred people in a noisy banquet hall with everyone focused on the Prince and moving their hands up toasting him. Perfect conditions for even the most noisily obvious wizard - which this guy wasn't. The greasing was like how you grease a cake tin, not how you grease a differential joint (which of course is fairly loose I suppose in terms of interpretation). Your point is well made, I'm just explaining the circumstances and why it seemed so... perfectly cast and executed at the time.

Little creative things like that weren't what the "I win" button was about. In your scenario the party rogue could have just as easily sauntered over to speak with the fiance and used Bluff to "accidentally" spill his wine on her.

The problematic "I win" buttons were the serious game changers like Web, Invisibility, Fly, Forcecage, and Wish, which could get results far beyond the wildest dreams of the non-caster classes.

Using grease in the aforementioned manner was somewhat clever. Casting Tasha's Overactive Bladder to get rid of her, on the other hand, would not have been. Much of the time, IME, casters were quite more the latter than the former.

On this I can agree and why I mentioned throwing the baby (the nice handy imaginitive tools - illusions in particular) out with the bathwater (the save or dies and the broken ones like Shapechange, Gate and Wish - with an inexperienced DM).

I think only the most ardent of 3.x supporters would ignore or fail to recognize the difficulties of balancing casters and non-casters at high levels. In my high level Age of Worms campaign (3.x: all above 16th level at the moment) handling the wizard so as to make the game enjoyable for all is pretty much the first thing I have to address in every single encounter.

The wizard's power needed to be addressed but not necessarily completely nerf-batted. The mystery of magic in 4e is not a feature of the game as it was in earlier editions (3.x certainly started this trend much to my chagrin).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Garthanos]

Hey look, that still works.

So now you're on-board with 4e being awesome and supporting imaginative Wizards, right?

Cheers, -- N

It isnt winnable dude.

 

[Hussar]

Not bad really but it does change the vibe to a more supers-team feel than a sword and sorcery adventuring party. Everyone in the party being equal is a noble goal but there are certain traditional D&D'isms that added a lot of fun moments./snip(

I reject this binary state. It's not either S&S fantasy or fantasy supers, there's all sorts of other sorts of fantasy that fit right in with D&D that ISN'T S&S.

Steven Erikson's Malazan series is a perfect example. Every (or nearly every) main character is far and beyond better than a farmboy. But, surprisingly enough, the characters are about on par with each other, more or less. ((Ok, there are gods wandering around, but, let's not get too fixated. ))

Ignoring high fantasy for the moment, you can dig back into myth and legend as well. The heroes of these old stories performed super-human feats, that's what MADE them myths in the first place.

Yet, no one seems to say that the choice is between S&S fantasy and traditional myth and legend.

I wonder why that is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The grease spell was awsome... and a great example of a spell being used well outside of it's intent becuse the player had an idea, and the DM went along... (I wish we had a clap smileing face here) now tell me if that player was a non magic casting class would he be less creative and awsome? Or is it just easier with casters to think outside the box???

See by showing that bit of awsome sauce you also show the problem...the PCs are playing two diffrent games, casters can do anything they imagin, and non casters are limited to only what a real person could do, or atleast close...

That is why just nerfing the wizard would do nothign for D&D...takeing a power level 11 class like wizard to level 6 only helps if a power level 2 class like fighter is brought up to level 6 as well...witch I think they atleast got pretty close to.