|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:11PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Where does the wand of Knock that obviates the party thief come from? How does a wizard in a party acquire this item, and why?
They're cheap to make in 3e. So if the DM puts everything on hold while the wizard takes weeks to make the dozens of each type of wand everyone argues that the wizard has, the wizard can cast those low level spells all day long. They just aren't as worthwhile as a lot of people think.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:12PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
People aren't seriously trying to argue away the supreme dominance of the 3.5 caster, are they?
Not at all. It's just that knock, invisibility, yada yada don't replace a rogue. They're a good stop gap if you don't have a rogue or the rogue is incapacitated, but they are inferior to the rogue.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:30PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
If your 3.5 wizard is inferior to the rogue, the wizard is doing it wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:33PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
If your 3.5 wizard is inferior to the rogue, the wizard is doing it wrong.
I didn't say he was. I said that invisibility, detect traps, silence and knock are inferior to a rogue. Are you really arguing that those 4 spells are what cause caster superiority?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:43PM
#35
|
|
|
"Batman" casters were enabled by DMs who didn't think spells through. Silence reveals itself instantly to everyone in 30 feet. Knock sets off traps. Detect traps was a worthless spell. Invisibility is commonly seen through. Those are all facts. I still play 3e, so while you have to crack open your musty books, this is all fresh knowledge to me.
this right here is something that I really think impedes the spread of the game. Putting the onus on the DM to balance classes through extensive knowledge of spells and abilities is asking a lot.
Want to be a good DM? You better know every spell and its effects and potential counters, and the potential counters someone who knew every spell might put in a dungeon, and do it in a way where the utility classes can feel useful . . . sure, people who have been playing for years do it. But the more we restrict the people who can be DM, the more restrict the people playing the game out there.
Add to the fact that countering "Batman" casters requires a lot of tacfully saying "no," when lots of DM advise out there starts with "try to say yes," and it makes the issue even more difficult, even for experienced DMs. IF the wizard does spend the resources to learn and memorize and cast a utility spell, is that really the time to explain to them how useless it is?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:52PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Wizards can also alter environment, like reshaping stone or turning it to mud, or interect indirectly with it. And this without having to make any skill check.
And there's the option, that every experienced wizards use, to leave open slots instead of memorizing situational out of combat utility spells.
D&D next just removed the limitation of having to leave open slots by giving free casting directly from spellbooks through rituals, and "balanced" it by increased casting time…
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:55PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
"Batman" casters were enabled by DMs who didn't think spells through. Silence reveals itself instantly to everyone in 30 feet. Knock sets off traps. Detect traps was a worthless spell. Invisibility is commonly seen through. Those are all facts. I still play 3e, so while you have to crack open your musty books, this is all fresh knowledge to me.
this right here is something that I really think impedes the spread of the game. Putting the onus on the DM to balance classes through extensive knowledge of spells and abilities is asking a lot.
There really isn't much onus, though. Invisibility is seen through easily by a lot of creatures. That just happens regardless. Knock sets off traps. That's on the DM, but it's an easy one since knock doesn't say it disarms the traps. Detect traps is worthless. That's not on the DM at all. The spell is simply worthless. Silence is the only one that really takes the DM thinking about things. Absolute silence is deafening in it's obviousness. Any living thing that can hear within 40 feet will automatically be aware that there is a spell caster nearby and be on alert.
Add to the fact that countering "Batman" casters requires a lot of tacfully saying "no," when lots of DM advise out there starts with "try to say yes," and it makes the issue even more difficult, even for experienced DMs.
This is true. The advice has gone too far the other way with regard to saying yes. You shouldn't always say no, but you shouldn't always be looking for ways to say yes, either.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:56PM
#38
|
|
|
"Batman" casters were enabled by DMs who didn't think spells through.
The designers were the ones who made the spells.
I always thought that this line of thought is, hãã, weird. I mean, the designers made the spells, the book has this spell, we buy the book to use what is in there, and when something goes wrong is the DM who use book? I mean, it's like we are supposed to not use spells that were there. Why we don't get book that we will use the spells in there? I mean, I prefer books that I will use all that's in, then books that I will use only a part of it.
The problem wasn't that the DM was allowing the spells to be used; it was that he wasn't properly resolving the outcome of the spell being cast.
Knock has a higher chance of opening a really stubborn door than a rogue; it also sounds like a shotgun blast. Silence turns off sound so that the user can't be heard, but the sudden cessation of all noise in a 30' radius is much more noticeable in most situations than the gentle pitter patter of little wizard feet. Detect Traps lets you know the trap is there without giving you any tools to deal with it beyond the forewarning (which you could've got off the guy who's going to have to disarm it now that you've wasted reality-bending power to divine its existence).
I'm not a fan of the attitude that you're entitled to any resources listed in any source you care to bring to the table, mind you. I've got a rulebook with a vorpal sword in it; that doesn't mean there's going to be one in the campaign. It's up to the game group to determine the scope of a campaign, and that might preclude the use of some resources that are in the books on hand. Regardless of how many tools you own, you only use the ones you need for the project you're working on.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 2:03PM
#39
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
There really isn't much onus, though. Invisibility is seen through easily by a lot of creatures. That just happens regardless.
But then the onus is on the encounter design.
"Hooray! I can cast invisibility... hey why are we only going against creatures that detect invisibility!"
"Hooray! I can cast knock... hey, why are all the locked doors suddenly also trapped?"
"Hooray! I can cast detect traps... hey, why are all the traps I detect tied to treasure that would be destroyed if merely set off from a distance rather than disarmed?"
If the solution is a never-ending game of escalation, which slowly but surely eliminates perfectly viable encounter design choices, that's still poor game design.
This is true. The advice has gone too far the other way with regard to saying yes. You shouldn't always say no, but you shouldn't always be looking for ways to say yes, either.
The onus shouldn't be on the DM in the first place. If the designers aren't bothering to think about these issues, they aren't doing their jobs.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 2:30PM
#40
|
|
|
Thanks wrecan, that's exactly right.
Encounters are designed by the DM. And these issues speak to heavily to encounter design, and put a lot of work on the DM. The DM has to decide when you face these things, and when these are incredibly important to class balance and enjoyment at the table, it is a lot of work for the DM. Which, as a starting point, requires the DM to know the effects for all of these spells.
(if I keep following wrecan around the forums and agreeing with him, people will start to think I'm just an alternate account he made to agree with himself)
|
|
|
