PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Wizards are not Strikers



Pages : [1] 2

wodan46
2008-05-29, 04:55 PM
A lot of people keep insisting that Wizards are just another ranged attacker, and that all difference between them and other ranged attackers has been removed for balance and homogeneity.

However, Wizards are not that. Wizards casting magic missile every round is not turning them into a blaster mage, it is giving them a decent basic attack like every other character. Warlocks are the blaster mages, using their curse to boost their damage among other things.

Wizards are Controllers. They do AOE attacks, disable people, or disrupt enemy attacks. They can do this better than other classes of different roles can. However, other classes can still do such effects, and Wizards can act in other roles, though not as well.

A Wizard will be more effective played as a Controller than as a Striker. They have not had their distinct playstyle removed for homogeneity. They are still the same Wizards that were already there, except now they don't run out of ammo at low levels, or become brokenly overpowered at high levels.

JaxGaret
2008-05-29, 05:03 PM
Part of the issue is that what a true Controller in 3e, i.e. the Batman Wizard, was capable of, simply won't exist in 4e, for balance reasons.

I do see room for splatbooks to take on more Controller-y type mages, too. The PHB Wizard may be more of a blaster mage than other Controllers released subsequently.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 05:07 PM
Sorry but 4e has butchered wizards, from everything I have read and heard. The fun of a wizard was not his in combat capabilities, it was his out of combat and utility capabilities where the fun was. And 4e has removed that. Whether or not wizards are a striker or controller is irrelevant, what WotC should have done was lowered their in combat capabilities (of all kinds) and kept the same utility (if not increasing it), wizards should have been the out of combat guy.

mostlyharmful
2008-05-29, 05:09 PM
Sorry but 4e has butchered wizards, from everything I have read and heard. The fun of a wizard was not his in combat capabilities, it was his out of combat and utility capabilities where the fun was. And 4e has removed that. Whether or not wizards are a striker or controller is irrelevant, what WotC should have done was lowered their in combat capabilities (of all kinds) and kept the same utility (if not increasing it), wizards should have been the out of combat guy.

Quoted for truth, justice and the intelligent way. What's the fun of running a smart character if they can't use their mind and power to solve problems laterally, or even be able to do stuff others can't?

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:09 PM
Sorry but 4e has butchered wizards, from everything I have read and heard. The fun of a wizard was not his in combat capabilities, it was his out of combat and utility capabilities where the fun was. And 4e has removed that. Whether or not wizards are a striker or controller is irrelevant, what WotC should have done was lowered their in combat capabilities (of all kinds) and kept the same utility (if not increasing it), wizards should have been the out of combat guy.

Ritual Casting is where most of the out-of-combat spells went. They take 10 minutes, often cost gold, and are theoretically usable by any class.


Quoted for truth, justice and the intelligent way. What's the fun of running a smart character if they can't use their mind and power to solve problems laterally, or even be able to do stuff others can't?
What's the fun of playing /any/ character if only the smart guy gets to fix all the problems?

mostlyharmful
2008-05-29, 05:13 PM
They take 10 minutes, often cost gold, and are theoretically usable by any class.

Hence the gutting wizards comment. When a damn fighter can do it it's not really about intelligent magic users anymore (which is what I enjoyed about running a Wizard)

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:15 PM
Hence the gutting wizards comment. When a damn fighter can do it it's not really about intelligent magic users anymore (which is what I enjoyed about running a Wizard)

Oh, then you don't care about having the abilities on a theoretical level, you care about being better then someone else because they picked a different concept then you. So I hear I quit caring about your opinion on the matter.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 05:23 PM
Oh, then you don't care about having the abilities on a theoretical level, you care about being better then someone else because they picked a different concept then you. So I hear I quit caring about your opinion on the matter.

I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.

Yakk
2008-05-29, 05:24 PM
Fighters can do it, but to do it they have to burn multiple feats.

1 to get the ability to cast rituals (Wizards get for free).
1 feat to get trained skill in non-class skill Arcana (Wizards can pick this up off of their skill list at level 1).

And then, their ability to roll these rituals is based off of their intelligence, which isn't used for most of their powers.

The ability for non-Wizards/Clerics/etc to learn how to do Rituals exists in the case that there is nobody who wants to be a "pure caster type class". Then, someone can burn multiple feats to gain access to them and be good enough at them.

Interestingly, the skill for Priestly rituals is distinct, and is probably based off of Wisdom. Which means that if you lack a Cleric, the Wizard might be tempted to take Religion and work up their Wisdom so they can cast Raise Dead.

mostlyharmful
2008-05-29, 05:26 PM
Oh, then you don't care about having the abilities on a theoretical level, you care about being better then someone else because they picked a different concept then you. So I hear I quit caring about your opinion on the matter.

This isn't about being quantifiably better than anyone else. This is about restricting out of combat magic use to magic users, to a lesser extent about enabling intelligent character types to be portrayed as such (Theoretical level and all) and lastly and probably leastly its about the role of information gather and transport-bitche that Mages should be in my idea of mages.


Oh, and Rutee, I'm sorry that we disagree on this. I'm interested in what you have to say and maybe I'll change my mind on this. That being said :smallyuk: to you with shiney brass knobs on. Yes that is a joke, I thought we could do with a bit of leviety. Just cause we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friends....:smallsmile:

Naihal
2008-05-29, 05:26 PM
Hence the gutting wizards comment. When a damn fighter can do it it's not really about intelligent magic users anymore (which is what I enjoyed about running a Wizard)

I haven't been following 4E much, but can't only spellcasters use rituals? I saw the article that said anyone could cast a ritual from a scroll, but I thought only spellcasters could create those scrolls (and use rituals themselves)?

Zocelot
2008-05-29, 05:28 PM
I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.

One of the fundamental concepts for 4e would be that excelling in one area does not mean that you give up capability in another.

If only two or three classes are better at one part of the game, then it won't be fun for the other classes. If you're constantly in the shadow of other players, except in your chosen field, then D&D would be better off not being a group game.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:31 PM
I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.

The Wizard still is the go to guy, by default. But a fighter couldat least learn how to do Rituals, like the Wizard. He probably wouldn't be as good at them, since he wouldn't have as much of an int score

Look at your own wording;

"I expect a wizard /to be better/ at doing odd, creative things".

Yeah, they still are the better ones at it, what with not needing 2 feats, and having better scores for it. Fighters are just now allowed to do odd, creative things.

Plus, Wizard powers lend themselves better to odd uses then Fighter ones, I'm willing to bet.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-29, 05:32 PM
I haven't been following 4E much, but can't only spellcasters use rituals?

Nope. Take one feat (ritual casting) and you can do them all. Okay, so wizards and clerics get that feat for free, but that's not much of an advantage.

Wizards are seriously Not Fun any more in 4E. Yes, I realize they needed a nerf or two because they were over nine thousand in 3.5; nevertheless, they can now no longer (1) summon monsters, (2) cast major image in combat, (3) necromance anything or (4) use buff spells like enlarge or giant strength. They can't even keep more than one of their spells up for more than five seconds.

No, all they do is "attack int against fort for 2d6 damage and a one-round status effect". For a company called wizards of the coast, that's rather disappointingly one-sided.

Moff Chumley
2008-05-29, 05:43 PM
Consiering we haven't seen nearly any of the spells WotC has designed, I think Tippy's comments are premature. And with cc skills and a scroll, any class can cast any spell anyway.

Scintillatus
2008-05-29, 05:46 PM
Huh, my post didn't go through the first time. Weird.

Anyway, if you haven't got the books and therefore have nothing but speculation and knee-jerk whinyness to rely on, shut your trap.

Seriously, guys. This is tiresome. You've been complaining for months and months without a shred of evidence, and now we see your concerns are trash.

Wizards ROCK. Wizards get their own EPIC DESTINY. Wizards get -three- out of combat utility spells at level ONE. Wizards get three rituals in their spellbook at first level. They also get rituals FOR FREE when they level up.

Your concerns are based entirely on "what you've heard". I'm reading the book right now, and I can tell you; you're


WRONG.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-29, 05:52 PM
I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.

I'm surprised Emperor.
In 3.5, Wizards were better in combat than Fighters. Better at being ranged than a Ranger, better at stealth than a Rogue, and better at buffs that a Cleric.
I mean, Glitterdust by 3rd level. What in 3.5, did as Fighter have in combat to compete?

In 4th, the Ritual Magic, covers most of that out of combat stuff.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-29, 05:53 PM
I'm hearing alot about how wizards arn't portrayed as intelligent in 4.0 or something like that? Or they just don't feel it? How can you not feel intelligent being the guy who was not born with the powers to alter space and time, but has learned to alter space and time?I don't know how it could get much more intelligent than that.

Cybren
2008-05-29, 05:54 PM
I think the thing is the class roles are a lot less distinct then they made them out to be. The "party role" concept I think is an aid for building the character more than it is a distinct division of the classes

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:54 PM
Even with Rituals, I'll certainly grant that Wizards do less now then they used to.

I fail to see the problem. DnD is literally the only place where a Wizard automatically and at low or no personal cost has the ability to, all at the same time.

Summon high ranking demons
Pull celestial bodies out of the sky
Create fire
Alter the minds of all nearby
Create fantastic works of art
Alter the strands of fate
Witness the future

Name for me any non-DnD related fiction where one mage gets to do all that, and I'll eat.. well I don't have a hat. Regardless, archetypal mystic types are typically far, FAR more limited then a DnD wizard is, even now. Frankly, the complaints are baseless, on these grounds.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 05:58 PM
Consiering we haven't seen nearly any of the spells WotC has designed, I think Tippy's comments are premature. And with cc skills and a scroll, any class can cast any spell anyway.

We will see, as I have said, I haven't seen the 4e books yet and won't form a final opinion until I have read them.


Huh, my post didn't go through the first time. Weird.

Anyway, if you haven't got the books and therefore have nothing but speculation and knee-jerk whinyness to rely on, shut your trap.

Seriously, guys. This is tiresome. You've been complaining for months and months without a shred of evidence, and now we see your concerns are trash.

Wizards ROCK. Wizards get their own EPIC DESTINY. Wizards get -three- out of combat utility spells at level ONE. Wizards get three rituals in their spellbook at first level. They also get rituals FOR FREE when they level up.

Your concerns are based entirely on "what you've heard". I'm reading the book right now, and I can tell you; you're

Let's see, I have talked to people who playtested for WotC and who had access to the 4e books from the draft phase. People who's opinions on such things I trust. So based on what they have told me and what WotC has said I feel reasonable certain that a lot of what I have said will be born out. But if you will notice, I have avoided almost every 4e thread (I personally find the entire idea of 4e threads stupid until the books are publicly available) and most of my comments have been confined to "I will wait and see".

That is still mostly my position, the only reason I am commenting on this thread is to dispute the OP's implied opinion that the only reason some people are commenting negatively on the role wizards will play in 4e is because they are "Strikers" and not "Controllers". Most of the negative comments about them that have arisen in private conversations between me and others had nothing to do with their incombat use in any way.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 05:59 PM
Huh, my post didn't go through the first time. Weird.

Anyway, if you haven't got the books and therefore have nothing but speculation and knee-jerk whinyness to rely on, shut your trap.

Seriously, guys. This is tiresome. You've been complaining for months and months without a shred of evidence, and now we see your concerns are trash.

Wizards ROCK. Wizards get their own EPIC DESTINY. Wizards get -three- out of combat utility spells at level ONE. Wizards get three rituals in their spellbook at first level. They also get rituals FOR FREE when they level up.

Your concerns are based entirely on "what you've heard". I'm reading the book right now, and I can tell you; you're

QFT.

Seriously, look at the epic destinies. Of all the classic D&D classes, the fighter is the only one who got screwed on the epic destinies. Every other classic class got a pretty awe inspiring destiny.

The Fighter? "Meh, who cares about that schmuck? It wasn't so much trouble to make an epic destiny, but boy howdy we sure do like money, so let's squeeze the losers players by including the destiny in the second PHB."

At least they have Swordmaster, which has abilities that are something like epic-lite (Mostly refilling per-encounter abilities, instead of dailies).

Scintillatus
2008-05-29, 06:01 PM
Like I said, Wizards rule. Three cantrips, ritual progression, free access to the rituals feat, etc etc. Wizards are GREAT out of combat, possibly better than most classes at that role, without -wholly- outshining them.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 06:03 PM
I'm surprised Emperor.
In 3.5, Wizards were better in combat than Fighters. Better at being ranged than a Ranger, better at stealth than a Rogue, and better at buffs that a Cleric.
I mean, Glitterdust by 3rd level. What in 3.5, did as Fighter have in combat to compete?
I never said that 3.5 met my expectations. :smallwink:

And I agree that wizards are to powerful in 3.5


In 4th, the Ritual Magic, covers most of that out of combat stuff.
Ritual Magic that anyone can learn for the cost of a feat.


Even with Rituals, I'll certainly grant that Wizards do less now then they used to.

I fail to see the problem. DnD is literally the only place where a Wizard automatically and at low or no personal cost has the ability to, all at the same time.

Summon high ranking demons
Pull celestial bodies out of the sky
Create fire
Alter the minds of all nearby
Create fantastic works of art
Alter the strands of fate
Witness the future

Name for me any non-DnD related fiction where one mage gets to do all that, and I'll eat.. well I don't have a hat. Regardless, archetypal mystic types are typically far, FAR more limited then a DnD wizard is, even now. Frankly, the complaints are baseless, on these grounds.

Let's see: Most of the magicians/wizards in Feist's books. The casters in the Sword of Truth series. The casters in the black magician trilogy. And those are just off the top of my head.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-29, 06:04 PM
Wizards are seriously Not Fun any more in 4E. Yes, I realize they needed a nerf or two because they were over nine thousand in 3.5; nevertheless, they can now no longer (1) summon monsters, (2) cast major image in combat, (3) necromance anything or (4) use buff spells like enlarge or giant strength. They can't even keep more than one of their spells up for more than five seconds.

No, all they do is "attack int against fort for 2d6 damage and a one-round status effect". For a company called wizards of the coast, that's rather disappointingly one-sided.

I hear on the WotC boards that LogicNinja (you know, the guy who wrote the Batman guide) had fun playing a 4E wizard.

I had fun playing one, too. They do have encounter utility spells. And having Mage Hand and Prestidigtation at will at level 1 is pretty damn stylish.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-29, 06:07 PM
QFT.

Seriously, look at the epic destinies. Of all the classic D&D classes, the fighter is the only one who got screwed on the epic destinies. Every other classic class got a pretty awe inspiring destiny.

What? Fighters qualify for Demigod and Eternal Seeker like everyone does. They can also qualify for Deadly Trickster easily if they're a heavy or light blade wielder. It's only wizards that got their own epic destiny.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:07 PM
I never said that 3.5 met my expectations. :smallwink:

And I agree that wizards are to powerful in 3.5


Ritual Magic that anyone can learn for the cost of a feat.



Let's see: Most of the magicians/wizards in Feist's books. The casters in the Sword of Truth series. The casters in the black magician trilogy. And those are just off the top of my head.

I wouldn't use The Sword of Truth as an example, because it's not a paragon of quality, or even close.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 06:07 PM
I hear on the WotC boards that LogicNinja (you know, the guy who wrote the Batman guide) had fun playing a 4E wizard.
I know he did. I never said that 4e wizards won't be or aren't fun.


I had fun playing one, too. They do have encounter utility spells. And having Mage Hand and Prestidigtation at will at level 1 is pretty damn stylish.
Stylish, sure. But unless you have a DM who is willing to let you get away with using both under the most liberal interpretations of the rules then they are almost entirely style.

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 06:08 PM
Don't forget The casters in Wheel of Time.

Also, not sure if it counts, but every caster ever written about in any Dungeons and Dragons book, Elminster, Raistlin, etc. Sure it prolly is a function of the novels source material, but still cool.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 06:10 PM
I wouldn't use The Sword of Truth as an example, because it's not a paragon of quality, or even close.

I never said it was a paragon of quality. Rutee asked for examples of wizards in non D&D fiction who do such things, I provided some.

Hmm, I suppose I should add in Eragon as well. :smalltongue:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:10 PM
What? Fighters qualify for Demigod and Eternal Seeker like everyone does. They can also qualify for Deadly Trickster easily if they're a heavy or light blade wielder. It's only wizards that got their own epic destiny.

What I mean is, three of the destinies are pinnacles of an archetype, Rogue is clearly the "Go-to" for Deadly trickster, Cleric for demigod (Seriously, anybody else in the books dealin' with the gods, paladins aside?), and Archmage for wizard. Meanwhile, the Eternal seeker is merely a jack, not a pinnacle of martial mastery. And it most certainly isn't at all related to the base defender, the Fighter.

Terraoblivion
2008-05-29, 06:13 PM
Clerics and Wizards get ritual casting for free. Everybody else needs to be trained in Arcana or Religion to learn it and then take a feat. That means that every single class that is not inherently magical needs to spend two feats in order to replicate ritual casting, they get no free rituals and they are likely worse at using it than any member of one of the clearly magical classes. I don't think that is too much of an infringement on the rights of wizards, especially not when wizards get thirteen rituals for free over their career. Unless you want it to be the sole province of wizards of course. Also when it comes to out of combat stuff for wizards they still get prestidigitation for free and who can't love that?:smalltongue:

Rutee
2008-05-29, 06:18 PM
Let's see: Most of the magicians/wizards in Feist's books. The casters in the Sword of Truth series. The casters in the black magician trilogy. And those are just off the top of my head.
Wikipedia indicates that Sword of Truth series has mostly the thematically tied casters I am used to. Feist doesn't seem to have uber /broad/ wizards, just powerful ones, though I'm not reading everything on that list. And Black Magician Trilogy doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia.

Remember, I don't mean "Not only is Magic capable of accomplishing Impressive Feats X, Y, and Z, but all magicians can easily learn Feats X, Y, and Z"

And frankly, those are all Wizard-dominated stories anyway; In a game that intends to have them both as equal characters, the fighter has to be able to do things that not only can a wizard not emulate, but that a wizard can not easily circumvent.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 06:20 PM
Wikipedia indicates that Sword of Truth series has mostly the thematically tied casters I am used to. Feist doesn't seem to have uber /broad/ wizards, just powerful ones, though I'm not reading everything on that list. And Black Magician Trilogy doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia.

Remember, I don't mean "Not only is Magic capable of accomplishing Impressive Feats X, Y, and Z, but all magicians can easily learn Feats X, Y, and Z"

And frankly, those are all Wizard-dominated stories anyway; In a game that intends to have them both as equal characters, the fighter has to be able to do things that not only can a wizard not emulate, but that a wizard can not easily circumvent.

So, the question is, we need series like Dragon Ball, where fighters are the Krillin's?

It's going to be plenty hard to find.

Quietus
2008-05-29, 07:17 PM
Let's see: Most of the magicians/wizards in Feist's books. The casters in the Sword of Truth series. The casters in the black magician trilogy. And those are just off the top of my head.

I'd simply like to point out that MOST casters in SoT were extremely limited. I don't remember any of them other than Richard using an actual weapon on a regular basis. Richard was the main character, so he got to be special.

Helgraf
2008-05-29, 07:53 PM
I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.

Oddly enough, I don't see why a wizard should _by definition_ have a spell range that lets them duplicate any other class just because some people think magic should let you do anything.

Why should an intelligent wizard be any better than any other intelligent <class x> at doing odd, creative things? When did oddball creativity become the sole parlance and focus of the wizard class?

Aquillion
2008-05-29, 08:16 PM
What I mean is, three of the destinies are pinnacles of an archetype, Rogue is clearly the "Go-to" for Deadly trickster, Cleric for demigod (Seriously, anybody else in the books dealin' with the gods, paladins aside?), and Archmage for wizard. Meanwhile, the Eternal seeker is merely a jack, not a pinnacle of martial mastery. And it most certainly isn't at all related to the base defender, the Fighter.Not really. At least, not for all of them. Deadly Trickster's abilities are very good for anyone who meets the requirements (21 in dex or cha, and one trained skill out of Acrobatics, Bluff, Stealth, or Thievery -- easy for a skillmonkey, but a Cha warlock or whatever would have no problem, too.) Their abilities are all focused on regaining used powers and influencing die rolls, things that help anyone... it's hard to imagine a build that won't love Epic Trick.

Demigod has no requirements at all (beyond 21st level), and its abilities are likewise strictly general (although many are defensive in nature, making it good for a melee type.) Powers involving regeneration and recovering your own HP seem more fighter-type than Cleric-type; never running out of encounter powers helps anyone. Likewise anyone can be an Eternal Seeker.

Archmage is the only theme-specific one, really.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 08:22 PM
Not really. At least, not for all of them. Deadly Trickster's abilities are very good for anyone who meets the requirements (21 in dex or cha, and one trained skill out of Acrobatics, Bluff, Stealth, or Thievery -- easy for a skillmonkey, but a Cha warlock or whatever would have no problem, too.) Their abilities are all focused on regaining used powers and influencing die rolls, things that help anyone... it's hard to imagine a build that won't love Epic Trick.

Demigod has no requirements at all (beyond 21st level), and its abilities are likewise strictly general (although many are defensive in nature, making it good for a melee type.) Powers involving regeneration and recovering your own HP seem more fighter-type than Cleric-type; never running out of encounter powers helps anyone. Likewise anyone can be an Eternal Seeker.

Archmage is the only theme-specific one, really.

Yes, but who is always dealing with gods? (And did you read the preview that showed a version of the demigod for 3.5 and gave some fluff for it?). And who is classically the trickster and cheat? The Trickster and the Demigod are a bit broader than the Archmage, but you can still see where they came from.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 09:00 PM
Yes, but who is always dealing with gods? (And did you read the preview that showed a version of the demigod for 3.5 and gave some fluff for it?). And who is classically the trickster and cheat? The Trickster and the Demigod are a bit broader than the Archmage, but you can still see where they came from.

I read the PHB. Demigod doesn't really ring of Cleric. Trickster is pretty well meant for Rogue.. or anyone else with good Dex or Cha and who the fluff fits. I wouldn't really say the Rogue is the archetypal trickster; That's probably closer to Fey Pact Warlock (Warlock I sorta skimmed, to be fair).

Terraoblivion
2008-05-29, 09:07 PM
And the character idea for a warlord i have tossing around in my mind would be a pretty decent fit for the trickster as well. Really it is open for quite a few people, though it plays more to the archtype of the rogue than say the Warlord.

As for demigods they make me think more of Hercules or Achilles than of clerics and those two were both rather clearly fighters if you had to pick from the classes here.

Worira
2008-05-29, 09:17 PM
Nope. Take one feat (ritual casting) and you can do them all. Okay, so wizards and clerics get that feat for free, but that's not much of an advantage.

Wizards are seriously Not Fun any more in 4E. Yes, I realize they needed a nerf or two because they were over nine thousand in 3.5; nevertheless, they can now no longer (1) summon monsters, (2) cast major image in combat, (3) necromance anything or (4) use buff spells like enlarge or giant strength. They can't even keep more than one of their spells up for more than five seconds.

No, all they do is "attack int against fort for 2d6 damage and a one-round status effect". For a company called wizards of the coast, that's rather disappointingly one-sided.

I know, it sucks how wizards never get new spells after first level.

ForzaFiori
2008-05-29, 09:28 PM
Feist doesn't seem to have uber /broad/ wizards, just powerful ones, though I'm not reading everything on that list.

Pug, Miranda, Macros, Malcolm, Nakor, and Leso Veran and most Great Ones could do pretty much whatever they wanted to with magic, the first six especially. Pug and the others learned to do literally EVERYTHING that has to do with magic, including things that no one thought was possible (teleporting without a circle, etc). They lived for hundreds of years if not more (Macros was well over 700 iirc, and Nakor and Leso were also that old, though they all had fragments of gods inside them...Pugh and Miranda are well into their 3rd or 4th century iirc, and thats based just off magic. They dont even look close to old. Granted, most magicians in Midkemia and the other worlds couldn't do everything, but thats because they haven't grasped the fact that magic doesn't really exist. (long story behind that) those that did managed to do whatever they choose.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 09:41 PM
Of course, there being Wizards who could do everything they wanted with magic really just means mages do actually do the high end of melee.

I'm pretty sure Gilgamesh and the Yellow Emperor are far more archetypal then these folks. Seriously, if you want to sustain "Magic should do everything" based on a few examples? Actually, that's fine. To an extent, I do the same, but with melee. But you have to understand that if you get your way, I get mine, which really means you don't get your way, since the complaint that Tippy is making is "I want the mages to be worse at combat, and OMGPWNZORZ outside combat". Since Mages /are/ better at non-combat, demonstrably, but that's not making him happy.

Chronos
2008-05-29, 09:49 PM
Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with Emperor Tippy here, if from a slightly different direction. There's no problem with having class roles as an aid to game design, to try to keep the classes balanced. The problem is that fourth edition defined the classes in terms of their roles in combat. But the way I see it, combat itself is just one role: There's plenty that goes on outside of combat, too. Which means that a ruleset designed around balance in combat simply can't be balanced overall. Either the classes who do have out-of-combat utility have an edge over those who don't (since in combat, they're balanced), or you take away everyone's out-of-combat ability, which butchers the game.

This is also the case for rogues, in addition to wizards. In 3rd, rogues are not as good at combat as the full BAB types, and that's as it should be. They make up for it by being better at the out-of-combat things like sneaking and bluffing. Both the wizard and the rogue have an assortment of useful tricks available to them, and some of those tricks are useful in combat, but that's not what the classes are supposed to be about.

BloodandThunder
2008-05-29, 10:33 PM
This is also the case for rogues, in addition to wizards. In 3rd, rogues are not as good at combat as the full BAB types, and that's as it should be. They make up for it by being better at the out-of-combat things like sneaking and bluffing. Both the wizard and the rogue have an assortment of useful tricks available to them, and some of those tricks are useful in combat, but that's not what the classes are supposed to be about.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by rogues in 4e, not only are they rather damage centric, but they get a whole host of utility powers that let them alter their sneaking, their bluffing, and their thievery.

Rogues turned out good.

Jack Mann
2008-05-29, 11:18 PM
I'd rather have all classes contribute in and out of combat. Fighters should be good out of combat. Wizards and rogues should be good in it.

Jarlax
2008-05-29, 11:29 PM
Which means that a ruleset designed around balance in combat simply can't be balanced overall. Either the classes who do have out-of-combat utility have an edge over those who don't (since in combat, they're balanced), or you take away everyone's out-of-combat ability, which butchers the game.

or you can use the 4e approach and take away everyones exclusive out of combat abilities and give them to everyone else.

there is no trap finding in 4e rouges, its now part of thievery which any class can gain by either multiclassing or taking the skill training feat, assuming they don't get it as a class skill.

Rituals which constitute the majority of 3.5's out of combat utility spells (both for wizards and clerics) are now something that all classes have access to.

certainly some classes are better suited to certain out of combat "roles" than others. wizards and clerics make better ritualists. rouges and warlocks get thievery as a class skill. but every class has the potential to fill any out of combat role that they want.

Swordguy
2008-05-30, 01:08 AM
Well, balance is impossible without everybody being able to do exactly the same things. Now everybody can all do the same things. Ya'll got your balance. Why aren't you happy about it?

/somewhat needless snark

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 01:14 AM
Well, balance is impossible without everybody being able to do exactly the same things. Now everybody can all do the same things. Ya'll got your balance. Why aren't you happy about it?

/somewhat needless snark

Right. Because Paladins and Rogues play TOTALLY the same. I couldn't even tell them apart.

Chronos
2008-05-30, 02:10 AM
Well, balance is impossible without everybody being able to do exactly the same things. Now everybody can all do the same things. Ya'll got your balance. Why aren't you happy about it?A common misconception. Certainly, if everyone has exactly the same capabilities, the game is balanced, but nobody wants that. On the other hand, the closer you get to that, the harder the game is to balance, because if everyone does the same things, it's just a matter of seeing who does them better.

In fact, the proper way to balance a game is to make the options as different as possible. If, for instance, rogues are better than everyone else at sneaking, but fighters are better than everyone else at combat, then you can't say whether fighters or rogues are better, because which one is better depends on what you're trying to do.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 02:20 AM
In fact, the proper way to balance a game is to make the options as different as possible. If, for instance, rogues are better than everyone else at sneaking, but fighters are better than everyone else at combat, then you can't say whether fighters or rogues are better, because which one is better depends on what you're trying to do.

Well, then you have Paladins and Rangers, and I know you wno't tell me "Rangers being worse in combat is balanced by having some capability at tracking". Then you have classes like the Wizard. "Wacky out of combat things that can be used in a clever way", hm? That'll work great, I'm sure. It as those wacky out of combat things that lead to, you know.. Gaterape.

(Incidental note; Rogues are better at skills still, if they want to be, due to utilities. They do suffer some measure of combat reduction if they want it, since they gave up utility powers useful in combat for it)

The New Bruceski
2008-05-30, 04:04 AM
or you can use the 4e approach and take away everyones exclusive out of combat abilities and give them to everyone else.

there is no trap finding in 4e rouges, its now part of thievery which any class can gain by either multiclassing or taking the skill training feat, assuming they don't get it as a class skill.

Rituals which constitute the majority of 3.5's out of combat utility spells (both for wizards and clerics) are now something that all classes have access to.

certainly some classes are better suited to certain out of combat "roles" than others. wizards and clerics make better ritualists. rouges and warlocks get thievery as a class skill. but every class has the potential to fill any out of combat role that they want.

So instead of "we need a rogue for this party" it becomes "we need someone to pick up some rogue abilities." Rogues pick up Trapfinding automatically, how is it not a rogue ability? Sure, anyone else can get it via feats, but in 3.5 anyone could get it via one level in Rogue. What is it that makes the idea that in 4.0 someone can pay a cost (one or more feats) for some abilities of another class so egregious, when the fact that in 3.5 someone can pay a cost (a level dip) for some abilities of another class is perfectly fine? Is it the scale of the cost? I'd like to note that you're getting less than what you get for payment in 3.5, but it's more focused (one ability vs. one class level's abilities).

Charity
2008-05-30, 04:38 AM
Reading an earlier thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=227877) inspired me to do something similar. Here's my rendition of a character made from level 1 upwards, using the DMG rules regarding wealth in the higher levels. Instead of Fighter, I went with Wizard, who Paragons into Spellstorm Mage, then takes Archmage as his Epic Destiny.

I won't guarantee all of the math is correct, but I went over it at least twice. If it is off it's only 1 or 2 points.

Jovian, Human Wizard 1

STR 11 +0 HP 26; BLOODIED 13
CON 12 +1 SURGE 6 PER DAY 7
DEX 14 +2 AC 16; FORT 12, REF 15, WILL 14
INT 18 +4 INIT 2; SPEED 6
WIS 13 +1
CHA 10 +0

RACIAL: +2 Any stat; +1 Fort, Ref, Will; +1 bonus Feat, +1 skill, +1 Language, +1 At-Will from Class
CLASS: Cloth; Dagger & Quarterstaff; Orb, Staff or Wand; +2 Will;
Arcane Implement Mastery: Once/ Encounter gain +dex mod to attack as free action
Cantrips: ghost sound, light, mage hand, and prestidigitation at-will
Ritual Casting
Spellbook: Gain two Utility or Daily spells into book when told to gain one

SKILLS: Arcana +9, Insight +6, Diplomacy +5, History +9, Dungeoneering +6
FEATS: Toughness (+5 hp per tier), Armor Proficiency Leather

ATTACKS:
Magic Missile +4 vs Ref; 2d4+4 Force

POWERS:
At-Will:
Magic Missile +4 vs Ref; 2d4+4 Force
Thunderwave +4 vs Fort; 1d6+4 Thunder plus push 1 square
Ray of Frost +4 vs Fort; 1d6+4 Cold plus target slowed

Encounter:
Burning Hands +4 vs Ref (Close Blast 5); 2d6+4 Fire
Icy Terrain +4 vs Ref (Burst 1 in 10); 1d6+4 cold plus knocked prone

Daily:
Sleep +4 vs Fort (Area 2 in 20); See Spell text
Flaming Sphere +4 vs Ref; 2d6+4 fire; sustain /w Minor to hit another enemy next round

EQUIPMENT: Spellbook, wand implement, Leather Armor, Standard Adventurer's Kit, Ritual Book, 3 GP

Jovian, Human Spellstorm Wizard 11


STR 12 +0 HP 71; BLOODIED 35
CON 13 +1 SURGE 17; PER DAY 7
DEX 14 +2 AC 24; FORT 20, REF 24, WILL 23
INT 21 +5 INIT 13; SPEED 6
WIS 16 +3
CHA 11 +0

RACIAL: +2 Any stat; +1 Fort, Ref, Will; +1 bonus Feat, +1 skill, +1 Language, +1 At-Will from Class
CLASS: Cloth; Dagger & Quarterstaff; Orb, Staff or Wand; +2 Will;
Arcane Implement Mastery: Once/ Encounter gain +dex mod to attack as free action
Cantrips: ghost sound, light, mage hand, and prestidigitation at-will
Ritual Casting
Spellbook: Gain two Utility or Daily spells into book when told to gain one
PARAGON: Extra Damage Action (Half level to damage when action point used); Storm Spell 1/day make check to regain spell used today

SKILLS: Arcana +17, Insight +11, Diplomacy +10, History +14, Dungeoneering +11
FEATS: Toughness (+5 hp per tier), Armor Proficiency Leather
Quickdraw
Alertness
Skill Focus (Arcana)
Improved Init
Burning Blizzard (+1 cold & acid damage)
Arcane Reach

ATTACKS:
Magic Missile +13 vs Ref; 2d4+4 Force

POWERS: (^ spell in book, but not prepared)
At-Will:
Magic Missile +13 vs Ref; 2d4+5 Force
Thunderwave +13 vs Fort; 1d6+5 Thunder plus push 1 square
Ray of Frost +13 vs Fort; 1d6+6 Cold plus target slowed

Encounter:
^ Burning Hands +13 vs Ref (Close Blast 5); 2d6+5 Fire
Icy Terrain +13 vs Ref (Burst 1 in 10); 1d6+6 cold plus knocked prone
Color Spray +13 vs Will (Close Blast 5); 1d6+5 Radiant plus dazed 1 round
Lightning Bolt +13 vs ref; 2d6+5 Lightning plus attack 2 other targets within 10 sqrs
Storm Cage +13 vs ref (Burst 2 in 20); 4d6+5 Lightning & Thunder; see spell for extras

Daily:
Sleep +13 vs Fort (Area 2 in 20); See Spell text
^ Flaming Sphere +13 vs Ref; 2d6+5 fire; sustain /w Minor to hit another enemy next round
Fireball +13 vs Ref (Burst 3 in 20); 3d6+5 Fire
Web +13 vs Ref (Burst 2 in 20); Target Immobilized
^ Wall of Fire (area Wall 8 in 10); See Spell text
^ Mordenkainen’s Sword +13 vs Ref; 1d10+5 Force; sustained with minor

Utility:
Shield
Feather Fall
Dispel Magic
^Dimension Door
^Blur
^Arcane Gate

EQUIPMENT: Spellbook x 2, +2 Magic Leather, +3 Magic Wand, Cloak of Resistance +3, 5000gp

Jovian, Human Spellstorm Wizard (Archmage) 21


STR 13 +1 HP 116; BLOODIED 58
CON 14 +2 SURGE 29; PER DAY 7
DEX 16 +3 AC 33; FORT 30, REF 33, WILL 32
INT 24 +7 INIT 19; SPEED 6
WIS 18 +4
CHA 12 +1

RACIAL: +2 Any stat; +1 Fort, Ref, Will; +1 bonus Feat, +1 skill, +1 Language, +1 At-Will from Class
CLASS: Cloth; Dagger & Quarterstaff; Orb, Staff or Wand; +2 Will;
Arcane Implement Mastery: Once/ Encounter gain +dex mod to attack as free action
Cantrips: ghost sound, light, mage hand, and prestidigitation at-will
Ritual Casting
Spellbook: Gain two Utility or Daily spells into book when told to gain one
PARAGON: Extra Damage Action (Half level to damage when action point used); Storm Spell 1/day make check to regain spell used today
EPIC: Spell Recall (Choose daily spell each day; that spell two times per day instead of one)

SKILLS: Arcana +22, Insight +16, Diplomacy +15, History +19, Dungeoneering +16
FEATS: Toughness (+5 hp per tier), Armor Proficiency Leather
Quickdraw (Take out item and use it in same action)
Alertness (+2 Init, plus)
Skill Focus (Arcana)
Improved Init
Burning Blizzard (+1 cold & acid damage)
Arcane Reach
Evasion
Devestating Critical (+1d10 on crit)
Great Fortitude (+2 Fort)
Inescapable Force (Normal force damage to insubstantial +1d10)
Lasting Frost (Cold damage gives 5 vulnerable to enemies 1/round)
Second Arcane Implement (staves)

ATTACKS:
Magic Missile +22 vs Ref; 2d4+7 Force

POWERS: (* Indicates Replacement Power, ^ spell in book, but not prepared)
At-Will:
Magic Missile +22 vs Ref; 2d4+7 Force
Thunderwave +22 vs Fort; 1d6+7 Thunder plus push 1 square
Ray of Frost +22 vs Fort; 1d6+8 Cold plus target slowed

Encounter:
* Frostburn +22 vs Fort (Burst 2 in 20); 3d6+8 Cold and Fire plus difficult terrain
Icy Terrain +22 vs Ref (Burst 1 in 10); 1d6+8 cold plus knocked prone
Color Spray +22 vs Will (Close Blast 5); 1d6+7 Radiant plus dazed 1 round
Lightning Bolt +22 vs ref; 2d6+7 Lightning plus attack 2 other targets within 10 sqrs
Storm Cage (p) +22 vs ref (Burst 2 in 20); 4d6+7 Lightning & Thunder; see spell for extras

Daily:
^ Sleep +22 vs Fort (Area 2 in 20); See Spell text
* Blast of Cold +22 vs Ref (Close Blast 5);6d6+8 Cold plus immobilized
Fireball +22 vs Ref (Burst 3 in 20); 3d6+7 Fire
Web +22 vs Ref (Burst 2 in 20); Target Immobilized
* Disintegrate +22 vs Ref (No Roll to Hit object);5d10+7 Damage, ongoing 10, then ongoing 5
^ Mordenkainen’s Sword +22 vs Ref; 1d10+7 Force; sustained with minor
^ Maelstrom of Chaos +22 vs Fort (Close Burst 10); 3d8+7 plus teleport target within range

Utility:
^ Shield
Feather Fall
Dispel Magic
^ Dimension Door
^ Blur
^ Arcane Gate
Sudden Storm (p)
Fly

EQUIPMENT: Spellbook x 3, +4 Magic Leather, +5 Magic Wand, Cloak of Resistance +5, 125,000gp

I know there is no extended descriptions of feats or powers but it is something to go on.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 04:50 AM
Looking through the PHB myself, I reiterate Tippy's complaints.

Say what you want about the role-playing, but, while combat's got better (arguably), the third leg of DnD - puzzle solving - is really, really crippled.

Sure, there are rituals, but they seem somehow ... mechanical and disappointing, especially compared to this list. (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm)

All I can do is say with regret that 4e isn't really the RPG (albeit the flawed RPG) that 3.x was; it's a miniatures wargame, with roleplaying elements.

And if I wanted that, I'd go play Necromunda.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 04:51 AM
My point was never that "wizards should be able to do everything". Rather, my point is that certain archetypical build options, including but not limited to the summoner, the illusionist, and the necromancer, no longer exist in 4E. I'm sure this also applies to other classes as well, but this thread happens to be about wizards.

(edit) oh and yeah, I've read the 4e PHB, so this is not about hearsay.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 04:55 AM
Using Fly to get over a chasm isn't "puzzle solving". Wizards don't have spells for everything anymore; this makes "puzzle solving" more enaging, not less. ("Chasm." "Scroll of Dark Way.")

Charity
2008-05-30, 05:03 AM
3e wizarding is too easy, the same old same old solutions work for nigh on every encounter.
There are less spells now sure, but 80% of the available spells never saw the light of day anyhow...

Solo
2008-05-30, 05:04 AM
I fail to see the problem. DnD is literally the only place where a Wizard automatically and at low or no personal cost has the ability to, all at the same time.

Summon high ranking demons
Pull celestial bodies out of the sky
Create fire
Alter the minds of all nearby
Create fantastic works of art
Alter the strands of fate
Witness the future


Other characters do not have access to flint and tinder?


What's the fun of playing /any/ character if only the smart guy gets to fix all the problems?

Your right, we should let the dumb guy fix problems too, with his cunning plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldrick#Character).

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 05:16 AM
Using Fly to get over a chasm isn't "puzzle solving". Wizards don't have spells for everything anymore; this makes "puzzle solving" more enaging, not less. ("Chasm." "Scroll of Dark Way.")

So, guys, we need to remove an incriminating entry from this logbook!
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm)
Uh-oh! Looks like the formians are attacking! Quickly, help the defenders erect some defences! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/moveEarth.htm)

Hey, I think that we need to screw with our contact's head, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/illusoryWall.htm) so he'll be more vulnerable to our manipulation!

FoE
2008-05-30, 05:24 AM
So, guys, [URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm"]we need to remove an incriminating entry from this logbook!

Never once have I come across this situation. But if I did find myself in a similar bind, I used a time-honoured secret passed down through generations of fighters and barbarians: I ripped out the page. :smalltongue:

Grynning
2008-05-30, 05:38 AM
I would note that on the sample wizard Charity put up here that over half of that wizard's powers are damage dealing spells. Only a few of them (Sleep, Web, Icy Terrain, and the Utility powers) seem focused on the "Control" aspect. Far cry from the "always ban evocation" wizards of 3.5

4th does feel a bit "miniatures war-game" like so far, but then again, miniatures war games generally have much better combat systems than most RPG's. Since combat is the aspect of the game that is most heavily affected by the edition change, I suppose this could be seen as positive. Good RP'ing and world-building has always been more of the hands of DM's and players anyways.

I do wish they had kept a more flexible skill system, and not rolled so many skills together (Thievery is a bit of an oversimplification, if you ask me; it begs the question: are Artificers going to lose the ability to disable devices, or are they going to gain the ability to pick pockets?)

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 05:45 AM
Man, Artificers are going to be really weird, now you can't get away with having a dozen wands and scrolls...

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 05:47 AM
Never once have I come across this situation. But if I did find myself in a similar bind, I used a time-honoured secret passed down through generations of fighters and barbarians: I ripped out the page. :smalltongue:

But then they know you did it!

My group have used all of these in the last three sessions.

FoE
2008-05-30, 06:11 AM
So your success of your adventure hinged on the casting of a nearly-useless first level spell? Blech. How about allowing a rogue to make a forgery check to alter the writing? Or just grabbing the book itself and burning it? Then there's absolutely no evidence to be had.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 06:19 AM
So your success of your adventure hinged on the casting of a nearly-useless first level spell? Blech. How about allowing a rogue to make a forgery check to alter the writing? Or just grabbing the book itself and burning it? Then there's absolutely no evidence to be had.

Who takes forgery?

Also, it wasn't the success of an adventure, but being able to erase the name of the smugglers that you were trying to get into the city from the guards' logbooks was certainly an interesting way round a problem. The issue with 4e is that creative solutions just aren't options any more.

Solo
2008-05-30, 06:23 AM
Who takes forgery?
Bardic Knack to the rescue!

Tengu
2008-05-30, 06:27 AM
Say what you want about the role-playing, but, while combat's got better (arguably), the third leg of DnD - puzzle solving - is really, really crippled.


I thought puzzle solving is about using your brain, not casting a single spell and being done with it? And are you trying to say that in previous editions, only casters were able to solve puzzles?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 06:31 AM
Well, I have received copies of the 4e books. So after I finish reading them (sometime today or tomorrow) I will offer an informed opinion on them.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 06:33 AM
I thought puzzle solving is about using your brain, not casting a single spell and being done with it? And are you trying to say that in previous editions, only casters were able to solve puzzles?

Mostly playing casters.

Also, it is using your brain; I don't exactly think that there is some direct line from 'need to smuggle assorted golem components to build golem inside city' to 'erase'.

Tengu
2008-05-30, 06:37 AM
But you don't need spellcasting to come up with creative solutions to problems (just as RoL said) - casting is just a shortcut, not a prerequesite.

The New Bruceski
2008-05-30, 06:43 AM
Who takes forgery?


Folks who don't want to rely on a wizard to solve their problems? In urban adventures it can prove quite useful.

I'd have spilled some ink. Obscures the name, looks accidental, and if done right (ie not the whole bottle but small) leaves no external evidence of alteration so it won't be found unless looked for. At that point it reveals as much information as a blank space in an otherwise well-used logbook: there was something here, it's gone now.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 07:41 AM
To anyone who has access to the 4e PHB: Check out page 307, the ritual Leomund’s Secret Chest. Now carefully read the description several times, and think about 3.5 Permanent Teleportation Circles while you do.

I've just found my new favorite part of 4e, Leomund’s Secret Chest! It replaces teleportation circles, bags of holding, warehouses, shipping, and many other things. And you can do it at level 6. :smallbiggrin:

This is a new record for me, breaking an RPG within 7 minutes of opening the book for the first time.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 07:44 AM
To anyone who has access to the 4e PHB: Check out page 307, the ritual Leomund’s Secret Chest. Now carefully read the description several times, and think about 3.5 Permanent Teleportation Circles while you do.

I've just found my new favorite part of 4e, Leomund’s Secret Chest! It replaces teleportation circles, bags of holding, warehouses, shipping, and many other things. And you can do it at level 6. :smallbiggrin:

This is a new record for me, breaking an RPG within 7 minutes of opening the book for the first time.

Does it say you can transport people through it and that the item can be big enough not to fit in the other chest? Because if not, you transport one person/big thing, and the chest breaks, making the ritual useless.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 07:54 AM
Does it say you can transport people through it and that the item can be big enough not to fit in the other chest? Because if not, you transport one person/big thing, and the chest breaks, making the ritual useless.

Read it. There is no size limit on the chest (it's the focus component of the ritual and says that it just has to be worth at least 200 gp) and it's not going from one chest to another.

You go to city 1, you commission a chest that you can fit in (phonebooth size for example), you buy or rent a room in the city, you put your chest there.

Now you are somewhere else in the world and want to go to city 1, you spend 10 minutes and 140 GP to summon your chest to you. You enter the chest. You dismiss the chest. You are in your room in city 1.

Now put a chest in every city. So long as you use any single one less than 2,000 times its actually cheaper than a 3.5 permanent teleportation circle.

And as their is no chest size limit it becomes a question of just how big you can make a chest. Can you have a warehouse sized chest for example?

Charity
2008-05-30, 07:58 AM
You would leave yourself open to folk whom didn't like you dragging your chests off and burying them... though if they are warehouse size that may take a while.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:02 AM
You would leave yourself open to folk whom didn't like you dragging your chests off and burying them... though if they are warehouse size that may take a while.

Oh, agreed. And your teleportation circles in 3.5 could end up being made unpleasant if someone wanted them to be.

I just find it great that a spell that required a level 17 wizard can now be done by a level 6 wizard cheaper and easier.

purepolarpanzer
2008-05-30, 08:03 AM
You would leave yourself open to folk whom didn't like you dragging your chests off and burying them... though if they are warehouse size that may take a while.

That's just amazingly funny. Even better if your chest get's stolen by a local dragon.

*pop*
"Oh shi...."
*munch*

Also, this is a bit broken, but a REALLY simple DM fix. I havn't even read the books, and I can already say "no living things make it through the chest".

A new record. I countered a power gamer without even seeing the rules :smallbiggrin: Just kidding tippy.

Oh, and on a side note, who did you guys go through to get your books so early? I'm still waiting on my Amazon order.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:12 AM
That's just amazingly funny. Even better if your chest get's stolen by a local dragon.

*pop*
"Oh shi...."
*munch*

Also, this is a bit broken, but a REALLY simple DM fix. I havn't even read the books, and I can already say "no living things make it through the chest".

A new record. I countered a power gamer without even seeing the rules :smallbiggrin: Just kidding tippy.
I'm already ranting at a playtester about it. And the fix is easy, limit them to only 1 chest allowed at a time, and don't allow warehouses to count as chests.


Oh, and on a side note, who did you guys go through to get your books so early? I'm still waiting on my Amazon order.
Contacts.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-30, 08:13 AM
Tippy... good catch. :smallbiggrin:

purepolarpanzer
2008-05-30, 08:17 AM
"Whaddya mean i can't call the warehouse a chest? It's gotta atleast cost 200 gold!"

"In today's real estate market, in this part of town? Your lucky I even let you call that "shelter"!"

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:24 AM
"Whaddya mean i can't call the warehouse a chest? It's gotta atleast cost 200 gold!"

"In today's real estate market, in this part of town? Your lucky I even let you call that "shelter"!"

Since chest isn't defined in 4e you go with the english definition, which according to Merriam-Webster is:
a container for storage or shipping; especially : a box with a lid used especially for the safekeeping of belongings

So just make a really, really, big box with a lid and a door in the side.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-30, 08:25 AM
Wacky Steve's Tupperware Homes! For all your Secret Chest needs!

Rutee
2008-05-30, 08:33 AM
Tippy, you have legal training. You of all people know that game rules are not written to stand up to legal scrutiny. That would be retarded, because the dense tomes that emerge would frighten off about 90 to 95% of the population, at least. You of all people should recognize these books are to be taken colloquially. Speaking Colloquially, you recognize a chest is perhaps 3 feet wide and across, and that'd be a rather large chest. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if you couldn't drive a semi through RAW if you really wanted, because then the whole thing would be fracking boring to read. I don't want my play to look like my work.

As to "Casters should be able to do everything but melee shouldn't".. still waiting on a why.

Valairn
2008-05-30, 08:41 AM
Tippy, you have legal training. You of all people know that game rules are not written to stand up to legal scrutiny. That would be retarded, because the dense tomes that emerge would frighten off about 90 to 95% of the population, at least. You of all people should recognize these books are to be taken colloquially. Speaking Colloquially, you recognize a chest is perhaps 3 feet wide and across, and that'd be a rather large chest. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if you couldn't drive a semi through RAW if you really wanted, because then the whole thing would be fracking boring to read. I don't want my play to look like my work.

As to "Casters should be able to do everything but melee shouldn't".. still waiting on a why.

Driving a semi through RAW can be fun and profitable.

Solo
2008-05-30, 08:42 AM
Tippy, you have legal training. You of all people know that game rules are not written to stand up to legal scrutiny. That would be retarded, because the dense tomes that emerge would frighten off about 90 to 95% of the population, at least. You of all people should recognize these books are to be taken colloquially. Speaking Colloquially, you recognize a chest is perhaps 3 feet wide and across, and that'd be a rather large chest. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if you couldn't drive a semi through RAW if you really wanted, because then the whole thing would be fracking boring to read. I don't want my play to look like my work.

As to "Casters should be able to do everything but melee shouldn't".. still waiting on a why.


So, a chest for a Colossal sized creature is perhaps 3 feet wide and across, is it?

Fascinating.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:43 AM
Tippy, you have legal training. You of all people know that game rules are not written to stand up to legal scrutiny. That would be retarded, because the dense tomes that emerge would frighten off about 90 to 95% of the population, at least. You of all people should recognize these books are to be taken colloquially. Speaking Colloquially, you recognize a chest is perhaps 3 feet wide and across, and that'd be a rather large chest. Frankly, I'd be more disappointed if you couldn't drive a semi through RAW if you really wanted, because then the whole thing would be fracking boring to read. I don't want my play to look like my work.

I can cram myself in the chest at the end of my bed and I'm 6 feet tall. It's not exactly an easy fit but I can do it, and if I could teleport myself around by cramming myself into it you can be sure I would.

And again, they don't define a chest at all. Or give a size limit or even suggestion. It's not my fault that WotC puts things like this in game. And it will prolly end up errated.


As to "Casters should be able to do everything but melee shouldn't".. still waiting on a why.
I never said that in the first place, so you will be waiting a while.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 08:44 AM
As to "Casters should be able to do everything but melee shouldn't".. still waiting on a why.

Problem is, in 4e, it's looking like vast swathes of noncombat solutions aren't options for any class.

How would you solve the smuggling problem - hit the chest for 2W+Charisma radiant damage, and slide it 8 squares? Make it take a -2 penalty on attacks against you?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 08:49 AM
So, a chest for a Colossal sized creature is perhaps 3 feet wide and across?

Are you a colossal sized creature? Again: Colloquially written rules. RAI should be a factor. It's hardly 'breaking' an RPG just because you found RAW that lets you circumvent RAI. Especially when that RAW has to go through the GM, as it often does.


I can cram myself in the chest at the end of my bed and I'm 6 feet tall. It's not exactly an easy fit but I can do it, and if I could teleport myself around by cramming myself into it you can be sure I would.
If it was as big as a normal chest, it would not supplant caravans. It would supplant shipping very expensive objects, perhaps, but it wouldn't be used to replace every caravan (Look at the summoning cost; That's more then a lot of small villages will have, period, and that's assuming you can move all your goods), and certainly not used to move /people/ quickly (Because the ritual doesn't give more then one person the right to actually do the summoning). Linked Portal will be used, particularly from town, since it's cheaper. Certainly, it can be used as escape valves for the party, if you have 4 LSCs (Or a party of small creatures and 2 chests for medium ones), but that's not exactly what you're saying, is it?


Problem is, in 4e, it's looking like vast swathes of noncombat solutions aren't options.

How would you solve the smuggling problem - hit the chest for 2W+4 radiant damage, and slide it 8 squares?
If the chest is lost or destroyed...

There's not a ritual in here for it, but just make a large scale Dimensional Anchor-like ritual that blocks teleportation from within an arbitrarily large area. Center that area on the town's most central point. Recast it larger every 10 to 30 years as the town grows larger.

Solo
2008-05-30, 08:56 AM
Are you a colossal sized creature?

My ego certainly qualifies.


Again: Colloquially written rules. RAI should be a factor. It's hardly 'breaking' an RPG just because you found RAW that lets you circumvent RAI. Especially when that RAW has to go through the GM, as it often does.

So can Colossal creatures not use Secret Chest?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:57 AM
Are you a colossal sized creature? Again: Colloquially written rules. RAI should be a factor. It's hardly 'breaking' an RPG just because you found RAW that lets you circumvent RAI. Especially when that RAW has to go through the GM, as it often does.
A chest is a chest is a chest. If I was inclined I could go out and commission a 30,000 square foot chest complete with a power lid. It's a chest, and its even recognizable as a chest.

RAI is great, but you have no reason to think that RAI intended for chests to be a specific size. And whys is 3x3x2 an allowable size for a chest when 6x2x1 isn't? They have the exact same volume.


If it was as big as a normal chest, it would not supplant caravans. It would supplant shipping very expensive objects, perhaps, but it wouldn't be used to replace every caravan (Look at the summoning cost; That's more then a lot of small villages will have, period, and that's assuming you can move all your goods), and certainly not used to move /people/ quickly (Because the ritual doesn't give more then one person the right to actually do the summoning). Linked Portal will be used, particularly from town, since it's cheaper. Certainly, it can be used as escape valves for the party, if you have 4 LSCs (Or a party of small creatures and 2 chests for medium ones), but that's not exactly what you're saying, is it?

Ah, but RAW you can make a warehouse sized chest and port that around. And it does become profitable.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 08:59 AM
There's not a ritual in here for it, but just make a large scale Dimensional Anchor-like ritual that blocks teleportation from within an arbitrarily large area. Center that area on the town's most central point. Recast it larger every 10 to 30 years as the town grows larger.

It's called Forbiddance and it can be made permanent, the area just isn't large enough. And that wouldn't really do much. A bunch of temples and mages guilds have permanent teleportation circles, and you wouldn't want to block them as well.

SmartAlec
2008-05-30, 09:00 AM
Especially when that RAW has to go through the GM, as it often does.

The question is, will the DM simply tell you it won't work, let you build it but simply make it not do anything, or let you build it but have it kill you in transit?

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:01 AM
The question is, will the DM simply tell you it won't work, let you build it but simply make it not do anything, or let you build it but have it kill you in transit?

He'd be pretty petty for doing that last one, wouldn't he?

I don't think you understand the idea of powergaming. RAW is more important than RAI.

Jack Zander
2008-05-30, 09:01 AM
Who takes forgery?

Anyone who has realized that your Forgery check is opposed by another Forgery check. Seriously, it's the God skill. Who needs Diplomacy when you can hand them notes from their king/boss/mother?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:02 AM
So can Colossal creatures not use Secret Chest?

Sure. And they probably use chests of their size bracket.

Are you colossaly sized? Are such creatures in terribly high numbers?


A chest is a chest is a chest. If I was inclined I could go out and commission a 30,000 square foot chest complete with a power lid. It's a chest, and its even recognizable as a chest.

RAI is great, but you have no reason to think that RAI intended for chests to be a specific size. And whys is 3x3x2 an allowable size for a chest when 6x2x1 isn't? They have the exact same volume.
See, that crap isn't going to work, Tippy. In one breath, you discuss an enormous chest clearly against RAI, in the other, you merely discuss a different sizing of that same chest. They are not comparable.

FYI: 6x2x1 is 12 cubic meters. 3x3x2 is 18.


Ah, but RAW you can make a warehouse sized chest and port that around. And it does become profitable.

And RAI is clearly against that. If you think these games are there to be played by RAW, that's fine, but when a segment of rules is clearly meant to apply Common Sense, the RAW being breakable isn't relevant.

SmartAlec
2008-05-30, 09:03 AM
He'd be pretty petty for doing that last one, wouldn't he?

Depends, really; if someone starts using magic in untried, untested ways, anything could happen and they should be prepared for the consequences. Four simple words: Not an Exact Science.

At the very least, the wizard should have tried it first with a rat or something. I certainly understand what being a careful powergamer is.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:04 AM
So... Colossal creatures can use it on Colossal chests, but you can't?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:05 AM
It's called Forbiddance and it can be made permanent, the area just isn't large enough. And that wouldn't really do much. A bunch of temples and mages guilds have permanent teleportation circles, and you wouldn't want to block them as well.
I sure as hell would want to put them outside town, where everyone coming in through the circle can be monitored.

I don't understand your world building sometimes. You're dealing with entities smarter then you (And me, for that matter, lest that be seen as an insult), but you assume they can't outthink you? What?


So... Colossal creatures can use it on Colossal chests, but you can't?

Have I not made myself perfectly clear in some manner? That's entirely correct.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:13 AM
Have I not made myself perfectly clear in some manner? That's entirely correct.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 09:15 AM
I sure as hell would want to put them outside town, where everyone coming in through the circle can be monitored.
So you, the head of a city, are going to tell a collection of mages, every one of which can use magic, that they can't cast whatever spells they want in their guild hall? The ability to rule derives from having the power to enforce your rule.

And those permanent teleportation circles are worth a lot of money to your city. Read the sidebar in the DMG, it talks about some of the protections on them.


I don't understand your world building sometimes. You're dealing with entities smarter then you (And me, for that matter, lest that be seen as an insult), but you assume they can't outthink you? What?
It's really simple. You say put up a forbiddance effect, great. Assuming that LoE doesn't block it, then I just go down into my basement and dig a hole, going down until I am outside the effect.

Cities have no real way, in either 3.5 or 4e to enforce their borders against any real effort by a wizard to breach them. They should recognize this and thus don't go though the expense of trying to enforce them.


Have I not made myself perfectly clear in some manner? That's entirely correct.
And its utterly stupid. A chest is a chest. If the colossal dragon can have a chest with a volume of 100 cubic feet then the human should be able to do the same thing.

SmartAlec
2008-05-30, 09:18 AM
Cities have no real way, in either 3.5 or 4e to enforce their borders against any real effort by a wizard to breach them.

Of course they do. It's called The Wizard's Guild. Why have a guild of wizards in your city if they're not going to do anything to benefit it? Make sure protecting the city is part of their founding charter, and bingo.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:23 AM
So you, the head of a city, are going to tell a collection of mages, every one of which can use magic, that they can't cast whatever spells they want in their guild hall? The ability to rule derives from having the power to enforce your rule.
Yeah. So can trained fighters, so can trained rogues, so can trained warlocks.. Are you behind on the times? And all of those magi have to buy their components from ritual casting (Which is what they have the undeniable advantage in) from somewhere.

And then you get back to the part where there are going to be clerics who almost by definition support the measures entirely (And on the flip side, clerics who almost by definition will stand against them, but you already assumed that clerics would all stand against them anyway.), augmenting whoever the city directly hires.


And those permanent teleportation circles are worth a lot of money to your city. Read the sidebar in the DMG, it talks about some of the protections on them.
I believe there are methods of sculpting an AoE to ignore a small area if I really feel it's safe to leave them in the city. If there aren't, I sure as hell can houserule them in.


It's really simple. You say put up a forbiddance effect, great. Assuming that LoE doesn't block it, then I just go down into my basement and dig a hole, going down until I am outside the effect.
It's a sphere. How far down are you digging that hole again? And no, LoE doesn't block it, for the same reason LoE doesn't block your teleports.


Cities have no real way, in either 3.5 or 4e to enforce their borders against any real effort by a wizard to breach them. They should recognize this and thus don't go though the expense of trying to enforce them.
Do you not know how an Arms Race works? The defense nor offense never gets to sit on their ass and declare victory. If you assume magic works differently, well, you don't understand how these things work.


And its utterly stupid. A chest is a chest. If the colossal dragon can have a chest with a volume of 100 cubic feet then the human should be able to do the same thing.

Is a human a Dragon? 'cause last I checked, humans are about 2 meters tall, /don't/ breath elemental death, aren't scaly quadrupeds, etc. Why should a human be able to summon a dragon sized chest?

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:32 AM
Is a human a Dragon? 'cause last I checked, humans are about 2 meters tall, /don't/ breath elemental death, aren't scaly quadrupeds, etc. Why should a human be able to summon a dragon sized chest?

Because a rose by any other name is just as sweet?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:35 AM
Because a rose by any other name is just as sweet?

One is a rose, one is an oak.

If you filed a complaint with God about Oaks being 20 feet tall with a thick layer of protective bark, and not smelling nice or being an acceptable gift, okay, but that doesn't make them equivalent.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:37 AM
I'm pretty sure a large chest is still a chest.

If not, Rutee, how large must a chest be before it becomes too large for a man to summon?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:42 AM
Larger then 18 cubic meters, with no single dimension larger then 6 meters.

And, you know, you keep saying "You're only changing the name of a chest by saying it's more ilke a warehouse". That's true, *I'm* only changing the name. You kinda changed the properties when you made it that large.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:44 AM
Larger then 18 cubic meters, with no single dimension larger then 6 meters.

And, you know, you keep saying "You're only changing the name of a chest by saying it's more ilke a warehouse". That's true, *I'm* only changing the name. You kinda changed the properties when you made it that large.

So how did you come by these exact measurements? Surely they are not arbitrary?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:46 AM
So how did you come by these exact measurements? Surely they are not arbitrary?

Of course they're arbitrary. I might be willing to change my mind, based on the exact size of ordinary chests, but I already know that's larger then military foot lockers, which are modern day chests.

SmartAlec
2008-05-30, 09:47 AM
Is there a difference between a chest the size of a warehouse, and a warehouse designed to look exactly like a chest?

If the answer is 'no', then you're in questionable definition territory once the 'chest' becomes large enough to legitimately carry another name. The issue stops being about a loophole in the rules wording and more nebulous - it is then about the insistence of the player's character to call the gigantic box a 'chest', which is much less solid a foundation to build this exploit on.

If the answer is 'yes', I'm not sure what that difference is.

Charity
2008-05-30, 09:49 AM
Some people might think that you two liked arguing or something...
I have to agree, with the spirit of the rules thing though, really what is the DM for but to arbitrate this sort of stuff, Solo, Tippy you both know you'd never get away with warehouse sized chests.

... I think once your chest needs foundations to support it, it probably no longer qualifies for the title :smallwink:

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:50 AM
Of course they're arbitrary.

Please understand that I find your argument invalidated by the admission that you pulled those sizes out of your chest.



I have to agree, with the spirit of the rules thing though, really what is the DM for but to arbitrate this sort of stuff, Solo, Tippy you both know you'd never get away with warehouse sized chests.

We certainly won't with that attitude.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 09:55 AM
Please understand that I find your entire argument invalidated by the admission that you pulled those sizes out of your chest.

WHy is that? Ultimately, everything we do has a level of arbitrary assigned to it. "PC" just means "Personal computer". Why doesn't that term apply to Macs? Why do speed limits and speedometers increment in flat 5s? Surely, that can't be the most safe increment at all times. Why are American Pizzas called Pizzas, when they're so different from the ones made by Italians? Or from the ones one can find in Japan?

Notwithstanding that I found your argument invalid because it attempts to read the rules as though they're written to stand up to legal scrutiny. WotC has a legal department that probably doesn't have that much to do, at any given moment. If DnD were meant to be written or read by utterly strict interpretations of the rules at every moment, they would have gotten the legal department to go over it.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 09:57 AM
WHy is that? Ultimately, everything we do has a level of arbitrary assigned to it. "PC" just means "Personal computer". Why doesn't that term apply to Macs?


Because macs suck.:smallbiggrin:

Worira
2008-05-30, 09:57 AM
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Ooh, my turn!

The grey-eyed morn smiles on the frowning night
Chequering the eastern sky with streaks of light
And flecked darkness like a drunkard reels
From forth day's path and Titan's fiery wheels.
Now, ere the sun advance its burning eye,
The day to cheer and night's dank dew to dry,
I must upfill this osier cage of ours
With baleful weeds and precious-juiced flowers.
The earth, that's nature's mother, is her tomb
What is her burying grave, that is her womb.
And from her womb children of divers kinds
we suckling at her natural bosom find.
O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies
In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities.
For not so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give.
Nor ought so good but, strained from that fair use,
Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse.
Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,
and vice sometimes by action's dignified.
Within the infant rind of this small flower
Poison hath residence and medicine power.
For, being smelt, with this part cheers each part,
Being tasted, slays all senses with the heart.
Two such opposed kings encamp them still,
In men as well as herbs, grace and rude will.
And where the worst is predominant
Full soon the canker death eats up that plant.

Friar Laurence is made of awesome.

Solo
2008-05-30, 09:58 AM
WHy is that? Ultimately, everything we do has a level of arbitrary assigned to it.

Yes, but when you're arbitrarily limiting I can't do something in a game with defined rules without precedent, I think that's a little different.

Besides, you can huff all you want, but by RAW this trick is workable. And in a discussion about optimization, not 'can you get away with it', that is what matters.

Or do you have the same display when people discuss Pun-Pun as well?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:02 AM
Some people might think that you two liked arguing or something...
I have to agree, with the spirit of the rules thing though, really what is the DM for but to arbitrate this sort of stuff, Solo, Tippy you both know you'd never get away with warehouse sized chests.

... I think once your chest needs foundations to support it, it probably no longer qualifies for the title :smallwink:

Oh, I agree that once you need foundations it is a bit too big. But a shipping container? Or trailer? Both are reasonable sizes.

My real problem with Rutee in this thread is that she is being utterly arbitrary. If a dragon can have a warehouse sized chest then warehouse sized chests exist. In which case their is absolutely no reason that a human can't get one as well. So I disagree with the arbitrariness of her position.

Add in the fact that she keeps saying "I would houserule..." and it gets even worse.

@others:
I will respond to the other posts later today, when I have the time to concentrate and type out long responses.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:04 AM
Yes, but when you're arbitrarily limiting I can't do something in a game with defined rules without precedent, I think that's a little different.

Rules are less important then the reason they're made. You're trying to betray the reason they're made using the rules themselves. Why do you think the rules are special, but their intent isn't?

Further, why is a DM being arbitrary bad? The arbiter's job is to arbitrate.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:08 AM
Rules are less important then the reason they're made. You're trying to betray the reason they're made using the rules themselves. Why do you think the rules are special, but their intent isn't?



Cause I can see the rule but not the intent.

You know what? If we're going by what we think the intent is, I say that the designers intend did for this to be used on huge chests.


Further, why is a DM being arbitrary bad? The arbiter's job is to arbitrate.

In a RAW discussion, we assume a literal DM.

Worira
2008-05-30, 10:09 AM
Just because you like small chests doesn't mean everyone has to, Rutee.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:11 AM
Just because you like small chests doesn't mean everyone has to, Rutee.

I prefer huge ones myself, though mines is rather small.

My girlfriend has a medium sized chest though.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:13 AM
I prefer huge ones myself, though mines is rather small.

My girlfriend has a medium sized chest though.

I prefer perky chests. :smallwink:

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 10:18 AM
RAW also allows infinite wealth; any level 2 character may pick "anything he wants" from the standard adventuring gear section. Say your average level 2 Fighter has 16 strength... 320 pound heavy carrying capacity, 320 sets of Thieves' Tools comes out to about 6400 gp.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:20 AM
I prefer perky chests. :smallwink:

I perfer meduim and well done chest myself. And steak thatway too. Not big on blood.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:20 AM
Cause I can see the rule but not the intent.

You know what? If we're going by what we think the intent is, I say that the designers intend did for this to be used on huge chests.
Come now, you're an intelligent person. I find it difficult to believe you're misunderstanding this.




In a RAW discussion, we assume a literal DM.

RAW is irrelevant when almost no DM will follow it.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:20 AM
RAW also allows infinite wealth; any level 2 character may pick "anything he wants" from the standard adventuring gear section. Say your average level 2 Fighter has 16 strength... 320 pound heavy carrying capacity, 320 sets of Thieves' Tools comes out to about 6400 gp.

What does that have to do with infinite wealth?

MartinHarper
2008-05-30, 10:22 AM
A chest is a rectangular structure with four walls and a liftable lid. Therefore, the size of chest summonable with Leomund's Secret Chest can be calculated from the strength modifier of the caster and the construction of the lid.

Also, a chest is the torso of a vertebrate, so you can summon a dragon's chest if you first kill a dragon.

Based off Magic Mouth, Comprehend Languages, and Make Whole, do you think it would be reasonable to convert any level 1-2 non-combat utility spell in 3.5e into a level 1 ritual?
I know having the DM invent rituals is not ideal, but that would open the door for an Erase ritual.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:23 AM
Come now, you're an intelligent person. I find it difficult to believe you're misunderstanding this.
You should take levels in Paladin of Sarcasm so that you may cast detect Sarcasm at will.



RAW is irrelevant when almost no DM will follow it.
I am sorry, but are you familiar with the practice of theoretical optimization?
Not how it is called theoretical? It is dedicated to theoretically optimizing characters, even if they are not playable in real campaigns, such as Pun-Pun.



A chest is a rectangular structure with four walls and a liftable lid. Therefore, the size of chest summonable with Leomund's Secret Chest can be calculated from the strength modifier of the caster and the construction of the lid.
You do realize that all you have done is inspire optimizers to give their wizards incredibly high strength scores somehow?

You should have quit while you were ahead :p

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 10:24 AM
"Pick anything without limits" means you could, by the rules as they are written, have an infinite number of any item from the PHB's adventuring equipment section. With no creativity at all you've got six grand. With a few trips back and forth from starting location to the nearest shops you could have any amount of cash, and then go ahead and spend it on magic items.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:25 AM
You should take levels in Paladin of Sarcasm so that you may cast detect Sarcasm at will.
You should write it better.


I am sorry, but are you familiar with the practice of theoretical optimization?
Not how it is called theoretical? It is dedicated to theoretically optimizing characters, even if they are not playable in real campaigns, such as Pun-Pun.

If you're only concerned with the theoretical, why do you defend your theory as practical?

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:26 AM
"Pick anything without limits" means you could, by the rules as they are written, have an infinite number of any item from the PHB's adventuring equipment section. With no creativity at all you've got six grand. With a few trips back and forth from starting location to the nearest shops you could have any amount of cash, and then go ahead and spend it on magic items.

Maybe if there was a weight "-" item that sold for 1cp or something?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:27 AM
Come now, you're an intelligent person. I find it difficult to believe you're misunderstanding this.
He isn't misunderstanding anything. The designers haven't commented either way on LSC and the PHB is quite clear. So for all we know their intent was for LSC to become the TARDIS.

I doubt it actually was, but I have as much evidence backing my claim of intent as you do yours.

This is why we use RAW not RAI.


RAW is irrelevant when almost no DM will follow it.
I would follow it. It's an ingenious use of a spell (at least the teleportation part). I most likely wouldn't allow mansion sized chests but I would allow Shipping Container sized ones.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 10:28 AM
Better yet, the Wand Wizard implement sells for 7gp and weighs -. There you go, infinite wealth.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:30 AM
I doubt it actually was, but I have as much evidence backing my claim of intent as you do yours.
So you assume that despite your own doubts, the designers intended it to be a TARDIS? You're not very good at this.


This is why we use RAW not RAI.
Yeah, because one is breakable and you can drive a truck through it.



I would follow it. It's an ingenious use of a spell (at least the teleportation part). I most likely wouldn't allow mansion sized chests but I would allow Shipping Container sized ones.

You're also the exception. Very, very few GMs cleave that strictly to RAW.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:33 AM
So you assume that despite your own doubts, the designers intended it to be a TARDIS? You're not very good at this.
Come now. A Tardis is a blue telephone booth that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside, and can travel through time and space.


You're also the exception. Very, very few GMs cleave that strictly to RAW.

Suit yourself.

I personally admire his cleavage to RAW about chests.

MartinHarper
2008-05-30, 10:34 AM
You do realize that all you have done is inspire optimizers to give their wizards incredibly high strength scores somehow?

I'm picturing the orc barbarian and the halfling wizard in a magic contest. The halfling wizard goes first, and summons a very pretty and delicate chest. Then the orc barbarian uses his Ritual Casting feat(s), rages, and summons a much larger and heavier chest directly above it.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:35 AM
He isn't misunderstanding anything. The designers haven't commented either way on LSC and the PHB is quite clear. So for all we know their intent was for LSC to become the TARDIS.

I doubt it actually was, but I have as much evidence backing my claim of intent as you do yours.

This is why we use RAW not RAI.

Wouldn't LSC exterminate you: If you gain a TARDIS, than you become the DOCTOR, so wouldn't a Dalek exterminate you solving the problem?


I would follow it. It's an ingenious use of a spell (at least the teleportation part). I most likely wouldn't allow mansion sized chests but I would allow Shipping Container sized ones.

Wouldn't mansion sized chests hurt your back? I don't think that sounds good meself.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:37 AM
Wouldn't mansion sized chests hurt your back? I don't think that sounds good meself.

Pansy. I suppose you can't afford to have a dogsbody to do your work for you?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:40 AM
Wouldn't a guy do it for free?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:41 AM
So you assume that despite your own doubts, the designers intended it to be a TARDIS? You're not very good at this.
No. I assume nothing about designer intent. If you wanted my honest opinion I don't think the designers intended it. But I have no information to base that opinion on. So I, again, assume nothing either way.


Yeah, because one is breakable and you can drive a truck through it.
No, because one is written out in plain English while the other is something we can only guess at.


You're also the exception. Very, very few GMs cleave that strictly to RAW.
*shrug* I have no preconceptions about the system. I take what the RAW gives and use that as far as it goes, then house rule and improvise.

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:41 AM
Wouldn't a guy do it for free?

Only if it had an exceptionally large chest.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 10:42 AM
What happens if we put the infinite wands inside the infinite chest?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 10:44 AM
No, because one is written out in plain English
This is why your scrutiny fails.


Only if it had an exceptionally large chest.
Your gender has little right to call ours inscrutable..

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:44 AM
What happens if we put the infinite wands inside the infinite chest?

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/uploads/BlackHole.jpg


WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?



Your gender has little right to call ours inscrutable..
Which gender would that be?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:44 AM
What happens if we put the infinite wands inside the infinite chest?

What happens if you use your infinite money from infinite wands to commission a god to make you an infinitely large chest?

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:46 AM
What happens if you use your infinite money from infinite wands to commission a god to make you an infinitely large chest?

http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/blackhole-1-browse.jpg

Please stop before it is too late.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 10:51 AM
Please stop before it is too late.

Wait, what is that a picture of?
I'm rather confuzzled.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 10:52 AM
Please stop before it is too late.
What if it is a god of plastic surgery?

Jack Zander
2008-05-30, 11:06 AM
Okay, letme get this straight...

A Dragon casts a spell to create a chest. It is collosal sized.

A human does the same. It is medium sized.

A pixie does the same. It is small-sized.

The pixie wants to have a larger sized chest. She first casts some sort of enlargement spell (assuming they exist) and then proceeds to create her chest. It is now medium (or larger) sized.

What? Shouldn't the mental strength of the spellcaster (not the spellcaster's sheer size) determine how large a chest they can have?

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 11:07 AM
Using my infinite wealth from my infinite wands, I hire an infinite number of Gods to create an infinite series of infinite-size chests which I fill with an infinite army I hire with my infinite wealth, equipping them with an infinite number of vorpal swords.

I then get my infinite gods to teleport my infinite chests to an infinite number of worlds in an infinite number of planes, bringing the infinite multiverse under my heel.

Then I eat an infinite number of pancakes.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 11:12 AM
Okay, letme get this straight...

A Dragon casts a spell to create a chest. It is collosal sized.

A human does the same. It is medium sized.

A pixie does the same. It is small-sized.

The pixie wants to have a larger sized chest. She first casts some sort of enlargement spell (assuming they exist) and then proceeds to create her chest. It is now medium (or larger) sized.

What? Shouldn't the mental strength of the spellcaster (not the spellcaster's sheer size) determine how large a chest they can have?

No.
Step 1: You pay someone at least 200 GP to make you a chest. This chest is usable as a focus for the LSC ritual.
Step 2: You use the LSC ritual with that chest as the focus, which transports the chest and all its contents to your current position.
Step 3: You dismiss the Ritual and the chest transports its self back to where ever you had left it.

Nothing stops you from having multiple chests or chests of warehouse size.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 11:14 AM
Nothing stops you from having multiple chests or chests of warehouse size.

Except RAI.

Solo
2008-05-30, 11:17 AM
Using my infinite wealth from my infinite wands, I hire an infinite number of Gods to create an infinite series of infinite-size chests which I fill with an infinite army I hire with my infinite wealth, equipping them with an infinite number of vorpal swords.

I then get my infinite gods to teleport my infinite chests to an infinite number of worlds in an infinite number of planes, bringing the infinite multiverse under my heel.

Then I eat an infinite number of pancakes.
*pop* ___________



Except RAI.
Your version of it.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 11:17 AM
Except RAI.

Do you have a statement to that effect from a game developer, errata, or an FAQ? Or from the PHB, DMG, or MM?

Are you a developer for 4e? Were you or are you involved in the 4e development and creation process?

Unless you can answer yes to at least 1 of those questions then you have no legitimate means to claim that your interperation represents the Rules as Intended.

Indon
2008-05-30, 11:19 AM
Wizards casting magic missile every round is not turning them into a blaster mage, it is giving them a decent basic attack like every other character.
A Wizard that casts Magic Missile every round is not a controller - such a Wizard is simply a weak ranged striker.

So it seems that it would be best if the Wizard did not frequently need to cast Magic Missile.


A Wizard will be more effective played as a Controller than as a Striker.
I dunno. Have people who have played Wizards generally just cast Magic Missile, or have they done any controlling?


Come now. A Tardis is a blue telephone booth that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside, and can travel through time and space.
A TARDIS is not necessarily in one particular shape - the Doctor's happens to have been broken for a long time (and he's come to prefer it that way).


Wait, what is that a picture of?
I'm rather confuzzled.

Formation of a star from a nebula, is my bet.

Jack Zander
2008-05-30, 11:25 AM
Ah, so Rutee is trying to use the Rule 0 Fallacy to prove that 4th edition is the system to end all systems.

Yeah, I don't think they intended for people to build collosal chests either, but per RAW that's a legitimate use of the spell.

If I was the DM would I allow my players to do it? Maybe, depending on how badly they abuse it. But it doesn't say that you are restricted to only medium sized chests.

kc0bbq
2008-05-30, 12:04 PM
If I was the DM would I allow my players to do it? Maybe, depending on how badly they abuse it. But it doesn't say that you are restricted to only medium sized chests.It also doesn't give the costs, just a minimum. I imagine the price to build a warehouse sized chest covered in the requisite runes would be far, far greater than the wealth of any character of a level where it would matter.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:06 PM
Your version of it.

Even Tippy doesn't think it was intended to be used for TARDISes, which is pretty damning.


Do you have a statement to that effect from a game developer, errata, or an FAQ? Or from the PHB, DMG, or MM?

Are you a developer for 4e? Were you or are you involved in the 4e development and creation process?

Unless you can answer yes to at least 1 of those questions then you have no legitimate means to claim that your interperation represents the Rules as Intended.
I'm sorry, you're under the impression that I think any of that is necessary to have a good guess, which is more then enough for a GM to make a decision on.

If you powergamers have a problem with that, well, I also don't give a damn about you. Some of us aren't playing a game to win.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 12:09 PM
Even Tippy doesn't think it was intended to be used for TARDISes, which is pretty damning.


I'm sorry, you're under the impression that I think any of that is necessary to have a good guess, which is more then enough for a GM to make a decision on.

If you powergamers have a problem with that, well, I also don't give a damn about you. Some of us aren't playing a game to win.

So why are you playing a glorified strategy game?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:10 PM
So why are you playing a glorified strategy game?

Good question. Why has anyone complained about non-combat losses?

NullAshton
2008-05-30, 12:14 PM
Wizards DO get a lot of out of combat spells at will. For example, in one of the quick start character sheets, the wizard had ghost sound at will. Presumably they'd get more at will things later on.

Heck, even per encounter is good for out of combat, since you can cast it basically once in a five minute period, as five minutes lets you take a short rest to cast a once per encounter spell.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 12:16 PM
Good question. Why has anyone complained about non-combat losses?

Because, as it stands, there is no way to implement such non-combat abilities. It's as impossible for a wizard/fighter/paladin to use magic to Move Earth as it is for us.

Indon
2008-05-30, 12:17 PM
Because, as it stands, there is no way to implement such non-combat abilities. It's as impossible for a wizard/fighter/paladin to use magic to Move Earth as it is for us.

I dunno, I could see a couple utility exploits. Chopping down trees with your hands, for instance.

4'th edition characters are supposed to be a cut above the rest, so I figure they can start doing Paul Bunyan sort of stuff, I dunno... level 8, maybe 9. :P

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:18 PM
Because, as it stands, there is no way to implement such non-combat abilities. It's as impossible for a wizard/fighter/paladin to use magic to Move Earth as it is for us.

If this is a glorified strategy game (Strictly speaking, it's a glorified dungeon crawling game, which has a few small differences), then why does it matter?

Valairn
2008-05-30, 12:18 PM
When dealing with Theoretical Optimization, Rule 0 and RAI can check themselves at the door, no one cares about it in these types of conversations, because that's not what these types of conversations are even about. On a game by game basis, you will find each DM ruling different on these sorts of cases, and that's acceptable that they do, but according to RAW, which is the be all and end all of theoretical optimization, it doesn't matter what their opinion is, because theory isn't about practice, its about theory.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 12:18 PM
Because, as it stands, there is no way to implement such non-combat abilities. It's as impossible for a wizard/fighter/paladin to use magic to Move Earth as it is for us.

..Rituals? The Wizard's Cantrips? Utility powers? Skills? Stunts? Skill challenges?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:19 PM
When dealing with Theoretical Optimization, Rule 0 and RAI can check themselves at the door, no one cares about it in these types of conversations, because that's not what these types of conversations are even about. On a game by game basis, you will find each DM ruling different on these sorts of cases, and that's acceptable that they do, but according to RAW, which is the be all and end all of theoretical optimization, it doesn't matter what their opinion is, because theory isn't about practice, its about theory.

I know how theoretical optimization works.

Theoretical optimization can also go to hell. It will never see use in a game, so it has minimal, if any, bearing on it.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 12:30 PM
Wizards DO get a lot of out of combat spells at will. For example, in one of the quick start character sheets, the wizard had ghost sound at will. Presumably they'd get more at will things later on.

Presumably? No. The wizard does not get additional at-will out-of-combat spells later on. Other than rituals, which cost money and have a minutes-to-hours casting time.

But this thread is really funny. With the chest issue, the forum will be having a 4E FAQ before 4E is actually out!

Besides, why wouldn't a magitech world like Eberron have chest-based teleportation transit?

MartinHarper
2008-05-30, 12:45 PM
What? Shouldn't the mental strength of the spellcaster (not the spellcaster's sheer size) determine how large a chest they can have?

If you can only make pixie-sized finger wiggles and mystic passes, you're only able to transport a pixie-sized chest. A key part of the magic ritual is preparing the are in which the chest will arrive. That takes several minutes. If the chest is much bigger than the character, they are unable to prepare the area quickly enough, before the last sounds from the blessed gong that they struck towards the beginning of the ritual die out.

Or, you know, whatever fluff the player or DM wants to add to explain why they are unable to summon things that are too heavy to be chests with the Leomund's Secret Chest ritual. Regardless, the RAW says the ritual summons chests, not buildings that would be chests if only they were chest-sized.

Valairn
2008-05-30, 12:46 PM
I know how theoretical optimization works.

Theoretical optimization can also go to hell. It will never see use in a game, so it has minimal, if any, bearing on it.

Ah so what you are saying is that because it won't have bearing on an actual game that it's useless? Okay, we'll then I think you are missing the point entirely. Theoretical optimization doesn't have to be used for it to be FUN. That's the whole point, the sheer act of discussing these things is fun for those of us who enjoy it. We like theoretically optimizing, I don't play theoretically optimized characters, most people don't, but that's not why I TO(theoretically optimize). I TO because its fun, not because TOing has anything to do with actually playing, and it doesn't even have to!

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:48 PM
Ah so what you are saying is that because it won't have bearing on an actual game that it's useless? Okay, we'll then I think you are missing the point entirely. Theoretical optimization doesn't have to be used for it to be FUN. That's the whole point, the sheer act of discussing these things is fun for those of us who enjoy it. We like theoretically optimizing, I don't play theoretically optimized characters, most people don't, but that's not why I TO(theoretically optimize). I TO because its fun, not because TOing has anything to do with actually playing, and it doesn't even have to!

That's nice, except the line of discussion that involves TO has explicitly been about actually using TO.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 12:51 PM
..Rituals? The Wizard's Cantrips? Utility powers? Skills? Stunts? Skill challenges?

Rituals - I grant you, there are noncombat rituals. About 1/4 of the number of noncombat spells in the PHB.

Wizard's cantrips - while one probably could pull some interesting things off with ghost sound, light, mage hand, and prestidigitation, those are the wizard cantrips.

Utility powers - are not utility spells. Read: 'buffs'.

Skills - not really enough.

Stunts - maybe. That's a lot of making up, though.

Skill challenges - I don't see how that will help reproduce the massive amount of stuff that's now missing.

Scintillatus
2008-05-30, 12:53 PM
What is missing? Wizards being able to bend the universe over and bugger it senseless? Massive lists of skills that can just as easily be merged together?

This game has always been focused upon combat, but that doesn't mean you have to do nothing but combat.

Valairn
2008-05-30, 12:53 PM
That's nice, except the line of discussion that involves TO has explicitly been about actually using TO.

You can't TO without doing that. Think about it, how can you TO without imagining how it would actually work?

Ralfarius
2008-05-30, 12:54 PM
While I tend to agree with Rutee on most things, I must say... I'm simultaneously amused and disappointed at the complete lack of Christmas spirit and childlike wonder displayed on Rutee's part during this discussion.

However, this thread has all my fives.

Personally, I find the 'exploit' of the secret chest ritual to actually be quite creative and interesting. I mean, on the one hand, you could use it as your very own 'return to base' instant transport. However, think of the other uses? You could have an entire plot revolving around a charlatan show where volunteers who step into the box magically vanish, actually having been secret chest'd to some sort of nefarious lair to be enslaved/sacrificed/etc. A bounty hunting group is sent after a character/npc/what have you, employing the method of stuffing the bounty into a chest and zapping them to a holding cell. Every month, a mysterious stranger appears, demanding tribute to a wrathful dragon... and so on and so on.

I think it's neat!

Rutee
2008-05-30, 12:56 PM
You can't TO without doing that. Think about it, how can you TO without imagining how it would actually work?
It stops being theoretical when you say "It actually works like this".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 12:59 PM
It stops being theoretical when you say "It actually works like this".

So, it stops being TO when we try to IMPOSE the TO on you?

Valairn
2008-05-30, 01:08 PM
It stops being theoretical when you say "It actually works like this".

I don't know what to say to this. Is anyone forcing you to play this way? What is the problem here?

Rutee
2008-05-30, 01:12 PM
I don't know what to say to this. Is anyone forcing you to play this way? What is the problem here?

They're assuming it actually works that way. That's the problem. Again: You say "It's theoretical". In what sense is it a thought exercise if you then go on to claim "It actually works this way"?

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 01:12 PM
What is missing? Wizards being able to bend the universe over and bugger it senseless? Massive lists of skills that can just as easily be merged together?

No, missing things like Enlarge Person, or Summon Monster I, or a combat-effective Silent Image, or Charm Person, or Truestrike.

Or, for that matter, Sanctuary, or Command, or the classic Create Water shower.

Yeah, I'm sure all of that was too overpowered.

Rutee
2008-05-30, 01:14 PM
No, missing things like Enlarge Person, or Summon Monster I, or a combat-effective Silent Image, or Charm Person, or Truestrike.
Truestrike? You mean all the powers that buff to hit? Enlarge PErson was pretty broken, no? Charm Person, well, go talk to Collin for a moment.


Or, for that matter, Sanctuary, or Command, or the classic Create Water shower.
I believe Sanctuary is in fact among the cleric utilities, or a similar effect that keeps you from being targetted briefly. Create Water Shower? There's a Create Food ritual, so..

Valairn
2008-05-30, 01:14 PM
They're assuming it actually works that way. That's the problem. Again: You say "It's theoretical". In what sense is it a thought exercise if you then go on to claim "It actually works this way"?

I guess your definition of TO and mine may be a little different. Its hard to TO without extrapolating, after all part of the point of TO is to only use literal interpretation to create unspeakable horrors of general rules abuse.

FoE
2008-05-30, 01:17 PM
On the other hand, while there's nothing in the rules stating that all treasure chests have to be of a certain size, there's nothing in the rules implicitly preventing all treasure chests in the world from being uniform in size and too small to fit a humanoid character. (Maybe the gods are offended by the notion of large treasure chests. It makes as much sense as treasure chests the size of warehouses. :smalltongue:) Therefore, the dreams of a chest-oriented transport system are extinguished in one fell swoop.

Also, have you ever tried to fit yourself in a box? Even a really big one? Human bodies aren't really meant for that sort of thing, unless you were born double-jointed. I doubt dragonborn and tieflings are the exception. And what if the lid accidentally became locked during transport? Since you're presumably transporting said chest to a secure location, you would slowly suffocate.

Rutee, you gotta scale back the 4E defence. The system isn't infallible, and you just give ammunition to these guys who are out to poke holes in it. Remember the MST3K mantra: it's just a game, I really should relax.

@V: But you want to get transported that way? Seems uncomfortable to me. And potentially dangerous.

Also, it's schtick, man, SCHTICK! You'd never make it on Broadway if you can't get the terminology right. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 01:32 PM
Also, have you ever tried to fit yourself in a box? Even a really big one? Human bodies aren't really meant for that sort of thing, unless you were born double-jointed.
Sure. It's not that hard, as long as you're of moderate agility and not too fat. That's not even counting contortionists (who can fit in really tiny boxes) or, for that matter, halflings. Heck, there's a porn star whose "stick" is that she fits inside a suitcase.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 03:53 PM
No, missing things like Enlarge Person, or Summon Monster I, or a combat-effective Silent Image, or Charm Person, or Truestrike.

Or, for that matter, Sanctuary, or Command, or the classic Create Water shower.

Yeah, I'm sure all of that was too overpowered.
Lets look at 3.5:
To be fair, many monsters that you could summon sucked. I mean, did you ever look at the list?
And to top that off 1/2 of the "good" ones had alignment issues. Why are spiders fiendish. Why are centipedes?
So than you had to worry about whether DM will change you alignment by casting it (there are DMs who do that even if rules don't specify).

Look at Druid (ignore the other broken issues for a sec): he gets summon Nature's ally (unicorn) for alot of healing. I thought healing wasn't supposed to be his thing.

Really, I can agree with the designers: they need time to make sure everything is balanced before they merk it up with Summons.


Now, what is you actually want:
1) True Strike: that just ups hit bonus.
2) Charm: The abusive stuff or just make you looked upon fondly stuff you want?
3) Silent Image: I'm not feeling what you mean...
4) Summon Monster: well you saw my issue.
5) Enlarge Person: Reach bonus (not as useful in this edition), weapon bonus (so you want a +1 to damage), and more Str (this edition doesn't do that now)

So something now: What kind of Enlarge Person? Personal or target another creature?
Basically, I'd put it as a encounter power (level 3, personal or Level 5 another person) that you use as standard action. For rest of encounter: +1 reach. And +2 power bonus to melee damage. You take more space as if one size larger. All gear still fits.

Simple, and emulates exactly what you want.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 04:03 PM
Lets look at 3.5:
3) Silent Image: I'm not feeling what you mean...

I'm afraid that demonstrates perfectly why you missed my point.

I'm not talking about mechanics. I don't care what exactly the bonuses are when I cast enlarge on something (heck, they changed in every edition so far). I just want to be able to do it, because enlarging stuff is cool. And in 4E, I can't.

Likewise, throwing illusions is cool. And in 4E, I can't (well, except as an expensive and long-to-cast ritual). Hypnotizing people? Nope, can't do that either. What about conjuring an ally (again, I don't care what it does exactly, I just like the effect) or just a rabbit from a hat? Nope, not allowed. I don't mind if I can't do all of that, but now I'm not allowed any of it any more.

Why is that, again? Oh yeah, because, as WOTC says, the whole point of being a wizard is blasting people with elemental power. So as a result, I'm not allowed to play a different kind of wizard. That, in a nutshell, is the one-sidedness of 4E.


Basically, I'd put it as a encounter power
Yes, and that is the Oberoni fallacy. Of course I can fix it; that doesn't mean the system isn't lacking.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-30, 04:34 PM
I'm afraid that demonstrates perfectly why you missed my point.

I'm not talking about mechanics. I don't care what exactly the bonuses are when I cast enlarge on something (heck, they changed in every edition so far). I just want to be able to do it, because enlarging stuff is cool. And in 4E, I can't.

Likewise, throwing illusions is cool. And in 4E, I can't (well, except as an expensive and long-to-cast ritual). Hypnotizing people? Nope, can't do that either. What about conjuring an ally (again, I don't care what it does exactly, I just like the effect) or just a rabbit from a hat? Nope, not allowed. I don't mind if I can't do all of that, but now I'm not allowed any of it any more.

See, you do care the effect. You say: "I don't care what exactly the bonuses are " but that isn't true. You do care.
They gave you illusion ritual, but you want more. you do care even though you say just give you it.
See this is like fans and TV shows: when you give the fans what they asked for: they complain. You don't give them what they asked: they complain.

Wait, when did you get the power to create a rabbit out of a hat in 3.5? Now who is Oberoni fallacying.

Prestigidation is closest match and that is in 4E.

Morandir Nailo
2008-05-30, 04:35 PM
Sticking to RAW here, the description of the LSC ritual says you can place objects in it, not creatures. Now I haven't read the entire PHB yet or anything, but I'm going to assume that Object and Creature are still game-defined terms. That being the case, LSC cannot be used to teleport people.

Furthermore, I would think that the lack of a "you can create multiple chests in multiple locations and call whichever you want" clause in the ritual indicates that you are in fact limited to one chest. The text references the chest, not a chest. Typically in D&D when you can do something more than once, the text will explicitly say so. Since the text does not state one way or the other however, I think the default would be that you get one chest.

Either way the ritual text is poorly written, and a few extra words would have fixed it. Geez, the books aren't even out yet and we need errata. Bah.

Mor

Yakk
2008-05-30, 04:37 PM
In 3e, about 1/5 of the players handbook was a list of Wizard powers (and Sorcerer, the class invented to provide a reason for that many powers). Another 1/5 was Druid and Cleric powers.

In 4e, Wizards get 12 to 15 pages, just like every other class, for their powers.

So yes: 3e Wizards had a huge amount of design real estate compared to the other classes. In 4e, every class has a collection of fun things -- but Wizards no longer have as many choices.

The Rituals in the back of the PHB are pretty short. At least one key one is missing -- no rules for how to build a teleportation circle, which a number of other Rituals use.

Interesting, out-of-combat Rituals are less important to balance than in-combat spells, because D&D is an action-esque game.

In case you haven't noticed, 4e has said "screw you" to theoretical optimization. If you play RAW, the game will not work -- this is a game not intended to be played as RAW. Problems like "a standard power-attack fighter build ends up being able to move around and do more damage by an order of magnitude than a feat-heavy two weapon fighting fighter build" are a larger problem than "if you read mage hand and the conjuration rules literally, mage hand is an unstoppable blocking device!" or pun-pun.

(And yes, mage hand is an unstoppable blocking device by raw, despite having the ability to carry 5 lbs of weight, it can block an ogre from moving through it)

Worira
2008-05-30, 04:47 PM
A colossal creature is 64 feet and up. A medium creature is 4 feet and up. A colossal creature is, therefore, roughly 16 times taller than a medium creature. An treasure chest for a medium creature is likely around 3 feet tall and 4 wide. Therefore, a treasure chest for a colossal creature is likely around 48 by 64 feet. A standard shipping container is 40' long and 8'6" high. That means a dragon-sized treasure chest is substantially larger than a standard shipping container.

So what makes your idea of the RaI any better than mine, Rutee?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-30, 04:49 PM
See, you do care the effect. You say: "I don't care what exactly the bonuses are " but that isn't true. You do care.
They gave you illusion ritual, but you want more. you do care even though you say just give you it.
See this is like fans and TV shows: when you give the fans what they asked for: they complain. You don't give them what they asked: they complain.

Wait, when did you get the power to create a rabbit out of a hat in 3.5? Now who is Oberoni fallacying.

Prestigidation is closest match and that is in 4E.

No, that's quite patently not what we're saying - stop belittling him. The illusion ritual - wut, a 10 minute duration creature that has to stay in one place - is nothing like the varied stuff in the SRD.

So, I want to play an illusionist, around whom nothing can be trusted? Sorry, no. I'm limited to throwing damage dice at an opponent, of varying sizes. Maybe stunning them once each day, too.

Could I do so in 3.5 Core? Yes.

See the difference?

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 04:51 PM
See, you do care the effect. You say: "I don't care what exactly the bonuses are " but that isn't true. You do care.
You're wrong. I want exactly what I say I want - illusions that are usable on short order. Not something that requires twelve levels and ten minutes to cast.



Wait, when did you get the power to create a rabbit out of a hat in 3.5?
Want a list? Any number of Monster or Animal Summoning spells, plus having a familiar, plus any low-level illusion. And, note how, unlike in any previous edition, the 4E prestidigitation has an explicit exhaustive list of what it can do, and conjuring a rabbit is not on there. It would help if you would base your statements on the actual rules, rather than conjecturing.


Now who is Oberoni fallacying.
Yeah, I'm sure the "no, you are!" remark was very clever back in kindergarten. No dice here, though.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 04:55 PM
In case you haven't noticed, 4e has said "screw you" to theoretical optimization.
Heh. I'll bet you a beer that you're dead wrong on that. See that CharOp board over there, at WOTC? Wanna bet they'll keep up their olympics for the next decade, regardless of what edition we'd be in then?


(And yes, mage hand is an unstoppable blocking device by raw, despite having the ability to carry 5 lbs of weight, it can block an ogre from moving through it)
That statement is so completely out of whack that I'd like to hear what kind of explanation you have for it.

Quoting from RAW, "You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell’s range."

Now pop quiz, how exactly does that stop an ogre?

Morandir Nailo
2008-05-30, 09:38 PM
Yeah, Wizards are less powerful in 4e than in 3e, but that's because they've taken the 3e Wizard and split it up into a number of classes, if what we've been reading is any indication. I'm going out on a limb a bit here but I bet summoning will be a Sorcerer and Druid schtick, while non-ritual illusions will be part of some class using the Shadow power source, Necromancy will (obviously) use Necrotic power, and mental effects will be Psionic. So you'll have to wait a bit, but eventually you will be able to do all the stuff that 3.5 Wizards can, just not all with one class. That, or I'll be going back to 3.5, because getting rid of all that completely would truly suck.

As for prestidigitation, while the list in the 3.5 PHB isn't just a list of bullet points or anything, it is enough info for any sane DM to make a good judgement call about what it can and can't do. Furthermore Tome and Blood had a nice list of what exactly you could do with it. And according to the list in my 4e PHB, you could technically pull a rabbit out of a hat, though it would only last one round ("Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn"). Not exactly spectacular, but possible.

Mor

WarlockBeast
2008-05-30, 10:18 PM
If the smart wizard solved all the intelligience reqiring problems, where would the group be when split up? Almost half of DnD is about puzzles, riddles, and the like. While fighting is a fourth of the game. the other fourth is social interaction and Role playing outside of any kind of conflict. So I saw it as: Wizards owns half the game, melee classes to a fourth, versatile charecters such as rangers fill in all the gaps but not as well as anything else, and the last fourth everyone does. On a pire chart the Wizard is pretty much involved in all the work. three fourths of it compared to other classes doing one fourth to one half.


Summed up: Wizard would own the game. This is certainly good for people who see fantasy as a purely magic based medieval world, but think about those who like anti-magic charecters. How would they feel about a wizard ruling the planet over a great knight? They would feel awful.


Yes the Wizards are toned down too much, but only a little. They are probably trying (key word) to balance the importance to the group of all party members.


When i played, it was pretty much: defend the wizard while he kills them all, solves the puzzle and handle social situations at the same time without our help!

Solo
2008-05-30, 10:25 PM
I'm sorry, you're under the impression that I think any of that is necessary to have a good guess, which is more then enough for a GM to make a decision on.

If you powergamers have a problem with that, well, I also don't give a damn about you. Some of us aren't playing a game to win.

Someone's a little touchy.

Yakk
2008-05-30, 11:15 PM
That statement is so completely out of whack that I'd like to hear what kind of explanation you have for it.

Quoting from RAW, "You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell’s range."

Now pop quiz, how exactly does that stop an ogre?

Read the Conjuration rules. A Conjuration prevents a hostile creature from entering it's square, unless otherwise stated by the Conjuration. It is also immune to attack.

A Mage hand is a conjuration. It thus prevents any enemies from entering it's square...

Ryuuk
2008-05-31, 12:22 AM
Sticking to RAW here, the description of the LSC ritual says you can place objects in it, not creatures. Now I haven't read the entire PHB yet or anything, but I'm going to assume that Object and Creature are still game-defined terms. That being the case, LSC cannot be used to teleport people.

Furthermore, I would think that the lack of a "you can create multiple chests in multiple locations and call whichever you want" clause in the ritual indicates that you are in fact limited to one chest. The text references the chest, not a chest. Typically in D&D when you can do something more than once, the text will explicitly say so. Since the text does not state one way or the other however, I think the default would be that you get one chest.

Either way the ritual text is poorly written, and a few extra words would have fixed it. Geez, the books aren't even out yet and we need errata. Bah.

Mor

Huh, the whole object line might do it. Although I couldn't find a formal definition in the Player's Handbook, objects and creatures are always listed separately.

There is one case that mentions characters being treated as objects though, helpless allies. So as long as the character is bound and gagged or simply unconscious, they can go through it just fine, by RAW. Hehe, the whole bounty hunter scenario mentioned earlier would still work.

The New Bruceski
2008-05-31, 02:18 AM
There's an un-addressed issue in the rules too, whose interpretation (by the DM, I don't think there's a RAW answer) could screw with any large-scale transport empires. What happens if, while the chest is summoned, an object enters the space it will return to? The answer to that could be a very good reason not to have large noticeable transport chests, due to sabotage.

Then there's the coordination issue: the caster needs to be at one end. How does he know when items at the other end are ready for transit? If he summons the chest back for another load while workers are moving the last one out (and aren't helpless or qualifiable as objects, we assume they're working) it could be incredibly ugly, again based on DM interpretation.

JaxGaret
2008-05-31, 02:25 AM
There's an un-addressed issue in the rules too, whose interpretation (by the DM, I don't think there's a RAW answer) could screw with any large-scale transport empires. What happens if, while the chest is summoned, an object enters the space it will return to? The answer to that could be a very good reason not to have large noticeable transport chests, due to sabotage.

Then there's the coordination issue: the caster needs to be at one end. How does he know when items at the other end are ready for transit? If he summons the chest back for another load while workers are moving the last one out (and aren't helpless or qualifiable as objects, we assume they're working) it could be incredibly ugly, again based on DM interpretation.

Both very good points.

I don't think that using LSCs as Teleportation Dumbwaiters will disrupt a campaign or its setting. There are too many things that can limit its effectiveness as a widespread transport system.

Cuddly
2008-05-31, 03:39 AM
A pretty simple fix is that the chests don't ship living things well. It says objects are transported. The soul and mind, in D&D, exist, and are certainly not objects. So the body gets transported, sans mind & soul. Oops.

Solo
2008-05-31, 03:45 AM
A pretty simple fix is that the chests don't ship living things well. It says objects are transported. The soul and mind, in D&D, exist, and are certainly not objects. So the body gets transported, sans mind & soul. Oops.

You know the wizard is just going to use armies of animated objects next...

Aquillion
2008-05-31, 04:39 AM
There's an un-addressed issue in the rules too, whose interpretation (by the DM, I don't think there's a RAW answer) could screw with any large-scale transport empires. What happens if, while the chest is summoned, an object enters the space it will return to? The answer to that could be a very good reason not to have large noticeable transport chests, due to sabotage.

Then there's the coordination issue: the caster needs to be at one end. How does he know when items at the other end are ready for transit? If he summons the chest back for another load while workers are moving the last one out (and aren't helpless or qualifiable as objects, we assume they're working) it could be incredibly ugly, again based on DM interpretation.Both those things could be solved by an enterprising entrepreneur. It's fairly simple: The chest is summoned every day at a set time, and sent back after another set amount of time.

Even if your world doesn't have accurate timepieces, this is easy to work out: Chest is summoned away after sunset, and sent back before sunrise, or whatever. Nobody goes anywhere near the chest (or the place where it will appear) within an hour of scheduled transit, and the room it's in is kept locked.

Regarding the number, each ritual caster can have one chest, at the very least. You may have to employ a number of people capable of casting rituals... but it's not that high-level a ritual (not even into Paragon), and given that there's an actual economy for rituals overall, there must be a decent number of people out there who can cast it.

Of course, we don't know how big a chest you can use. But there's still plenty of major uses for this. Mail delivery comes to mind -- any decently-sized chest can hold hundreds of bits of paper, so (at 140 for a two-way trip, remembering that you can charge for mail each way) small letters could be sent for 1 gp each or less, and you'd still make a profit.

Magical items can also be sent like this. And making magical items doesn't take that long anymore, or cost you anything that can't be easily managed economically (xp costs were always problematic from this standpoint.) It would be very easy for a single archmage with several apprentices, each of whom has a chest at a different major city, to set up a worldwide magic item emporium. He could employ a small 'commoner-class' staff at each branch office... you go there, pay the cost of the item plus a small fee for chest operation, and the next day a chest comes back with the magic item you ordered.

Notice that this business is also essentially immune to thieves and other such problems -- the money is put in the chest by the branch-office employees, and the magic item is sent back. The worst a thief could do is steal items that were delivered via chest that day and haven't been given to their buyers yet. You can't even steal the chest, since the apprentice who owns it can just summon it away from you.

Another use: Banking. This is obvious enough. A worldwide bank can have branch offices in every major city in the world, using chests to make deposits to a central secure location (which doesn't have to be reachable via any means but teleportation circles -- the runes to which would be a closely-guarded secret. Of course, the actual location of it would be an even more closely-guarded secret.) It could offer all the traditional bank services -- you can store your gold there in absolute safety, earn interest, take out loans... they even offer absolutely secure safe deposit boxes.

These could make interesting adventure hooks, too... perhaps a group of rogue-type PCs could discover the runes / actual location to the central bank, and could try to work out the heist of a lifetime. Or a villain could have discovered it, and the bank wants it dealt with quietly to avoid damaging customer confidence...

Kurald Galain
2008-05-31, 07:51 AM
Read the Conjuration rules. A Conjuration prevents a hostile creature from entering it's square, unless otherwise stated by the Conjuration. It is also immune to attack.

A Mage hand is a conjuration. It thus prevents any enemies from entering it's square...

Except that a mage hand is a Transmutation...

Morandir Nailo
2008-05-31, 12:10 PM
Considering that magic items seem to be very adventuring-specific anymore, would an item empire really be worth it? I mean, assuming people would indeed want a Thundering Longsword, can enough people afford one to make such an enterprise worthwhile?

It's a great idea though. I can't believe that people have managed to completely break the new "Points of Light" setting's economy before the books are even out. Then again, I think 4e's really relying more on the "DM's call" style of play, making TO even more theoretical than it was in 3.x. Probably a good thing.

On a side note, I've been poking around and I see absolutely no guidelines for magic item creation anywhere. I know they wanted to get away from the item-fest that was 3.5, but you'd figure there would be a few guiding principles listed in the DMG for those of us who want a greater variety of items, especially wondrous items. Say for instance I want to convert the trusty ol' Hat of Disguise. What should it do, and what level should it be? No idea, because WotC didn't bother telling me. What gives?

Mor

Randel
2008-05-31, 01:34 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but wizards get the Ghost Sound cantrip which can be used at-will. It doesn't give visual illusions but you can make noises to distract guards, whisper words into someones ears that can only be heard by someone adjasent to the square you target, or target an object and make it say stuff. Only has a range of 10 squares but thats still pretty decent, plus you dan do it all day.

Find a few guards standing outside an entrance? Make it sound like a twig snaps on the other side of the woods and add whispers.

Feel like messing with people? have someones sword start talking to them and claim that its magic.

In an ambush? Target the air 50 feet up and send out a loud announcement "Captain Kilemall! We've found the bandits, circle the troops around and lets take em out"

Actually, work on any number of utility jobs. Send announcements through a building, sing songs at a concert, put together a puppet show, find some primitive tribe and claim to be the prophet of some god by making a voice come out of nowhere.

Target the enemy leaders head and make him say stupid stuff. Or alternativly throw in a bunch of loud mooing noises or bell sounds to interrupt him when he tries giving orders.

Have your own theme song play when you enter a room.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-31, 04:55 PM
I expect a fighter to be a better in combat character than a wizard (or most other characters). I expect a cleric to be better at buffing and healing than a wizard. I expect a ranger to be better at ranged combat than a wizard. I expect a rogue to be better at stealth than a wizard.

I expect a wizard to be better at doing odd, creative things. I expect a wizard to be the go to guy for one off and out of combat things.
Again QFT. The wizard did everything everyone else did better than anyone in 3.x, but looks like they are cutting out too much from them in 4e.

I hope wizards still get better at casting than others. People still need special feats and training to cast rituals if they are not full casters, right?

Gilead
2008-05-31, 09:49 PM
Yes, but when you're arbitrarily limiting I can't do something in a game with defined rules without precedent, I think that's a little different.

Besides, you can huff all you want, but by RAW this trick is workable. And in a discussion about optimization, not 'can you get away with it', that is what matters.

Or do you have the same display when people discuss Pun-Pun as well?
The spell says that you may add or remove 'objects', in common usage the term object is used to refer only to unliving and inanimate things only, that is why objectification is the act of treating people like they are a thing instead of people. Thus the spell cannot transport living creatures.

Edit: Looks like I was beaten to it when I skipped over reading the last two pages.

Solo
2008-05-31, 10:42 PM
The spell says that you may add or remove 'objects', in common usage the term object is used to refer only to unliving and inanimate things only, that is why objectification is the act of treating people like they are a thing instead of people. Thus the spell cannot transport living creatures.

Edit: Looks like I was beaten to it when I skipped over reading the last two pages.

One of abuses for the LSC loophole was to transport large amounts of objects between two places.

Like an army of animated objects, or merchandise.

FoE
2008-05-31, 10:48 PM
One of abuses for the LSC loophole was to transport large amounts of objects between two places.

I don't have a Player's Handbook yet, so forgive me, but what's the cost for casting the Leomund's Secret Chest ritual, in terms of time and GP?

@V: Ah, thank you.

Well, it is a little broken, but it's not exactly the cheesiest thing I've ever seen. Even if the wording technically doesn't restrict it, no DM is going to allow warehouse-sized chests, and so it's still financially unfeasible to ship large loads of freight using LSC.

In any case, it's a really useful spell in terms of not having to haul all the junk you MIGHT need on an adventure. Good on you, Fourth Ed.

Ryuuk
2008-05-31, 10:51 PM
^ 10 minutes and 140 gp per casting.


Again QFT. The wizard did everything everyone else did better than anyone in 3.x, but looks like they are cutting out too much from them in 4e.

I hope wizards still get better at casting than others. People still need special feats and training to cast rituals if they are not full casters, right?

They still have a spellbook which starts with 3 rituals, they also automatically learn 2 rituals every 5 levels and don't have to spend any extra feats to get the trained skills.

Aquillion
2008-05-31, 11:00 PM
Considering that magic items seem to be very adventuring-specific anymore, would an item empire really be worth it? I mean, assuming people would indeed want a Thundering Longsword, can enough people afford one to make such an enterprise worthwhile?Hmm... well, we haven't gotten very many magical items yet (I'm sure we'll get many more eventually), but even in the short list we have there are plenty that appear to have uses for non-adventurers.

Healing potions and the like are obvious, at least as long as you assume everyone has healing surges to use them (sort of weird otherwise...) A jar of Keoghtom's Ointment could be a business in and of itself. So could a feather boat.

Sending Stones could be extremely useful in a wide variety of applications.

A rope of climbing could be very useful in construction work, or for painters, or for anyone who needs to reach high places... much easier to carry around than a ladder.

Everyone likes a Handy Haversack, or bag of holding, and no travelling salesman would want to be without one.

Everlasting Provisions could be very nice for a number of uses.

Items that grant straight-out stat / skill bonuses would be popular, too. Who wouldn't want to be stronger, or tougher, or whatever? You don't have to be a hero to want that.

Dimensional Shackles? Anyone who runs a prison would want a pair.

Nightvision goggles? Too many uses to count.

Boots of Infinite Stride? Boods of Spider Climbing? Wavestrider Boots?

Portable Holes are just fun things to have around, although expensive enough that only high-class clientelle would probably buy them. Ditto for flying carpets. Anyone can enjoy a cloak of invisibility if they can afford it, though.

Anyone who employs a military or even basic guards will want magic weapons. And so on.

Morandir Nailo
2008-06-01, 12:51 AM
True enough, but the real question is whether or not all the effort of making and distributing and then selling those items is worth it in light of the fact that they're all incredibly expensive. I honestly don't think that your average commoner is going to have 5000 gp laying around for a magical backpack, much less 13,000gp for Keoghtom's Ointment. More than that actually, because you'd have to sell at a markup in order to make a profit. So your market is going to be incredibly small, typically limited to adventurers and Grand Poo-bahs. You might make a good profit selling to that small market, but if I had enough money/components laying around to make 10 Haversacks to sell, I'd much rather spend it on something else - like buying my own kingdom.

Mor

Thoughtbot360
2008-06-01, 01:04 AM
wizards should have been the out of combat guy.

So...do they cast their spells ritualistically? That is, would you prefer if all the wizards spells had a long casting time, but lots of effects that help the party do something they otherwise couldn't?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-01, 01:04 AM
True enough, but the real question is whether or not all the effort of making and distributing and then selling those items is worth it in light of the fact that they're all incredibly expensive. I honestly don't think that your average commoner is going to have 5000 gp laying around for a magical backpack, much less 13,000gp for Keoghtom's Ointment. More than that actually, because you'd have to sell at a markup in order to make a profit. So your market is going to be incredibly small, typically limited to adventurers and Grand Poo-bahs. You might make a good profit selling to that small market, but if I had enough money/components laying around to make 10 Haversacks to sell, I'd much rather spend it on something else - like buying my own kingdom.

Mor

Yes, but take communications. A single chest can hold hundreds, if not thousands, of letters. And with a single central location you can run a mail system easily.

Pick a big city as a central location. Then set up chests in all of the other cities and towns. Contract with the cities and towns for them to pay you 800 GP per month for weekly mail service, or 200 GP per month for monthly mail service, and guarantee delivery to any town with weekly service within 10 days and to any town with monthly service within 1 month. You have just become the fastest, safest, way for most people to send mail.

Now that you already have the chests you set up a mail order system. For a delivery fee of 250 gold per chest you will send anything they order from the city through. And with a shipping container sized chest you can send a lot at a time. A small town needs some new tools from the city? Then they send you a note at mail time along with the gold. You go and buy their goods and send them back.

And that is all before you think about sea crossings. You will deliver 1 chest full of goods from one side of the ocean to the other instantly and for less than it would cost to use a regular ship, with it also being safer.

And you don't really need lots of employees for most of that.

Congradulations, you have just eliminated most everything meaningful about the "points of light in the dark" idea of 4e.

greenknight
2008-06-01, 01:47 AM
And with a shipping container sized chest you can send a lot at a time.

While the size of a chest isn't defined in the 4e PHB, the equipment section specifys the weight of an empty chest to be 25lbs. Just what material are you using to make these shipping container sized chests, Tippy?


Congradulations, you have just eliminated most everything meaningful about the "points of light in the dark" idea of 4e

Seems more like the reason there's only points of light in the dark to me. Why would most people leave the citys/towns/etc into the dangerous areas when they can get everything they need right there?

Aquillion
2008-06-01, 02:00 AM
True enough, but the real question is whether or not all the effort of making and distributing and then selling those items is worth it in light of the fact that they're all incredibly expensive. I honestly don't think that your average commoner is going to have 5000 gp laying around for a magical backpack, much less 13,000gp for Keoghtom's Ointment. More than that actually, because you'd have to sell at a markup in order to make a profit. So your market is going to be incredibly small, typically limited to adventurers and Grand Poo-bahs. You might make a good profit selling to that small market, but if I had enough money/components laying around to make 10 Haversacks to sell, I'd much rather spend it on something else - like buying my own kingdom.

MorThat would be where your banking service comes in. You can collect gold from everyone everywhere in the entire world, store it and pay them interest, then extend lines of credit to people who want to buy important magical items to set up businesses. Sure, few peasants can afford even your 1000 gp bags of holding or your 520 gp belt of vigor, but I'll bet you can sell them to large numbers of lesser merchants on installment plans of about 20 gold a month for the next few years, say.

Also, as your central bank becomes more and more trusted, introduce a paper currency (technically, bank notes entitling the bearer to withdraw gold at the listed value, but include a clause limiting the rate at which it can be withdrawn to accomidate the limitations of your chests.) This will make your chests much more effective, since you can transport essentially unlimited cash in one go using those paper notes.

Up to this point, it could make an interesting campaign world (basically the start of 4th edition Eberron, really -- make a Dragonmark that casts LSC as its least power and you're in business.)

(If you want to get really silly, you can abuse the fact that magical item prices are fixed -- as the economy develops under your central bank's control, you debase the currency and induce inflation. Magical items still have fixed, absolute prices based on a resource -- reagents -- that is directly fixed to gold, while everything else is no longer fixed at all. So you just have to induce inflation until 13,000 gp is the cost of a loaf of bread, and you can then sell your magical items at absurd volume, making a small profit on each one. Even if the price of reagents goes up, who cares? The cost of rituals is fixed to the gold cost, not to the amount of reagent that gold buys. Obviously, this one is more theoretical...)

Thoughtbot360
2008-06-01, 02:06 AM
True enough, but the real question is whether or not all the effort of making and distributing and then selling those items is worth it in light of the fact that they're all incredibly expensive. I honestly don't think that your average commoner is going to have 5000 gp laying around for a magical backpack, much less 13,000gp for Keoghtom's Ointment. More than that actually, because you'd have to sell at a markup in order to make a profit. So your market is going to be incredibly small, typically limited to adventurers and Grand Poo-bahs. You might make a good profit selling to that small market, but if I had enough money/components laying around to make 10 Haversacks to sell, I'd much rather spend it on something else - like buying my own kingdom.

Mor

This is true. Demand runs Supply.

Speaking of which here's a cheap way to build your own kingdom, it just takes a while:

1) Clear out (So you don't have to build one yourself) an above ground fortress, like a dungeon. Ideally, one with fertile land surrounding it.
2) If you did step 1, you are probably going to want to do some renovating. Nothing fancy, just make sure the thousand-year old walls are reinforced and therefore aren't gonna fall apart on you during the next raining season. Also make sure to get a kitchen, armory, sleeping quarters, all the things your lazy GM forgot to put in himself.
3) Hire Mercenaries (Bandits and Monsters do just fine, though)/Stockpile sufficient food rations to support yourself and your army for a year and a half (you only need a year's supply of food, but the excess is just in case of an emergency or slow process)
4) Offer peasants from the surrounding kingdoms to live in your territory for a lower tax/tribute rate than they are usually paying. As long as they bring enough food to feed themselves through the first farming cycle that is. (Hey, you are hoping for a self-sustaining workforce. Don't worry, they usually do.)
5) Watch out for some greedy King/Noble to notice the mass migration from his kingdom into yours and follow up by sending his army to seize your holdings and taxbase. If you survive this invasion, you might be able to sign a treaty that recognizes you are the rightful ruler of your new kingdom in exchange for something (hopefully) reasonable.

Even if you fail, the roleplaying XP would have to be phenomenal.

Aquillion
2008-06-01, 02:29 AM
This is true. Demand runs Supply.

Speaking of which here's a cheap way to build your own kingdom, it just takes a while:

1) Clear out (So you don't have to build one yourself) an above ground fortress, like a dungeon. Ideally, one with fertile land surrounding it.
2) If you did step 1, you are probably going to want to do some renovating. Nothing fancy, just make sure the thousand-year old walls are reinforced and therefore aren't gonna fall apart on you during the next raining season. Also make sure to get a kitchen, armory, sleeping quarters, all the things your lazy GM forgot to put in himself.
3) Hire Mercenaries (Bandits and Monsters do just fine, though)/Stockpile sufficient food rations to support yourself and your army for a year and a half (you only need a year's supply of food, but the excess is just in case of an emergency or slow process)
4) Offer peasants from the surrounding kingdoms to live in your territory for a lower tax/tribute rate than they are usually paying. As long as they bring enough food to feed themselves through the first farming cycle that is. (Hey, you are hoping for a self-sustaining workforce. Don't worry, they usually do.)
5) Watch out for some greedy King/Noble to notice the mass migration from his kingdom into yours and follow up by sending his army to seize your holdings and taxbase. If you survive this invasion, you might be able to sign a treaty that recognizes you are the rightful ruler of your new kingdom in exchange for something (hopefully) reasonable.

Even if you fail, the roleplaying XP would have to be phenomenal.I don't see this one working.

First... How exactly do you intend to go around making offers to peasants? Are you going to go door-to-door? They don't exactly have a radio or a TV in every house you can broadcast advertisements on (unless you set up a newspaper or something using the ideas I described above, in which case why are you fiddling around with peasants? You're much more powerful as the world's central bank.) There's simply no way to communicate to large numbers of peasants at all (the very very limited communations that do exist will be firmly in the grip of the king you're trying unsubtly to undermine, who is unlikely to cooperate.) Even if you find a way, the king is going to stop you now, as soon as you act. Rabble-rousers (which is what you'd be seen as) get killed on sight.

And how exactly do you expect to get the peasants to trust you? You're asking them to leave their homes and everything they know, then move into the dark monster-filled wilderness where they will be protected by the small number of troops you hired, in a state of constant war against the monstrous region you've set up shop in. Why would any sane peasant agree to this? Lower taxes aren't exactly worth their life. The first time you fail to repel a monster invasion, your peasants will flee madly (the few that were stupid enough to take you up on it in the first place, that is.) Do you really expect that any peasant will be willing to abandon the farm his family worked for generations and the stable life he's known since he was born to live in wilderness that they all think (correctly) to be filled with dangerous monsters? Do you expect anyone to raise their family under such conditions?

Sure, some peasants might grumble if the taxes or tribute they're expected to pay is too high, but most people don't find taxes that important. They have thousands of other day-to-day concerns in their life, and they're not going to drop their life and move into the orc-infested wilderness just because you offered them a slightly lower tax burden. Would you move to another country just to pay slightly lower taxes? Would you move to an unstable country filled with violent rioters and open warfare, where you could be killed at any time? This is basically the deal you're offering them, and it's a really, really bad one.

How exactly do you hope to set up farms, anyway? You can't just magically make the land fertile, you know (well, not anymore. I'm sure there's a spell to do that in 3.5, but it's not like any high-level spellcaster would fiddle around with a piddling kingdom back then anyway.) Trying to turn wilderness into farms is massively-hard, backbreaking labor even when it isn't infested with monsters. You certainly aren't going to convince the peasants to do it -- why should they leave the relatively comfortable, established life in a civilized area that they know to perform backbreaking labor building a farm for, basically, you?

Oh, and those taxes the other kings are charging? They're not just setting the gold on fire, you know. They're spending it on all sorts of things -- roads, guards, you know, all the parts of civilization that you don't have at all because you're out in the wilderness and which you'll never be able to construct because you're not collecting decent taxes. Oh, and armies. They're also spending it on armies, partially to keep some wiseguy rabble-rouser from doing exactly what you're doing (well, not exactly what you're doing, because nobody would be mad enough to try and set up shop and raise a family in the monster-infested wilderness. But the point is, these are you-killing armies of the sort that 4th-edition characters don't have abilities to fight.) Good luck with that. I'm sure your PC's ability to hit five or six times more fast than the low-level troops is going to make a huge difference when your army (which you can't support with taxes) is outnumbered a thousand to one.

Most of the stable kingdoms in the world will have taxation rates set for a reason, and if you try to drastically undermine those rates you're going to end up paying for it one way or the other. Yes, it's convenient to imagine a fat greedy king taxing the peasants to death and eating all the gold, but a king like that isn't going to stay king for long. In an actual kingdom (one that isn't about to collapse from mismanagement, anyway), the tribute will be what's feeding the army, the gold will be getting spent, and most of it makes its way back into the country's economy in one way or another.

Now, you could theoretically spend the money you earn from adventuring to raise the necessary army, to pay people to turn the wilderness into civilization, and so on, all without having to tax anyone. But then it's not exactly a 'cheap' kingdom, is it? It's a vanity project you're sinking money you need for adventuring into, and you could just as easily skip the whole 'offer the peasants slightly lower taxes to come get murdered in their beds by orcs' thing and just hire an army to seize some existing kingdom as your own.

FoE
2008-06-01, 02:39 AM
Here's a couple problems with your theory, Tippy. One, you're forgetting that the GP cost for all rituals is only the value assigned to the components of the spell. And while we don't know what the spell components for LSC are, for 140 gp, I'm going to venture a guess that it's a little harder to get than, say, chicken eggs. Given that it's magic spells we're talking about here, let's assume that the ingredients are a little more exotic, like the ground-up horn of a minotaur.

Creating a mass LSC system is probably going to mean those components will get harder and harder to find because you're wiping out all the minotaurs, causing the price to go higher and higher. I'm not even considering the possibility of competition, which complicates the situation even further. And yes, there is "residuum," but as the description for rituals state, this is generally not available on the open market.

And in any case, while it may be "safer" than shipping freight, LSC isn't necessarily less expensive than shipping freight by merchant vessel, if you consider how large most ship holds are versus the size of your average treasure chest.

But OK, let's just talk about sending letters. Again, your "chest mail" example ignores the reality of the 4E world in assuming letters were, or even could be, the main mode of communication. Most of the common folk in medieval settings don't know how to read and write, Tippy, and most of them spent their lives rooted in the same spot, unless some tyrant came along and pushed them out of their lands. So who would they send letters to? Most of their family and friends are in the area. This is going to be even more the case in 4E, given the inherent dangers in travelling.

But then there are those who do know the written word well — nobles, merchants and so on. Since they are richer folks, however, why not cast their own LSC spells? Or use the other means of long-distance communication open to them? It's not as though they have to be wizards to cast the spell.

Look, I'm sure the spell is utilized quite frequently, I just don't think it "breaks" 4E like you assume it does.


Congratulations, you have just eliminated most everything meaningful about the "points of light in the dark" idea of 4e.

Except for the vast tracts of wilderness, the hordes of ravening monsters in the various planes, and the evil gods and world-killing abominations that threaten to unmake existence. But you know, who cares about them? :smalltongue:

Kompera
2008-06-02, 05:51 AM
My group have used all of these [three examples of spells cast] in the last three sessions.
No, they did not. Your group watched Batman use a spell to overcome an obstacle. Their presence was not needed, nor did they contribute anything. If this is not the perfect example of why a new edition is welcomed by many, I'm not sure what could illustrate the point better.

Who wants to watch a single player beat the game while they look on as a spectator? Full casters in 3.x are too powerful, both in and out of combat, and they break the game.

Griffin131
2008-06-07, 11:01 AM
While the size of a chest isn't defined in the 4e PHB, the equipment section specifys the weight of an empty chest to be 25lbs. Just what material are you using to make these shipping container sized chests, Tippy?

The same thing that Colossal creatures use.

Edea
2008-06-07, 06:18 PM
Question: How many times can a character re-master a certain ritual?

The rest is spoilered, since I don't know if it makes any sense or not and it's tl;dr. Long story short: WotC, please provide specifications on the following:

*Size/qualities of the chest made by the ritual, and yes, it -should- be irrespective of the Size of the caster.
*Whether or not the ritual tied to the creation of a chest is needed to call that specific chest.
*Specify what happens when living things are put inside of it/engage in transportation.


I think you only get to make a chest when you master the LSC ritual (making a scroll of LSC utterly worthless, unless it's keyed to the same chest as the ritual it's scribed from that you already mastered), and apparently creating/copying it to another book doesn't count as "re-mastering" it ("If you're copying a ritual that you -haven't- already mastered, the time taken to copy it enables you to master it" and "If you gained a ritual by creating its book yourself or obtaining it as a class feature, you've already mastered it").

In fact, if using a ritual scroll of LSC you -found- instead of created, it might actually call back the treasure chest tied to the ritual the creator mastered himself. After all, you can't master a ritual from a ritual scroll, and since you only get a chest linked to the ritual by mastering it, what other good would the scroll do besides...well, see the paragraph after the next one? That's actually a pretty neat way to award treasures, I think. The rules don't say, though.

Anyway, to "re-master" it, you'd have to buy a brand-new ritual book, with the ritual inside of it, AND get rid of your old ritual book, right? But then what about the chest you created with the previous ritual? You have to perform that ritual to get the chest to come back, but you got rid of that ritual's book in order to "re-master" the ritual. This is where the rules are very unclear; can you, in fact, recall a chest that is not linked to the LSC ritual you've currently mastered?

If you can, that means ANY being with that ritual mastered, can call absolutely ANY chest ever made, anytime, in five minutes. In fact, "you can store the chest wherever you like" and it can still be summoned back. A target chest can even be summoned while it's still hopping from one place to another (hey, it's 'wherever'). That would be hilarious; you summon 'your' treasure chest to you, hop inside, only to be dropped off right in front of Orcus's throne after HE decided to summon said chest there, and deigned simply to never send it back.

Also, what's this "object with personal meaning?" How do you determine what has "personal" meaning? That could be a grain of sand from an infinite beach, or it could be an entire cathedral. Does the DM determine it for you?

Also, you can have a chest "commissioned." Definition: pay someone else to "make" it. How do you define "make" if we don't know the exact specifications of what the chest is?

Obviously the -intent- is to cobble/nail together/forge the pieces from wood, iron, and silver into a familiar kind of box about 27 cubic feet in volume (3 ft x 3 ft x 3 ft).

BUT, couldn't I easily "commission" an evil entity to "make" a living creature (by...creative methods, obviously) and turn THAT into the treasure chest?
Hello, Summon Colossal Angry Rampaging Entity (SCARE).

Depending on the level, maybe even "make" simply involves placing the correct "arcane sigils" on a given surface, and imbuing that surface with this "object of personal value." Like, say, the entire city of Greyhawk. Now summon it...over a huge gorge.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 06:38 PM
No, they did not.

Yes they did. Unlike your apparent view of the game dynamics, on our table, we work as a team.


Your group watched Batman

No they didn't. Batman was not present. Please do not use a specific build to lump everything that you don't like about 3e into one, conveniently packaged, 'I HAET THIS!!!1!'.


use a spell to overcome an obstacle.

Yeah. Shame on them for not using a unique class feature to ... oh wait.


Their presence was not needed, nor did they contribute anything.

Actually, when all anyone can really do is just spam 2d6+attribute modifier at everything that they see, I don't think that anyone's presence is needed. Why not play Snakes and Ladders instead? Or go home, and play WoW? I'm sure that an 'optimal action algorithm' can be found that runs players' characters for them, so that they can do other stuff while their characters act in perfect coherence and unity.


If this is not the perfect example of why a new edition is welcomed by many, I'm not sure what could illustrate the point better.


A new edition. Right. So, instead of some classes saying 'I use a spell in an imaginative way', it is now every class saying 'I hit the paper for 3d6 damage'. Y'know, that doesn't exactly seem like a step forward - at least to my blinkered, 4e-phobic eyes. Also, to rectify the general tide of 'NO U FALACY!' that goes on in the forums, you just used an Ad Populum fallacy. Sorta.



Who wants to watch a single player beat the game while they look on as a spectator? Full casters in 3.x are too powerful, both in and out of combat, and they break the game.

BAWWW, some classes have more room for creativity than others. I know, let's remove all such creativity from the game, so everyone's on a level playing field! That sounds like a great plan!

tl;dr - be right more.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 07:00 PM
BAWWW, some classes have more room for creativity than others. I know, let's remove all such creativity from the game, so everyone's on a level playing field! That sounds like a great plan!


Honestly, after the complete idiocy of 3.5 full casters a level playing field is a welcome change.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:04 PM
Honestly, after the complete idiocy of 3.5 full casters a level playing field is a welcome change.

It seems a little petty - 'some characters, with a little imagination, could do interesting and creative stuff. This was idiotic. Let's remove all such capabilities, from everyone! That'll make everything good!'

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 07:07 PM
It seems a little petty - 'some characters, with a little imagination, could do interesting and creative stuff. This was idiotic. Let's remove all such capabilities, from everyone! That'll make everything good!'

The rituals listed in the book are begging for book after book expanding their capabilities. There will be room for tons of creativity when they come out, or hell, you can homebrew conversion for every non-combat spell in the 3.5 PhB to transform into a ritual. Problem solved!

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:18 PM
The rituals listed in the book are begging for book after book expanding their capabilities. There will be room for tons of creativity when they come out, or hell, you can homebrew conversion for every non-combat spell in the 3.5 PhB to transform into a ritual. Problem solved!

Y, halo thar, list of 3.5e rituals that were released in the initial printing! (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm) (yeah, there's a lot of combat spells in there too. Still far more utility).

Also, rituals are undeniably a second focus for a character, with their high cost. What if I want to play a handyman?

Artanis
2008-06-07, 07:22 PM
It seems a little petty - 'some characters, with a little imagination, could do interesting and creative stuff while everybody else was ineffective and/or boring. This was idiotic. Let's remove all such capabilities, from everyone! That'll make everything good!'
Fixed it for ya

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:23 PM
Fixed it for ya

Good to know that now everyone's boring, so no-one feels left out playing a stultifying game of chess + see how quickly you can roll a total of 200 using only two dice.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 07:27 PM
Y, halo thar, list of 3.5e rituals that were released in the initial printing! (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm) (yeah, there's a lot of combat spells in there too. Still far more utility).

I think you may be just linking the complete list of spells. Not sure what you mean with that.

The combat capabilities of a wizard are balanced with the other classes now. I think we can all recognize this is good for DnD as a game.


Also, rituals are undeniably a second focus for a character, with their high cost. What if I want to play a handyman?

As the ritual system stands they'll mostly get used by Clerics and Wizards and everyone else can get them if they want to take the feats. Thats not a problem at all. The time component isn't a big deal, and if you think that magic should be easy and cheap for everyone then lose the gp cost.

Heck, make a line of feats that reduces the cost of rituals by 25, 50, 75% so if you want to be a ritualist then there you go.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 07:29 PM
Good to know that now everyone's boring, so no-one feels left out playing a stultifying game of chess + see how quickly you can roll a total of 200 using only two dice.

EVERYONE IS BORING? Did you -ever- play a fighter before? Every round you move and attack. Sometimes you use Power Attack. Sometimes you stand still and attack twice. 4th ed is a million times better for any non-casting class, the casting classes have their combat capabilities balanced, and the out of combat capabilities are inherantly available to casters and available with effort to non-casters. Why are you complaining?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:37 PM
I think you may be just linking the complete list of spells. Not sure what you mean with that.

Look at the list. Look at all the things that can be done in 3.5e that can't in 4e.


The combat capabilities of a wizard are balanced with the other classes now. I think we can all recognize this is good for DnD as a game.

Yep.

[QUOTE]As the ritual system stands they'll mostly get used by Clerics and Wizards and everyone else can get them if they want to take the feats. Thats not a problem at all. The time component isn't a big deal, and if you think that magic should be easy and cheap for everyone then lose the gp cost.

Heck, make a line of feats that reduces the cost of rituals by 25, 50, 75% so if you want to be a ritualist then there you go.

Still restrictive. What, you mean I want to be able to use magic in a more innovative way. Huh, I guess not. Still, it should give me something to waste my feats on; there's little else of much interest.


EVERYONE IS BORING? Did you -ever- play a fighter before? Every round you move and attack. Sometimes you use Power Attack. Sometimes you stand still and attack twice. 4th ed is a million times better for any non-casting class, the casting classes have their combat capabilities balanced, and the out of combat capabilities are inherantly available to casters and available with effort to non-casters. Why are you complaining?

I'm not faulting the combat system; I'm well aware that it's a very well-made game of chess with more moving and numbers.

However, what annoys me is that now there is very little outside combat. Have you read the ritual list? It's not what I'd call extensive.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 07:41 PM
I couldn't agree more. It's sparse. But it doesn't have to be, just take a spell you want from the 3.5 list, and then make an appropriate ritual. Talk to your ST about level and cost and you're done. Then when the Book of Rituals for 4th Edition comes out, you can buy it and chuckle at how close or far you were from what the actual release looks like.

If you and your ST think that rituals being free is ok, do that.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 07:46 PM
Illiterate, have you actually played the game?! I can't imagine someone finding 4E combat boring, not compared to 3E combat. It really is fun.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:54 PM
I couldn't agree more. It's sparse. But it doesn't have to be, just take a spell you want from the 3.5 list, and then make an appropriate ritual.

Right; but that isn't 4e.


Illiterate, have you actually played the game?! I can't imagine someone finding 4E combat boring, not compared to 3E combat. It really is fun.

Yes, and 'have you played the game' appears to be the new version of 'you obviously haven't read my post', a way of just dismissing someone's opinion. What with people having the books now, it won't really cut it, since you might, :smalleek:, be arguing against someone who has played.

When I played, yeah, combat felt interesting; it was probably a better-made abstraction of the way that it would really play out than 3e.

Outside combat though; terminally. Dull. I can has imaginative way of solving problem? No.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 08:02 PM
I can has imaginative way of solving problem? No.

Your statment only holds true if your idea of creativity is picking a spell from a list and then casting it so your problem goes away.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:10 PM
Your statment only holds true if your idea of creativity is picking a spell from a list and then casting it so your problem goes away.

Well, any solution will involve using a thing so the problem goes away, but are you seriously saying that you've never used spells for unusual purposes before?

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 08:21 PM
Well, any solution will involve using a thing so the problem goes away, but are you seriously saying that you've never used spells for unusual purposes before?

Of course I have. If I wanted to do it in 4th ed, I'd just have to create the ritual first. Its hardly a big deal in the face of the so very much else that is done right.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:25 PM
I'd rather that that - in my opinion, a fairly large section of the game - was done right. If we have to house-rule it back to 3.5 style, then ... that's indicative of their relative strengths.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 08:28 PM
Translation: You want Magic doing everything back. Check, and stick to 3.5.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:29 PM
Translation: You want Magic doing everything back. Check, and stick to 3.5.

You have it the wrong way round.

I want everything to be doable again.

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 08:30 PM
I'd rather that that - in my opinion, a fairly large section of the game - was done right. If we have to house-rule it back to 3.5 style, then ... that's indicative of their relative strengths.

Its a very, very small aspect of the game. All that casting stuff was available to 3 classes in the core (Sorcerors do not count).

Personally, I think that magic should be hard. It should cost money, take time to do, and generally not be an easy solution. When you find a spell (read: ritual) that suits the situation, then it becomes worth it. But just chucking spells around all the time cheapens magic as a storytelling device.

edit: added "all the time" for clarity

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:41 PM
Its a very, very small aspect of the game. All that casting stuff was available to 3 classes in the core (Sorcerors do not count).

Eh, maybe just different styles.


Personally, I think that magic should be hard.

Setting dependent. Also, this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm)?


It should cost money, take time to do, and generally not be an easy solution.

The application is what makes it the hard solution. Also, again - not all worlds are like that.


But just chucking spells around all the time cheapens magic as a storytelling device.

How? How more than any other device?

TomTheRat
2008-06-07, 08:44 PM
Eh, maybe just different styles.

Thats fair, but you're still not addressing the fact that most players do not have access to the spells anyway.



Setting dependent.

This is true. If you're playing a high magic setting then drop the costs in the PhB4.

Kompera
2008-06-07, 09:44 PM
Yes they did. Unlike your apparent view of the game dynamics, on our table, we work as a team.
Nothing in your post suggested anything of the sort. There were things that needed doing, and only the Wizard did them. That's not team work, so my description stands: Your group watched Batman use a spell to overcome an obstacle.


No they didn't. Batman was not present. Please do not use a specific build to lump everything that you don't like about 3e into one, conveniently packaged, 'I HAET THIS!!!1!'.
I'll use that build when I see it cited. You described the Wizard solving every problem, and you did not describe any of the other players doing anything at all, much less solving any problems. Looks a lot like the batman Wizard to me.
And please, stop with the 'I HAET THIS!!!1!' hysteria. I said nothing of the sort. The game I'm currently playing in is 3.5 rules, so obviously I don't hate it. That must be your new way of saying "obviously you haven't read my post."


Actually, when all anyone can really do is just spam 2d6+attribute modifier at everything that they see, I don't think that anyone's presence is needed. Why not play Snakes and Ladders instead? Or go home, and play WoW? I'm sure that an 'optimal action algorithm' can be found that runs players' characters for them, so that they can do other stuff while their characters act in perfect coherence and unity.If you want to think that in 4e all any character is capable of doing is "spam 2d6+attribute modifier at everything that they see", that's ok by me. But you asserting it does not make it so.


A new edition. Right. So, instead of some classes saying 'I use a spell in an imaginative way', it is now every class saying 'I hit the paper for 3d6 damage'. Y'know, that doesn't exactly seem like a step forward - at least to my blinkered, 4e-phobic eyes. Also, to rectify the general tide of 'NO U FALACY!' that goes on in the forums, you just used an Ad Populum fallacy. Sorta.No, I did not. Be right more.


BAWWW, some classes have more room for creativity than others. I know, let's remove all such creativity from the game, so everyone's on a level playing field! That sounds like a great plan!
Casting a spell is not creativity. Using a spell to do exactly what the spell description says it will do is not creativity, no more than swinging a sword is creativity. Both are simply exercises of class features.

Again, if you want to think that all creativity has been removed from the game, that's ok by me. But it doesn't make it so.
Be right more.

With less spells there will be less options for spell casters. So what. In a game of imagination you'll need to exercise it more to overcome game challenges, rather than pulling out spell X for situation Y and calling it a day.

What you're really crying about is the loss of the hundreds of spells which broke balance and made the game not as much fun for anyone not playing a full casting class. And that's fine. But don't try to assert that your creativity is hampered by your character's spell list being smaller, because that is not a supportable position. That would be like saying that your Fighter's creativity is hampered because his sword broke, or your Rogue's creativity was hampered by the loss of his thieves tools, or your Cleric's creativity was impaired by the theft of his Holy Symbol. Creativity is separate from what your character can do. It comes from you, not your character.

Suzuro
2008-06-07, 10:06 PM
Also, to rectify the general tide of 'NO U FALACY!' that goes on in the forums, you just used an Ad Populum fallacy. Sorta.

Aye, it may be true, but oftentimes, combating a fallacy with further fallacies does not, necessarily, prove your point, take the quote below this for example.


BAWWW, some classes have more room for creativity than others. I know, let's remove all such creativity from the game, so everyone's on a level playing field! That sounds like a great plan!

Here, is an Ad Hoc fallacy, you assume that, since wizards (Or any spellcasting class, really) was more 'versatile' or 'dynamic' that they took away that ability. But, simply because they were versatile from being broken (Now, I'm not accusing you of using cheese, nor anyone else, I'm just saying...) so they took them away. Now, saying this is like saying "Every other state came before Alaska, so Alaska isn't wanted in the US."

Yes...I know I'm just Canadia's hat...


-Suzuro

Temp.
2008-06-07, 10:33 PM
Please do not use a specific build
When did Batman become a "specific build"? It is usually used as a description of the Wizard class, I thought.

Nothing in your post suggested anything of the sort. There were things that needed doing, and only the Wizard did them. That's not team work, so my description stands: Your group watched Batman use a spell to overcome an obstacle.Or his group was made out of players who recognized the difficulties in the system and chose the classes with real options (skillmonkeys, magic users), allowing everyone to directly participate?

Or the entire group was active in the planning process and Batman was just the one to walk through the motions?

Or the group was directly involved in setting the Wizard to set off his spells? Yes, that would mean they are dedicating their time to make things easier for the Wizard, but that's hardly different from the Wizard helping the party scout with an Invisibility spell or the party tank with an Enlarge.

I just don't follow the reasoning behind the jump from "my party used three spells last game" to "only one player in the group got to participate."

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-07, 10:35 PM
The fussing in this thread is to be expected. In fact, it's a natural thing, and the fact that it's happening is a good thing.

Yes, I said it: it's a good thing.

It's something you learn from MMOs: when a particular class that is blatantly, grossly overpowered finally eats the nerf bat, the people who play that class and either deliberately chose it for its overpowered abilities or had gotten so used to being able to do overpowered things that they came to think of their level of power as "normal" invariably pitch a fit over it. The former group is upset because they can't easily "pwn" everyone anymore, and the latter group is upset because their perception of what is normal has genuinely been twisted all of proportion, and being suddenly forced to adapt and overcome at a significantly harder level of difficulty like the rest of the mere mortals around them is very jarring for them.

Look at the complaining about there being no "problem solving" out of combat anymore because wizards are no longer "versatile" there. Mostly, it centers around an assumption that it's actually normal to be able to say, "Oh, sure, no problem; I'll just cast X, and we're good" anytime any conceivable out-of-combat situation that might need handling arises. It's a case of confusing "batting all challenges deftly away with one of a kajillion spells that can cover anything imaginable" with actual problem solving, which in fact is a very different animal altogether. Those of us who didn't really play casters very much already know this because we've been doing our problem solving without Batman's utility belt for quite some time.

So why is it a good thing that there's fussing in this thread? Simple: when a nerf is actually severe enough to balance a grossly overpowered class, the backlash of complaints is inevitable. Hence, it follows that if some people (but not all people) are complaining, then we may have gotten somewhere worthwhile.

Aquillion
2008-06-07, 11:24 PM
The fussing in this thread is to be expected. In fact, it's a natural thing, and the fact that it's happening is a good thing.

Yes, I said it: it's a good thing.

It's something you learn from MMOs: when a particular class that is blatantly, grossly overpowered finally eats the nerf bat, the people who play that class and either deliberately chose it for its overpowered abilities or had gotten so used to being able to do overpowered things that they came to think of their level of power as "normal" invariably pitch a fit over it. The former group is upset because they can't easily "pwn" everyone anymore, and the latter group is upset because their perception of what is normal has genuinely been twisted all of proportion, and being suddenly forced to adapt and overcome at a significantly harder level of difficulty like the rest of the mere mortals around them is very jarring for them.

Look at the complaining about there being no "problem solving" out of combat anymore because wizards are no longer "versatile" there. Mostly, it centers around an assumption that it's actually normal to be able to say, "Oh, sure, no problem; I'll just cast X, and we're good" anytime any conceivable out-of-combat situation that might need handling arises. It's a case of confusing "batting all challenges deftly away with one of a kajillion spells that can cover anything imaginable" with actual problem solving, which in fact is a very different animal altogether. Those of us who didn't really play casters very much already know this because we've been doing our problem solving without Batman's utility belt for quite some time.

So why is it a good thing that there's fussing in this thread? Simple: when a nerf is actually severe enough to balance a grossly overpowered class, the backlash of complaints is inevitable. Hence, it follows that if some people (but not all people) are complaining, then we may have gotten somewhere worthwhile.While I usually disagree with the "4th edition = MMORPG!" argument, I do think that your post is a representation of one way in which 4th edition development was regrettably driven by MMORPG thinking (a line of thinking which -- while I like 4th edition overall -- I think has definitely been a bad thing for it.) I don't think your reasoning is applicable to pen-and-paper RPGs at all, though WotC made the same mistake you did.

The thing is that not all players are powergamers. It isn't necessary for every class or every character concept to be equally powerful; it is merely necessary for each one to be uniquely useful (in that they should all have a useful and unique role at all times, or nearly all times.) The 3rd edition rogue is a good example of this -- while people like to talk about theoretical ways to substitute magic for their ability (in the same way that you can bash a door down instead of picking the lock), it's very hard to completely substitute for things like Listen, Spot, Sense Motive, and so on, while other rogue features work even better with other class abilities (Sneak Attack benefits from tanks to flank and invisibility / concealment from magic; move silently makes invisibility even better; and so on.)

A rogue should not be powerful as a wizard (or as a Barbarian, for that matter.) A rogue should have their own thing, but when I roll up a rogue I do not think any reasonable, non-"MMORPG-minded" player is seriously going to expect to do more damage than a raging barbarian or a wizard's fireball.*

Instead, the rogue should have their own thing -- something completely separate from the raging brutal damage of a barbarian or the ostentatious magic of the wizard.

Now, I don't think that 4th edition screwed up the rogue, mind you -- but I think that the kind of mentality you expressed in your post screwed up the wizard.

If you want to play something 'powerful' in the conventional sense, of course you should need a 'powerful' character concept. And not every powerful concept needs to be arcane; the ToB, say, was a good example of how to offer powerful martial classes

But not everyone has to be powerful. Not everybody cares about being powerful. MMORPGs are made for powergamers, so everyone gets carefully-calibrated, mathematically precise power in a clearly-established role, mildly refluffed for flavor. Personally, I've always found those excessively-balanced systems to be completely dull; in order to achieve balance, you end up stripping out a large amount of what makes the game interesting. That isn't how pen and paper RPGs should work; at least, that isn't how I play them.

In a pen-and-paper RPG, the focus should not be on making everyone equally powerful, but on keeping players from getting bored -- on ensuring that everyone has something to do at all times.

Now, 3rd edition failed that on several counts. (They almost managed it for the rogue, though -- a well-made rogue rarely has to be completely useless, although the restrictions on sneak attack are a close thing.) But I feel as if 4th edition was answering the wrong question... in this respect, it's been very much designed using a 'MMORPG mentality', with every class reducable to a mathematical formula that ensures that nobody is too different from anyone else in ways that could disrupt PVP balance or individual XP rate.

But those things aren't major concerns in a pen-and-paper RPG. They should have tried to develop interesting, distinct systems for the different classes, letting each one do their own thing; and to hell with balance, as long as everyone has something to do.

Kompera
2008-06-07, 11:28 PM
I just don't follow the reasoning behind the jump from "my party used three spells last game" to "only one player in the group got to participate."
Are you actually making it my fault that he only described what the Wizard did, and excluded any mention of what the rest of the players did?

I took the description at face value: An apt example of Batman overcoming all of the challenges facing the group. No need to mention anyone else, they were not necessary for the problem solving, because was all handled by spells.