373 – “Whaddayamean, he’s talkin’ about me?”

Like a lot of my fellow participants, I got a survey from Wizards of the Coast regarding the D&D Next Playtest. This one asked me to pick from about thirty choices which ten spells needed to be in D&D Next in order for it to “feel” like D&D. For every spell level and for both Wizard and Cleric. It was kind of tough to do; on the one hand, spells like Fireball and Cure Light Wounds need to be there, no question. On the other hand, do we need spells like Shillelagh and Guards and Wards? What do you folks think need to be in the next iteration of the game in order for it to feel like D&D to you? Mind you, I didn’t say “What would be super awesome to have?” What I mean is what would the game have to include to give you that unique D&D feel? Tasha’s Hideous Laughter? Wish? The Rod of Seven Parts? What do you think?

Have a good weekend, everyone,

~Rob

17 Comments

I think what needs to be done is to tell Wizards of the Coast to stop trying to make D&D into a tabletop MMO, which is what they tried to do with 4e. They are trying to hard to appeal to an audience that probably doesn’t much care, at the expense of the enjoyment of the loyal players. A good D&D game isn’t about the spells (yes, fireball and magic missle are classics, and I would have a hard time picturing a D&D game without them) it is about the and the feel the game projects.

The 4e rules to me were crap, I played it for about a month after it came out, then the group I was with made a nearly unanimous decision to go back to 3.5 (the only guy that disagreed argued that because 4e was the newest it is what we were supposed to play, like a good little corporate peon, and had no valid reasons as to why it was a preferable system). The way the 4e rules were configured did not encourage a realistic play-style, when the party is wounded, taking a 10 minute break will not instantly get rid of you’re injuries, the game lacked support for the creation of you’re own equipment, both mundane and magical.

4e also heavily limited your abilities to fight, I can use this ability an unlimited time per day, but not more than 1 time in a fight? I can understand having a few abilities like that, something that takes a large ammount of physical or mental exertion (the barbarian’s rage for example), but there is no reason that if someone knew how to do something, they couldn’t repeat it as many times as they needed to or were capable. (example, I am a mage, and can cast fireball three times a day, there should be no reason I can’t sling all three in the same fight if I want).

4e also heavily dumbed down the social skills, heavily reducing the Role-play aspect of a ROLE-PLAYING GAME.

Unless they plan to do a complete overhaul and drop the direction they were going with 4e, this next edition will still suck.

I know a druid who would cry if Shillelagh were taken out of the spell list. Shillelagh plus Bull’s Strength plus wildshape gorilla = MonkeySmash. At least for our currently level 6 party, he’s out-damaging my mage in most fights. Except for those times when there’s room for fireball. She’s been made to inform the party how many times she has that spell prepared every morning so everyone else knows when it’s safe to enter melee range. We’re still using a homebrew tweaked 3.5 so I can’t comment on 4e except by hearsay, but my preference is for a focus on long-term planning for complex campaigns as opposed to repeated dungeon crawls. If I want that, I’ll play Munchkin.

In terms of role playing the spells that get written off as useless/boring utility spells are some of the richest and most rewarding material for creative players and DMs.

Any idiot can throw a fireball at orcs. On the other hand Mending a doorknob that fell off, or using a spell to summon a screwdriver to screw it back on, and then opening the door to escape CERTAIN DOOM (TM) takes more from the DM and the players. In my experience it’s also usually more rewarding for everyone than playing than pure hack and slash.

In the older editions spell aquisition was a very chancy process unless you had a super nice DM. Forcing players away from a pure combat lineup of spells seems harsh at first glance and does create a certain amount of whining. However, against a player who was forced to learn how to role play a creative spell caster a mere flinger of fireballs is, well . . .

toast.

Personally I always liked the Bigby spells [though in our homebrew 2e world Bigby was walking around and created other spells as well] because they added a flavor just by their existence [separate from their use],…. Chromatic Orb was another that had flavor as well as use. Heck as a Druid Create/Destroy water was the bane of any armored minion [those with magical armor it was harder to do this to] just by soaking them [create water] and insuring the leather straps were well soaked ,..then removing the water [destroy water] caused the straps to constrict smaller than they had been before thereby impairing the minion,…..

10 spells? Oh, Where to begin? Explosive Runes, thatvwas always a favorite of mine. It needs to cone back- I had so much fun withbthat spell.

Keep them all… Keep them all and add more. Options are a good thing.

What the question is actually asking is “How little effort can we put into this, and how little creativity can we get away with so we can limit play to the level you see in a computer game that doesn’t need stuff like. . . Well. . . Anything not combat related?”

Pathetic. I just picked up a copy of the re-issue of the 1st edition books, and I’m in a game that is actually using them. Yes, the old rules had some issues, but the FLAVOR of the game was so much better!

Yeah, you folks looking at the playtest stuff at all there? Yeah, thought so. What they’re asking is what needs to be there for the right flavor – what you (or rather everyone who’s decided to give them a once over rather than complain from a distance) think needs to be in there.

We will see what happens to noncombats, as that is in deeper rules than the first playtest, but it is most certainly not, at this point, a simple grindfest of encounters.

Floating Disc. Moderate utility, but it’s a wonderful example of creative thinking. A Magic-User with Shield asks “What happens if I turn this spell flat?”

Eh. I always played with 2nd edition AD&D rules. We just chopped them up where they didn’t make any sense and smoothed things out to make them enjoyable. One of the joys of that was spell research. If you didn’t like what was in the back of the PHB, screw it, make up your own.

Exactly. Over the years, that is what people have done. They want to limit you to 10 spells? Seriously, WHY? So that spells can be cast using the 1 thriugh 0 keys? Oh, wait, this isn’ a computer game, it just looks like one. Over the years, players have developed HUNDREDS of spells. If they weren’t needed, why would they?

The computer games were originally designed to simulate the role playing games. Never forget that.

I don’t have the time right now to partake in the very lively (and from the looks rather one-sided, although I do mostly agree with that side) argument regarding the directions D&D has gone in recent years (although I do dislike how with 3 and 3.5 you have Magic Missile and Missile Swarm, as they cap the number of missiles you can create, I miss the old AD&D rules where there wasn’t a cap so the basic Magic Missile could effectively create an enormous swarm of missiles, and there are a few other spells that got changed like that) and just comment that I’ve finally finished going through the archives and this is a great comic. I’ve bookmarked it and I’m looking forward to see where things continue to go.

Okay, I’ve finally had a chance to read through all of the comments regarding this ‘questionaire’ that everyone’s been making. Unless support/utility/role play spells are going to be separate from the combat spells just asking the question of which 10 Wizard/Sorcerer, 10 Cleric, 10 Druid, and 10 Bard (there are a few differences between Bard and Wizard/Sorcerer spell lists) I’d want would be enough for me to tell them where to shove their new ideas. That barely leaves you with 1 spell per school per level (and certain schools were mostly non-damage dealing spells at that) for the Wizards, and to me one of the defining characteristics of D&D has been the massive selection of spells that exist in the setting. Admittedly I haven’t seen any of the playtest rules and such, but after hearing that they are even asking that question I think I can write off ever giving the next version a play and just stick with 3.5 instead.

any of the terrain spells need to be reevaluated we had to practically ban icy terrain the last time played version4 they really only work if all your party is long distance, otherwise your putting your short range at risk.
Spells tat should definitely stay are magic missle and burning hand effective and classic
(but why just 10 it seems a little small to group all spells for all classes and expect someone to pull out just ten they want to keep)

Does it really say ’10 total from all classes and schools and levels’, or does it say ‘ten from a pool of thirty for Wizards and Clerics’ …? Reading comprehension, get some!

… not to mention it doesn’t necessarily correlate to, ‘only these ten will be used EVER’ … It could just as easily be a simple matter of ‘which spells CAN’T we get rid of if we decide some need to be pruned?’

@APStorm: It was ten spells PER LEVEL, per class.

Oteluke’s spheres
Phillip’s returning fireball
Tasha’s laugh
Zagby’s summon exploding rabid chickens
Oh wait, I need to just use normal spells, not my own creations huh?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MeatShield by Rob Chambers

Bi-Weekly D&D-style Fantasy Hijinks!

373 – “Whaddayamean, he’s talkin’ about me?”