Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[Gromnir]

is virtually no spell or ability that is complete removed from combat applications.

 

*cough*nystulsmagicaura*cough*

 

 

 

...

 

am not sure that you know what that spell does. we were moments ago talking 'bout the power o' divinations relative to combat. therefore, a spell that likewise obscures the properties o' your magic stuff...

 

is one o' the few low level spells that w finds more effective at high levels. doesn't do a very good job o' tricking foes into believing that you got non-magic stuff, but is excellent at misleading folks into thinking that your magic stuff is less powerful or at least different. is therefore more useful 'gainst those folks who has some method for discovering the attributes o' your combat gear... which is typical not low level foes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

am not sure that you know what that spell does. we were moments ago talking 'bout the power o' divinations relative to combat. therefore, a spell that likewise obscures the properties o' your magic stuff...

 

is one o' the few low level spells that w finds more effective at high levels. doesn't do a very good job o' tricking foes into believing that you got non-magic stuff, but is excellent at misleading folks into thinking that your magic stuff is less powerful or at least different. is therefore more useful 'gainst those folks who has some method for discovering the attributes o' your combat gear... which is typical not low level foes.

 

dude, you must have had one nazi DM if your opponents were not only sitting in wait but actively casting divinations to check out your gear ahead of time.

 

either that or you PvPed a lot.

Edited February 26, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

mostly Gromnir is the nazi dm. at mid to high levels, d&d 3e character is defined more by his equipment than by his stats. Gomnir spends considerable time and effort to set up an encounter... only to have players ruin the challenge and surprise through use o' peeper spells? no freaking way.

 

d&d has always been pvp, if you include dm in the equation. regarding 3e at level 1-4 a dm works hard to keep players alive. beyond level 12, a dm works hard to keep sessions challenging... necessarily become almost adversarial with players. if players know rules, then the dm must often come up with counter tactics, or players manage to destroy their own fun... effectively pits dm 'gainst players. sure, a dm can simply claim that players failed in their chosen rule exploit, but dm does that too often and players lose faith. use rules to maintain integrity of game is always the best option.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

d&d has always been pvp, if you include dm in the equation.

and my aunt has always been a tractor, if only she had wheels.

[Gromnir]

really? no doubt your aunt is a very unique woman.

 

if you not like how we phrased then we could simply note that you were complete wrong 'bout nystul's use as a combat spelll AND Gromnir pvp. not need pvp or nazi dms. most typical use we seen of nystuls is to disguise magic gear... which is a combat application (either immediate or remote.) 'course we thought we would respond nicer since we is just a big ol' softy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

really? no doubt your aunt is a very unique woman.

she ploughs a field with great aplomb.

 

if you not like how we phrased then we could simply note that you were complete wrong 'bout nystul's use as a combat spelll AND Gromnir pvp. not need pvp or nazi dms. most typical use we seen of nystuls is to disguise magic gear... which is a combat application (either immediate or remote.)

hmm, you should have stood with divination. alas, to defend everything is to defend nothing.

[damonors]

hmm, you should have stood with divination. alas, to defend everything is to defend nothing.

 

Obviously, that logic doesn't hold in this case, since he is not defending every side of an argument, but instead defending one argument that encompasses everything (at least in DnD).

[newc0253]

Obviously, that logic doesn't hold in this case, since he is not defending every side of an argument, but instead defending one argument that encompasses everything (at least in DnD).

the quote isn't about 'defending every side of an argument'. it's about continuing to defend one side of an argument even when it leads to absurdity (e.g. claiming nystul's magic aura is a combat spell).

[Joseph Bulock]

Obviously, that logic doesn't hold in this case, since he is not defending every side of an argument, but instead defending one argument that encompasses everything (at least in DnD).

the quote isn't about 'defending every side of an argument'. it's about continuing to defend one side of an argument even when it leads to absurdity (e.g. claiming nystul's magic aura is a combat spell).

 

 

 

I have to say that it's more about a fairly poorly defined argument on your part. If he was claiming that it was a spell to cast in combat, your argument would stand, and Gromnir would be getting a bit silly. But instead, he's pointing out that every spell in D&D can have a value in combat, which I think is a valid point. Not every spell is going to do damage or even do harm to your enemies, but almost every spell can go towards confusing them, misleading them, or hampering their ability to make the best decisions they can in combat. The only trick is to have a DM that is actually doing anything interesting enough to make use of the spells.

[Sand]

Besides, Newc, I have used that spell in a combat situation. Well, more of a pre-combat situation.

[newc0253]

I have to say that it's more about a fairly poorly defined argument on your part. If he was claiming that it was a spell to cast in combat, your argument would stand, and Gromnir would be getting a bit silly.

hmm, he described nystul's magic aura as a 'combat spell'.

 

to most reasonable users of the english language, that suggests a spell primarily intended for use in combat - whether directly or indirectly.

 

but if you're buying what Gromnir's selling here, there's also a bridge on the Thames i can give you a good deal on.

[Sand]

It can be, indirectly, Newc. I have used nystul's magic aura as such.

[newc0253]

I have used nystul's magic aura as such.

good for you, Sand.

[Sand]

So, it is a combat spell.

[Magister Lajciak]

Let's be reasonable here. Nystul's Magic Aura is not a combat spell. Can it be used in combat? Sure, but it is not designed with the intended purpose of being used in combat. Airliners can be used for military effect, but they are not designed to be weapons either.

[Xard]

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

[Gromnir]

I have to say that it's more about a fairly poorly defined argument on your part. If he was claiming that it was a spell to cast in combat, your argument would stand, and Gromnir would be getting a bit silly.

hmm, he described nystul's magic aura as a 'combat spell'.

 

to most reasonable users of the english language, that suggests a spell primarily intended for use in combat - whether directly or indirectly.

 

but if you're buying what Gromnir's selling here, there's also a bridge on the Thames i can give you a good deal on.

 

the spell has a very useful combat application. am not caring if its primary use for newc is combat or not. for many people nystul's primary use IS combat related. in point o' fact, at higher levels pretty much the ONLY time the spell is used is in combat related situations. am not gonna make a judgement call as to whether or not newc's or sand's or some other yutz's use is the right one. if a spell has useful combat application, then Gromnir is quite willing to accept that it is a combat spell.

 

again, just as you were wrong 'bout divinations, so too is you wrong 'bout such spells that would serve to mislead those divinations. w/o the combat aspects, there really wouldn't be a need for specific dc based rules 'n such.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

Bridge for sale

 

Location: Between Tower Bridge and Cannon Street Railway Bridge on the River Thames. Excellent condition, only one previous owner.

 

Technical specifications:

• Prestressed concrete box girder bridge.
  
• Longest span 104 m (340 ft)
  
• Total length 262 m (860 ft)
  
• Width 32 m (107 ft)
  
• Clearance below 8.9 m (29 ft)
  
• 5 lanes A3 traffic.
  

 

Will accept paypal or money order. Sorry, no refunds.

Edited February 27, 2008 by newc0253

[Jediphile]

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

 

Yeah, but so what?

 

I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of?

 

Or consider some other spells usefulness in combat...

 

How about 1e's Write spell. It was a spell used by a mage to enter spells in his spellbook if the rules would not normally allow it. How is that a combat spell? You could argue that allows the mage to learn more combat spells, but that's like saying a Fireball is a defensive spell, because it destroys the enemy.

 

Or how about Identify or Enchant An Item in 2e? Yes, you can use Enchant An Item to create magic items, but the spell itself has no combat value, and Identify even less so, since it does not alter the item but only gives the player knowledge - a sword +2 is a sword +2 whether the person wielding it knows it or not, it's just a question of whether the GM or the player gets to do the calculation.

[Xard]

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of?

 

Cthulhu RPG for example. In old Vampires combat was (at least it seemed so) never the focus.

 

Anyway, that's not to say you can't have good non-combat heavy roleplaying campaign in D&D. I'm just saying system isn't most ideal one for that neither it was designed to be one

[Cantousent]

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

 

Yeah, but so what?

 

I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of?

 

Or consider some other spells usefulness in combat...

 

How about 1e's Write spell. It was a spell used by a mage to enter spells in his spellbook if the rules would not normally allow it. How is that a combat spell? You could argue that allows the mage to learn more combat spells, but that's like saying a Fireball is a defensive spell, because it destroys the enemy.

 

Or how about Identify or Enchant An Item in 2e? Yes, you can use Enchant An Item to create magic items, but the spell itself has no combat value, and Identify even less so, since it does not alter the item but only gives the player knowledge - a sword +2 is a sword +2 whether the person wielding it knows it or not, it's just a question of whether the GM or the player gets to do the calculation.

 

Good Lord.

 

I think someone made the distinction , very early, between spells that have direct application in combat and spells that have utility outside of combat that give the player a fighting advantage. I would certainly classify a spell that the mage uses to put spells into his spellbook as the perfect example of the latter.

 

I don't believe we should go out of our way to find combat uses for every spell, but you've chosen the worst possible examples of non-combat spells to showcase the non-combat applications of spells. Someone earlier cited gathering intelligence. Entering combat when intelligence is lacking simply lacks intelligence.

 

That aside, I don't think that, just because savvy players can find combat related uses for spells means that players are forced to do so. ...And, while I find the examples of identify and write particularly weak, the point isn't that all spells or abilities must have application, directly or indirectly, in combat. The point I thought newc was making is that the earlier editions weren't quite so openly confined to combat. The fact that the latest editions are apparently trying to integrate every stat more directly into combat underscores this point. It is unsettling to me.

 

4th edition, so far, really does have the feel of an MMORPG where there's no real pretense, during actual gameplay, that roleplaying really matters. The trickster rogue isn't someone who pulls the wool over the eyes of his foes to achieve his goals outside of combat. Nope, he's just a guy who uses his charm and wit to increase his armor class. I guess it's all good. After all, why even have the pretense of roleplaying any more? DnD was always all about the combat. Why not just quit deluding ourselves, right?

[Jediphile]

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of?

 

Cthulhu RPG for example. In old Vampires combat was (at least it seemed so) never the focus.

 

I don't agree. Both games have rules specifically outside combat, yes, but the combat rules are still fairly extensive with lots of focus on special vampiric combat abilities in Vampire.

 

As for Cthulhu, I've played far, far too much of that to agree. Yes, the majority of the game is investigation, but it's always toward killing/banishing/destroying/exorcising/whatever the great monster/evil god at the end, mostly because going into combat without extensive plans and preparation is more than fatal in Cthulhu. Yes, it has very simple combat rules and simplistic character creation (the pre-d20 version, I mean), but that was mostly because the characters die so fast that creating new ones had to be simple. Boy, I miss playing those games...

 

 

Anyway, that's not to say you can't have good non-combat heavy roleplaying campaign in D&D. I'm just saying system isn't most ideal one for that neither it was designed to be one

 

D&D was originally based on war games played on boards, yes. I mean the creators were called "Tactical Studies Rules"... But the game grew beyond that into something more. The fact that 3e, and possibly 4e as well, adopts a "back to basics" approach is one of the main reasons why I dislike those "editions". You could argue it makes them true to the original games origin, but then D&D is the *original* RPG, too... And I tend to prefer role-playing games over roll-playing games and even hack 'n slash/dungeon crawl/board games. Not that that's a slight against those games - I just don't enjoy them. If I did, I'd probably prefer Hero Quest over Cthulhu or GURPS.

 

D&D began and still is by large combat simulation. All else is just pluff over that

 

Yeah, but so what?

 

I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of?

 

Or consider some other spells usefulness in combat...

 

How about 1e's Write spell. It was a spell used by a mage to enter spells in his spellbook if the rules would not normally allow it. How is that a combat spell? You could argue that allows the mage to learn more combat spells, but that's like saying a Fireball is a defensive spell, because it destroys the enemy.

 

Or how about Identify or Enchant An Item in 2e? Yes, you can use Enchant An Item to create magic items, but the spell itself has no combat value, and Identify even less so, since it does not alter the item but only gives the player knowledge - a sword +2 is a sword +2 whether the person wielding it knows it or not, it's just a question of whether the GM or the player gets to do the calculation.

 

Good Lord.

 

I think someone made the distinction , very early, between spells that have direct application in combat and spells that have utility outside of combat that give the player a fighting advantage. I would certainly classify a spell that the mage uses to put spells into his spellbook as the perfect example of the latter.

 

"Good lord", indeed....

[Cantousent]

When arguments fail, you can always use a smiley. If that doesn't work you can shriek "nazi" and leave the boards forever. Forever just ain't what it used to be.

 

At least I can agree with you about the importance of combat preparation in CoC.

 

Simplifying the rules isn't the problem for me. I guess, if the new ruleset isn't robust enough for your tastes, then that might be a problem for you. Simplicity can be wonderful.

 

I've got more than enough 3.5 edition material to last, so I don't need to worry about 4th edition. Hell, I had enough 2nd edition material that I didn't need to get 3rd. I guess the difference is that I already had 3rd edition material upon release but I'm simply not going to buy into 4th edition right now.

 

Of course, I won't wail like a banshee about it like some of you did about the conversion to 3rd.

[Gromnir]

When arguments fail, you can always use a smiley.

 

 

or you can do like you and newc and either whack on strawman or make nonsense responses... is all the same.

 

1) the only reason why some folks feel previous editions were less combat focused were 'cause o' nostalgia.

 

2) am not concerned 'bout notion of combat v. combat focus or other such silliness.

 

really, am not sure why some folks think 1e were less 'bout combat. the rules is invariably there for combat. not need rules to tell folks how to pretend to be a wizard. is when while pretending to be a wizard you claim to have turned somebody into a frog or eluded their sword swing or some other such CONFLICT resolution situation in which a clear objective answer is needed.

 

as to combat applicable v. combat focused... why would eldar want to argue? the spells mentioned above are clearly very useful combat spells. is there others that is less useful? probably, even so, is arguable that pretty much any spell is gonna have some combat application, so why argue degrees... 'specially when your degree conclusion is gonna invariably be different than somebody else? gonna argue what were the original intent o' the developers? good luck with that one. is rarely one such controlling person in d&d rules development, and am not certain they matter anyway. is intent of player that matters more, no? focus v. applicable? is no clear answer... no right answer, so why bother fighting that battle... save to make some sorta point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps it were 1e the screwed d&d alignment. alignment gots no reason to be subject to rules... but because it is... detect evil and any spell that does different damage based 'pon alignment o' and a bunch o' other crap that shouldn't be part o' d&d, but is 'cause d&d starts as a combat game. horrible. has been following d&d for decades.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

The argument of combat applicable v combat focused is pointless. That's why arguing that Write, Identify, and various enchanting abilities are not directly related to combat is ridiculous. These spells are not used in combat, but have immense impact on combat. Any player can find some way to use any spell either directly in combat or to give an advantage once combat begins.

 

Anyhow, I can't agree about degree because most of our arguments in these threads revolve around degree. How much is enough? A slight change in focus can make the world of difference to the player. There might be different views of degree, but that's precisely where the bulk of these arguments lie.

 

As far as your greater argument goes, in regards to who makes the choice, I agree completely. In fact, I'll go one further and say that the players are driving these decisions. It doesn't make sense that WotC is throwing these elements in at random. I'm sure they've researched what they think the gamers want, and I'm sure they're right. Simpler rules focused more directly on enounter resolution probably serve the bulk of players better. No matter how many folks rail about the absence of Thac0, the streamlining of skills, or the use of charisma to improve armor class, these changes represent a mind set that I see as prevalent today. I might not like the fact that character creation and development seems to be increasingly modeled on the World of Warcraft scheme of a character class combined with talent attribution, but that's probably what players want. If WotC goes too far... if they take the trend past the confines of the consumer base, then they'll address it in the next edition, I'm sure.

 

In the meantime, I'm not writing off 4th edition just yet. I don't like some of what I see, but it's early in the game to judge the whole edition any how.

 

EDIT: I think it would be good to use encounter rather than combat. Even in 3.5, encounters did not need to end in combat, and experience is awarded for resolving an encounter in a positive way.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Cantousent