PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying What do you think about spells such as knock?



Gizmogidget
2015-10-19, 06:21 PM
What does the community feel about spells that mimic the abilities of other classes, such as spells that open locks for example? If this is an issue to you how would you fix it so that arcane spellcasters in particular don't become all-purpose solve all your problems and entirely negate other classes?

Darth Ultron
2015-10-19, 06:38 PM
they are a useful part of the game.

I don't really get the idea that they ''mimic the abilities of other classes''. It is not like most abilities are that unique.

The easy fix is to simply not have optimizing jerk type players with spellcaster characters. A bit more complex is to simply have a couple simple magic house rules or to up the power/fantasy/magic of the game world.

Drynwyn
2015-10-19, 06:54 PM
This (the existence of spells to deal with any conceivable problem) has always been an issue with D&D-style wizardry. Magic is, by definition, unconstrained by the laws of reality as we know it. Traditional D&D-style magic does not set any clear rules for what it can and can't be used for, so the only limit on what you can do with magic is what a spell exists for. What's more, if spells like Knock didn't exist, without any clear limits to magic, it becomes a painful question why no wizard has ever bothered developing a spell when it's clearly something both useful and well within the established capabilities of wizard magic.

I used the term "D&D-style magic", but D&D is far from the only thing to use it. What it means, in practice, is a magic system where magic is just a vague force that spellcasters call upon to accomplish things. It's surprisingly common- many, if not most, fantasy worlds do not have rules for magic beyond "spellcaster waves arms, chants, spell effect happens." And it's not necessarily a BAD thing, from a storytelling perspective- magic doesn't have to obey a strict set of rules (so long as it's reasonably consistent). From an RPG gameplay perspective, however, such versatility makes magic very, very hard to balance.

Personally, my favorite method of dealing with this issue is sidestepping it altogether by having any given type of magic be specialized. Unknown Armies and 7th Sea provide good examples of this- in both of these games, spellcasters have a single, narrow specialization, such as creating clockwork servants or manipulating the strands of fate- you know, like other characters.

This point is important- "Magic" is not a specialization. Characters, in most games, are specialists. A fighter specializes in open duels with a longsword and shield, the rogue specializes in infiltration. Saying a given character class is focused on "magic" is like saying it's focused on "combat"- it defines a sphere of activity, yes, but not one meaningfully narrow enough to be a specialization.

And if you DO want to play the scholarly wizard who casts many types of spells? Well, you should play like the classical jack-of-all-trades, that is, you'll be passable at everything, but your power will be limited such that you are still worse in any given area than someone focused on that. (Designing a character class or set of mechanics that allows this character to be playable is it's own challenge, but not something I'll address here.)

sktarq
2015-10-19, 09:20 PM
can lead to the "let the wizard do it" problem
which leads to everyone wanting to be a caster. . .
which leads developers to treat everyone as a caster.

Making a collection of your fighter type sorcerer, thief mimic wizard, etc can actually be rather fun game though. . .

Mr.Moron
2015-10-19, 09:36 PM
Any spell that direcly emulates the results of a skill check without a drawback is banned at my tables.

Knaight
2015-10-19, 09:55 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with knock and similar, particularly those that cut into niche protection which is somewhat unimpressive (though if it's being used in something like a heist game and obviating a safe cracker, which is a real niche in that genre it becomes a problem). The issue is that magic has no downsides in D&D. In a lot of systems, there are real limits, and while casting a spell might get some real stuff done, there are either risks or guaranteed fatigue attached. Knocking off one of dozens of spell slots just doesn't have the same effect.

gadren
2015-10-19, 10:09 PM
I always feel that those who outright ban things like this have little imagination. I think it'd be reasonable to modify such spells, however. Perhaps knock would be better if it allowed one to attempt to pick locks using magic instead of tools, and grants a bonus to the check, but still requires a check. So wizards that didn't invest a lot of skill points into pick locks wouldn't be able to pick as complex of locks as the rogue can.

Knaight
2015-10-19, 10:13 PM
I always feel that those who outright ban things like this have little imagination. I think it'd be reasonable to modify such spells, however. Perhaps knock would be better if it allowed one to attempt to pick locks using magic instead of tools, and grants a bonus to the check, but still requires a check. So wizards that didn't invest a lot of skill points into pick locks wouldn't be able to pick as complex of locks as the rogue can.

It would also be reasonable to build a system that didn't have them in the first place, which would hardly be indicative of little imagination. Given that, I have trouble seeing how making tweaks that remove them is somehow indicative of being unimaginative.

snacksmoto
2015-10-19, 10:28 PM
What does the community feel about spells that mimic the abilities of other classes, such as spells that open locks for example? If this is an issue to you how would you fix it so that arcane spellcasters in particular don't become all-purpose solve all your problems and entirely negate other classes?

It doesn't bother me, as long as the non-magic option still has some kind of advantage over the magic option.
One can rule that picking the lock can be played silently while Knock cannot due to functioning of the spell loudly opening the lock. If the party has no need to be silent, then one option has no advantage over the other. However, if the party wants to unlock the door to surprise the opponents on the other side of the door they will need to have the lock picked.

Solaris
2015-10-20, 01:04 AM
Any spell that direcly emulates the results of a skill check without a drawback is banned at my tables.

The drawback is the opportunity cost of the spell slot.
Unless it's a game where there's no real limitation on the spells a magic-user can cast, in which case... eh. I'm not a fan of mechanical niche protection to begin with. It can produce results like forcing someone to play the thief when nobody wants to play the thief.

Crake
2015-10-20, 01:20 AM
Any spell that direcly emulates the results of a skill check without a drawback is banned at my tables.

Spider climb banned? Heart of water banned? Water breathing/walking banned (admittedly water breathing emulates the result of an ability check, not a skill check)? the various bigby's hand spells banned (grapple/bullrush emulation)? Evards tentacles? Where do you draw the line with such a ruling?

Satinavian
2015-10-20, 02:07 AM
What does the community feel about spells that mimic the abilities of other classes, such as spells that open locks for example? If this is an issue to you how would you fix it so that arcane spellcasters in particular don't become all-purpose solve all your problems and entirely negate other classes?
If i actually play D&D or Pathfinder, i don't "fix" this, i just have players who understand spotlight distribution and trying to let every character shine.
It is far easier if the caster player decides to use his powers in a way that lets other people have fun than to try to fix D&D casters with convoluted houserules.

Generally i think, those spells should not be a problem at all, if
a) they substitute/improve skill checks instead of being always better
and
b) they cost some resource that does not become completely irrelevant during level progression

The latter is nearly impossible to implement in D&D without rewriting the skill system and the magic system. But some other systems do it fine.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-20, 02:51 AM
They're not really a problem when you actually keep the limitations of the spell and spellcasting in mind.

Let's look at the example given; knock. I'll assume 3.5 because that's the version I use.

First, it can only unlock two locks, bars, or other fasteners. If the locked door has three locks on it, the spell is useless unless you're willing to cast it twice.

Second, it's limited in the size of the door it can unlock. 10 square feet per level doesn't add up to much when you start measuring doors until fairly high levels. A 10ft by 10ft double door into a great hall would take a caster level of at least 10 just to get past a single bar.

Thirdly, it's impossible to use silently because a verbal component must be spoken in a strong clear voice. Metamagic can fix this but it's a much greater opportunity cost than a single spell known.

Finally, it's completely non functional if the door is fastened by a simple knotted rope on the far side or bound shut by clinging vines.

There's also the obvious issue of spells being a much more limited resource than a skill and this one in particular being one likely to see frequent necessity of use.

Most of these can be more reliably dealt with by mundane options.

A rogue can pick as many locks as he can reach. It doesn't matter how big the door is. He can do so quietly without having to sink significant amounts of cash or a feat and a sharp knife can damage vines and rope just fine even if you have to stick it through the seam in the door to reach those bindings.

Of course, you can always just blast through the door with weapons or attack spells but that option has its own obvious issues.

Earthwalker
2015-10-20, 05:37 AM
My problem is not so much with the knock spell but how DnD works.

Knock automatically opens the lock. I think this is mainly so that the wizard has something to show for expending a spell slot. I would prefer a magic system where the spells were at will but with a cost. (Like shadowrun,the more powerful spell you cast the more chance of drain)

Then make the knock spell more a buff than an auto succeed.

When facing a locked door the wizard risks a big spell to give him a high bonus on the open lock skill. Then takes the drain and rolls his skill.

If he were with a thief, he would cast a safer smaller open lock spell on the thief, giving the thief a bonus to his already impressive open lock skill.

When the spell is giving a bonus its worthwhile having both the wizard and thief in the party.

goto124
2015-10-20, 05:45 AM
Wizard: I cast Knock.
DM: Okay. The door knocks.
Wizard: ... did I just waste a spell slot to knock a door?
DM: Yes.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-20, 06:35 AM
Spider climb banned? Heart of water banned? Water breathing/walking banned (admittedly water breathing emulates the result of an ability check, not a skill check)? the various bigby's hand spells banned (grapple/bullrush emulation)? Evards tentacles? Where do you draw the line with such a ruling?


No. Never heard of it. No. Yes. No. No.

In that order. Here is the exact wording from my character creation guidelines in my last campaign. Keep in mind, I play 5e (where knock actually does have drawback - a loud bang, as such it isn't banned).



Some spells from the Player’s Handbook may be unavailable. Rather than compile a comprehsive list simply be aware of these guidelines:

Broadly speaking spells that allow extreme modes of travel such as Fly or Teleporation replace or replicate entire skills such as Comprehend Langauges, Fabricate, Alter Self , or that can be used for unlimited benefits at little or no cost such such as Guidance won’t be available.

These aren’t all hard “Bans” and alterations to spells might be made if a particulary entry is appealing to player. These changes aren’t meant to address “Power Level” per se, rather to ensure that the largest variety of challenge types are on the table by default.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-10-20, 07:09 AM
The drawback is the opportunity cost of the spell slot.

My thoughts precisely - if the Mage is preparing a Knock spell, what spell are they deciding they won't need? Or can they afford the cost of writing a few scrolls/ making wands of utility spells - the money, time, experience cost, encumbrance and so on.

To me, a Knock spell is just the emergency backup for when the Thief utterly stuffs their lockpicking roll, if someone's Wizard/Arcane Locked it, or if the party need to get through the door right now and can't wait for the Thief to do their thing.

Crake
2015-10-20, 07:14 AM
No. Never heard of it. No. Yes. No. No.

In that order. Here is the exact wording from my character creation guidelines in my last campaign. Keep in mind, I play 5e (where knock actually does have drawback - a loud bang, as such it isn't banned).

Right, 5e, that would be why you haven't heard of heart of water, it's a 3.5 spell that grants the caster (it's a personal spell) a swim speed and the ability to breath water for 1 hour/level, so sounds like it would be banned based on your critera (it grants a swim speed).

Mr.Moron
2015-10-20, 07:18 AM
Right, 5e, that would be why you haven't heard of heart of water, it's a 3.5 spell that grants the caster (it's a personal spell) a swim speed and the ability to breath water for 1 hour/level, so sounds like it would be banned based on your critera (it grants a swim speed).

Depends on how fast the swim speed is. Something that grants a 30ft swim speed for say, 1 Round/Level is probably fine. What you've described here probably counts as "An extreme mode of travel" per my guidelines.

I'm not ashamed to say I'm rather liberal with the restrictions when it comes to magic because magic does a ton in D&D systems and even if I were to remove the top 75% of everything it does, what remains would still be the top 80% of all available content.

Prince Zahn
2015-10-20, 08:01 AM
In my DMing, unless the party is very self-conscious about missing a role in the party, I would rather approach this in another angle:
I advise my players against spells like Knock, Teleport,Overland Flight Scrying, et cetera, not because I don't want them to have it, but because these spells are much more useful to a story as single-use items sprinkled among treasure, or in some NPC's collection.

A scroll of Knock is much easier to work with than a sorcerer who casts knock whenever he wants, because it is a limited supply, and because anyone who invests in UMD can use it too, the rogue can use this on doors and chest he needs opened NOW, and easily, whereas a wizard would likely use it for any lock he doesn't have a key for. A wand of invisibility or a potion of alter self are also useful for lots of characters, and if such things can be occasionally found and be useful, the need and temptation for a spellcaster to have these spells on his spell list should be significantly reduced.

I believe that if you sprinkle these spells as single use items - like any other expendable resource for your players to use as they think best, you won't have to worry about the wizard using "easy fix" spells that make your rogue feel bad.

Spojaz
2015-10-20, 09:44 AM
I think there would be counters available for common magical exploits in the world. I make them fairly rare, and theoretically identifiable before wasting the spell slot (I'm not heartless)

A little while ago, my players found a safe within a vault. (Knock worked on the vault) Whenever any magic was cast around it the safe, the mechanism inside would seize with a loud clunk, preventing unlocking or opening for a few minutes, and potentially alerting anyone around. The party not only managed to get it open, but stole the mechanism, so now they have a magic item that lets them know when spells are cast nearby.

Pex
2015-10-20, 12:44 PM
Logical to exist but don't invalidate other classes. Just because a wizard can cast Knock doesn't mean he has to. The rogue picks the lock because he can. There's no need for the wizard to cast the spell and use up the spell slot when he could do something else with that slot. Ditto if it's a scroll or wand and treasure amount. The wizard only needs to cast Knock when someone capable of opening the lock is not around to do it.

Gizmogidget
2015-10-20, 12:45 PM
I would like to state my point of view on the topic

I believe that if there is no other character that can do the task like a rogue than the spells should come without drawbacks, however if there is a rogue or other character who can complete the task the drawback should be such that the wizard is a back up option. I do not believe in banning spells personally though I understand other viewpoints.

Ex-A party of four players a monk, a cleric, a fighter and a wizard come upon a securely locked door and in this case the wizard casts knock without drawbacks.
In a party of four their is a wizard, a cleric, a fighter and a rogue. The rogue can unlock the door but it will take sometime relative to the knock spell while the knock spell although quick has some sort of drawback.

P.S.-Thank you guys for all the feedback:smallsmile:

noob
2015-10-20, 01:47 PM
One possible cost might be that the wizard can only do that once in a day.
Or maybe you could do the "only one cast of each spell in your entire life". I have seen this once
Basically you open the door quick now but then you will not have the ability to do this the next time while you are pursued while if you did let the rogue do that the first time you would still have the opportunity to do that.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-20, 01:56 PM
I generally don't like them. I think too much mechanical niche protection can do some weird things with party balance, but I think spells like this is a little too far. I far prefer the buffing approach to spells where they compliment the skill use, such as making it a 'Fast Fingers' spell and making it give a scaling bonus. I haven't ever thought of the approach that it makes a loud sound, but I could go with that as well as it would prohibit its use in many situations. Might also make the lock unrecoverable, which is definitely a thing my group has tried to do.

Prince Zahn suggested speaking to the players about not having the spells overly common, but I don't think that works with my group. They're a crazy bunch of imps, and they come up with crazy plans trying to twist everything into an advantage. In most cases, this leads to an interesting experience for me. In other cases, asking them to ignore a tactical advantage...Just doesn't sit right, somehow. I don't think either myself or them would work well with it, but that's a thing of personal preference methinks.

TheCountAlucard
2015-10-20, 04:57 PM
I'm okay with Knock, mostly because the notion of balance is laughable anyway. If the Wizard wants to step on the toes of the Rogue, banning the Knock spell won't help.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-20, 07:45 PM
I'm okay with Knock, mostly because the notion of balance is laughable anyway. If the Wizard wants to step on the toes of the Rogue, banning the Knock spell won't help.

On it's own, no. However any comprehensive solution that prevents that have to include the wizard not having access to things like knock be it by their own conscious decision or as one of many restrictions and a general approach to rulings.

VoxRationis
2015-10-20, 09:22 PM
As the guy who most frequently plays a wizard at my table (when I'm not DMing), I never take knock. There's no reason for me to waste spell slots on something the rogue can do for free.

I see the broader principle, however. I'm not sure what to do about it (other than to limit the wizard spell list to themed "traditions," an idea that's rather work-intensive to implement).

icefractal
2015-10-21, 02:00 AM
As Drynwyn mentions, having "doing magic" as a character's portfolio is too broad by far. Specialization is the way to go. How much depends on how broad your other classes are, but it'd be much narrower than D&D has generally been.

That said, I'm not going to go so far as to say that spells should never obsolete skills. They shouldn't obsolete characters, but some skills obsolete themselves. Like Jump. Technically, any kind of flight is going to make Jump obsolete. So characters should never be able to fly? No. Jump should just explicitly stop being treated as a focal character ability beyond low levels. "Guy who can jump really well" is not (by itself) a valid 10th level concept, any more than "guy who can fight a single ordinary wolf" is.

Now in an ideal system, traps like making a 20th level character that puts much resources into jumping well shouldn't be possible. Skills should either increase their scope to stay relevant, or simply stop costing resources at a certain point. But short of that, we shouldn't allow badly designed skills to handicap the whole system.

Suichimo
2015-10-21, 02:11 AM
My thoughts precisely - if the Mage is preparing a Knock spell, what spell are they deciding they won't need? Or can they afford the cost of writing a few scrolls/ making wands of utility spells - the money, time, experience cost, encumbrance and so on.

The opportunity cost isn't that high, in my opinion. Maybe around 3rd level, when a Wizard can first do it, but just a little bit of wealth takes away the cost entirely. Bonus spell slots, pearls of power, scrolls, and eternal wands should be more than enough for a day's use of knock.

Prince Zahn
2015-10-21, 02:35 AM
Prince Zahn suggested speaking to the players about not having the spells overly common, but I don't think that works with my group. They're a crazy bunch of imps, and they come up with crazy plans trying to twist everything into an advantage. In most cases, this leads to an interesting experience for me. In other cases, asking them to ignore a tactical advantage...Just doesn't sit right, somehow. I don't think either myself or them would work well with it, but that's a thing of personal preference methinks.
I never said these spells should be uncommon, I think the contrary: hinting to your players that they will have little point in learning this spells, in tandem with having spells like those somewhat attainable as expendable items so that they won't miss not having it, and that more than one party member can use them when they need to.

At my table, I always tell my friends that when your reigning DM stops every thing to advise or hint against doing something, it's wise to heed that suggestion. More often than not, bad things happen when we don't listen to a DM's warning. I don't know if that is universal, but it works for me.

Solaris
2015-10-21, 05:03 PM
The opportunity cost isn't that high, in my opinion. Maybe around 3rd level, when a Wizard can first do it, but just a little bit of wealth takes away the cost entirely. Bonus spell slots, pearls of power, scrolls, and eternal wands should be more than enough for a day's use of knock.

By the time you've the resources to burn on making sure you always have knock available without noticing an opportunity cost, you don't really need to use doors anymore.

Jay R
2015-10-21, 05:49 PM
Knock doesn't replace a rogue, unless there are very few locks in the dungeon crawl.

A spell uses up a resource - a spell slot. Using a skill does not use up a resource, and the rogue can pick just as many more locks during the day. So the rogue is the standard lock-pick. She'll open dozens of locks in a day.

The wizard is the back-up emergency lock-pick, and you only use his spell when the rogue misses her roll, and you don't have time to take 20.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-22, 11:07 AM
I never said these spells should be uncommon, I think the contrary: hinting to your players that they will have little point in learning this spells, in tandem with having spells like those somewhat attainable as expendable items so that they won't miss not having it, and that more than one party member can use them when they need to.

At my table, I always tell my friends that when your reigning DM stops every thing to advise or hint against doing something, it's wise to heed that suggestion. More often than not, bad things happen when we don't listen to a DM's warning. I don't know if that is universal, but it works for me.

My mistake then, sorry. Through admittedly, sometimes my party takes hints as challenges, not advice. (Again, crazy little imps).

I do wonder how best to phrase such a thing, so it doesn't come across as overly controlling or nitpickish.

Prince Zahn
2015-10-22, 03:39 PM
My mistake then, sorry. Through admittedly, sometimes my party takes hints as challenges, not advice. (Again, crazy little imps).

I do wonder how best to phrase such a thing, so it doesn't come across as overly controlling or nitpickish.S'alright.:smallsmile: As for your own group, You might decide to be a little cruel a few times after you warn them against doing something and they do it anyway ("with the two spell slots you invested for knock, you could have prepared Bull's strength once and made the combat a LOT easier"), and let them learn from experience on their own what it means when even the GM thinks your idea is a bad one. You might warn them that physics or probability are heavily against them, and that doing so would have disadvantage/substantial penalties, or you might decide to make their unbelievable success come with a cost (even on a nat 20). Though I don't know your group nor how you approach the matter normally, so I can't universally assess what's the "best" way for your group, sorry.:smallredface:

Jay R
2015-10-22, 04:30 PM
The solution to a party that takes two Knock spells instead of a rogue is to have five locks that need to be opened.

Spells are used for occasional events. Skills are used for common events.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-22, 06:30 PM
The solution to a party that takes two Knock spells instead of a rogue is to have five locks that need to be opened.

Spells are used for occasional events. Skills are used for common events.

...and if they get a Wand of Knock? or [Knock-Based Workaround] that's sure to exist for the next suggestion?


Why is having to contrive dungeon design, and constrain adventure variety a better answer to problematic spells than just "Let's not use the problematic spells, tons of other fun ones in the pile as spells are the part of the game with more text devoted to them than all others combined. Here are some guidelines on what constitutes a problematic spell, let's all act in good faith and double check if we're unsure about anything"

Solaris
2015-10-22, 07:55 PM
Then they're either burning a good chunk of their resources to get that wand (if they're still at the level where they need to use doors) or they're at the level where they don't really need to use doors.

Jay R
2015-10-23, 07:23 AM
...and if they get a Wand of Knock? or [Knock-Based Workaround] that's sure to exist for the next suggestion?


Why is having to contrive dungeon design, and constrain adventure variety a better answer to problematic spells than just "Let's not use the problematic spells, tons of other fun ones in the pile as spells are the part of the game with more text devoted to them than all others combined. Here are some guidelines on what constitutes a problematic spell, let's all act in good faith and double check if we're unsure about anything"

A. I've never seen anybody get a wand of Knock.

B. I don't think it's a problematic spell. I think a situation in which a single Knock spell is better that a rogue is problematic DMing.

Grim Portent
2015-10-23, 09:46 AM
What does the community feel about spells that mimic the abilities of other classes, such as spells that open locks for example? If this is an issue to you how would you fix it so that arcane spellcasters in particular don't become all-purpose solve all your problems and entirely negate other classes?

In class based games I encourage spells like this. They allow for a wider range of character concepts and mean that the party doesn't need to have someone play a certain class just on the off chance that none of them have the specific class feature or skillset needed at that exact moment. I see no important difference between casting a spell to unlock a door, picking the lock, smashing the lock with a sledgehammer and setting an explosive charge to blast the door off it's hinges.

GungHo
2015-10-23, 02:19 PM
As someone who plays a rogue occasionally, I find it sad that you guys think I'm completely replaceable by Knock and Find Traps.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-23, 02:23 PM
As someone who plays a rogue occasionally, I find it sad that you guys think I'm completely replaceable by Knock and Find Traps.

Well. Not completely. Wands are crappy humanoid shields. It's also a lot harder to turn a dead wand into food.

(Seriously, I really wish the rogue had more to it then 'loads of skill points' and dislike DMs who think that is enough).