Quote from: jeff37923;543532I'd also allow a spellcaster to use Mage Hand to float them a can of beer from the shelf and use Ray of Frost to chill it down to the right temperature.

Hells yeah!  Turn Duffman into a Wizard!

-Turn into-?

How could anyone personifying a drink that deliciously malty not already be a magic man?!

Quote from: Sigmund;543510I don't have any choice, I don't currently have the free time to follow this shit in real time. fact remains, you're picking on one person over an issue and not another. I don't wanna be left out of the ire. Hit me. I want at-will magic too. I don't want special treatment just because we get along and agree most of the time. I'm not holding back, I think you're being unreasonable and reactionary over a minor issue and it's ill-becomes you.

I don't think it's a minor issue. I think it's a large issue that plays into the whole mentality of the game, as I explained in that post to jibbajibba when talking about Hit Points, save-or-die, level drains and the like. It's basically caving in to the idea that the rules are the game, and that if the rules don't give your MU an at-will at first level, then you "can't do anything" and you're "useless". It's bollocks. Any person who's ever played a MU in AD&D and enjoyed it will tell you it's bollocks. From flasks of oil to hirelings, from actual role playing to the exploration parts of the game, it's total bollocks. And that's this mentality I find harmful to the game as a whole. It's this one-size-fits-all, everyone-should-have-the-same-fun-with-all-classes otherwise "you're an extremist" thing that gets to me.

Look. The outcome I am ACTUALLY hoping for here is that these spells people want as at-will will be there for them to use, ALONG WITH options to turn them off, suggestions to tweak the list and so on, by the book, so that it will be officially noted that this is not "the" way to play the game. Make it an option. That I'm very cool with. And you will note, mate, that I ACTUALLY have been saying this pages and pages ago. So there. Not quite the taliban you imagined, heh? But it's better to cast me into that role. Makes for easier dismissals.

Quote from: beejazz;543511Magic missile isn't exactly for fine manipulation. Even barring somatic components or loud magic, punching loose objects 100 ft away and springing traps (as opposed to disarming them) has got to make some kind of noise.

Sure.

Quote from: beejazz;543511Making that the official fluff seems needlessly complicated. To-hit might be nice, but the issue with a to-hit roll may come in at higher levels with multiple missiles (not to mention situations that could put advantage or disadvantage on the lot).

There's a lot you could do to rejigger the balance and make sense of the effect. I'd prefer to shorten the range, assume it has spread out damage like a shotgun to help explain the autohit, and say that small light objects tend to be knocked over rather than actually damaged. Maybe explicitly mention that the spell is loud so you'd want a rogue to bypass doors, traps, and chests.

Shortening the range to 10 feet (which would be too extreme I think) would basically leave the same questions unanswered, wouldn't it? Can I use magic missile as a 10 foot pole, then? To extinguish flames? To move a carpet and make diversion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adjudication and creative uses of spells. Oh hell yes! But I think these possibilities need to be carefully thought out before making the spell an ability you could use at will.

Bunch of stuff...

Quote from: Benoist;543547Now, the outcome I am ACTUALLY hoping for here is that these spells people want as at-will will be there for them to use, ALONG WITH options to turn them off, suggestions to tweak the list and so on, by the book, so that it will be officially noted that this is not "the" way to play the game. Make it an option. That I'm very cool with. And you will note, mate, that I ACTUALLY have been saying this pages and pages ago. So there. Not quite the taliban you imagined, heh? But it's better to cast me into that role. Makes for easier dismissals.


Sure.

You have your wish just as I thought you would. Just read Rule of Three they are pretty much doing exactly what I wanted and should do. Introduce and explain something called "campaign traits" to do EXACTLY what you say. It works for Fantasy Craft so I'm sure it will work for 5e.

Quote from: Marleycat;543548Bunch of stuff...

You have your wish just as I thought you would. Just read Rule of Three they are pretty much doing exactly what I wanted and should do. Introduce and explain something called "campaign traits" to do EXACTLY what you say. It works for Fantasy Craft so I'm sure it will work for 5e.

You have a link to that?

Quote from: jeff37923;543532Well, with all this thrashing about over Magic Missile and what it can or cannot do, what about the at-will use of Mage Hand? I'd allow Mage Hand to be used to open doors and trigger traps because it would be a logical application of the spell - just like using Magic Missile to do the same thing.

I'd also allow a spellcaster to use Mage Hand to float them a can of beer from the shelf and use Ray of Frost to chill it down to the right temperature.

Absolutely with you on this, and in fact I did all these things in 4e even.

Quote from: Benoist;543549You have a link to that?

Why yes I do kind sir! To whit...

QuoteWhat about worlds where magic is more abundant or powerful, or worlds with even less magic? Do you think there will be modular rules for making magic more or less powerful for different games in D&D Next?

Absolutely, and I think magic is one of the places where we will spend plenty of time on optional rules. First, we're already taking a step to make sure that magic items don't figure deeply into the core math of the game, making it easier to run a Dark Sun-esque game where finding magic loot is more rare. Beyond that, we want to provide ways to turn the "quantity of magic" dial (as well as the "quality of magic dial," but that might be a whole different discussion) up or down as you please. Want to run a low-magic game? We can make the rules for turning at-will magic into 1st-level spells, criteria for ability score requirements for spellcasters, and guidelines for using only ritual magic and not normal spellcasting. Want to run a high-magic game? Give everybody two at-will spells, and here are three special themes designed specifically for a high-magic campaign. When it comes to creating campaign themes (and I consider "low magic" and "high magic" to be campaign themes, though they may not be the only ones used in a given campaign), the process isn't always going to be as simple as just providing a single optional rule; sometimes, it is going to involve a few variant rules, an optional rule or two, and maybe some player-centric elements (themes, backgrounds, spells, etc.) that are only available in that thematic campaign.

Now notice this can work FOR anything your heart desires not just magic. You want stronger characters? Weaker ones? Faster advancement? Slower? Certain themes/races? All easily done at the start during table talk time when the idea is pitched.

Please copy and paste the link, the actual URL too here. I'd like to read the whole column. Thanks.

Quote from: Benoist;543547Shortening the range to 10 feet (which would be too extreme I think) would basically leave the same questions unanswered, wouldn't it? Can I use magic missile as a 10 foot pole, then? To extinguish flames? To move a carpet and make diversion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adjudication and creative uses of spells. Oh hell yes! But I think these possibilities need to be carefully thought out before making the spell an ability you could use at will.

Well, the range thing is a separate issue really. I prefer a shorter range (not 10... probably closer to 50 for me) so that the mage doesn't suddenly become a better archer or something, but this is the sort of thing that's easy to houserule, and in some contexts the difference between 10 feet and 100 doesn't matter. Dungeons can be pretty cramped.

To the rest, I refer to the idea that the force aspect only allows for rough punching. Assume it doesn't get through most objects' hardness, but can knock smaller stuff over. It can put out lanterns and candles maybe, if punching them would also do so, but now you're also risking knocking over a small flame. The rug would just kind of get pushed at the floor or something. It might wrinkle a little I guess. You could probably spring a trap, but as I and others have said, springing and disarming a trap are two different things noise-wise.

Mainly though, once manipulation becomes important, people will probably use mage hand instead. So the limits of what rough punching can do won't need to be too specifically defined since there's a spell explicitly for the finer stuff.

Quote from: Marleycat;543552Why yes I do kind sir! To whit... Now notice this can work FOR anything your heart desires not just magic.

Well that makes me have some hope, indeed. We'll see how that's implemented. Hence to me the importance of pointing out with this playtest what feels okay to us and what doesn't, so these guys can know "well, this is cool with most people; that however seems to be a point of contention, maybe we need to talk about this in the game and include some options and caveats so everyone can be happy."

It's working.

Quote from: Benoist;543553Please copy and paste the link, the actual URL too here. I'd like to read the whole column. Thanks.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120529

Quote from: Marleycat;543558http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120529

Thank you!

Quote from: Benoist;543559Thank you!

Da Nada.

Quote from: beejazz;543556Mainly though, once manipulation becomes important, people will probably use mage hand instead. So the limits of what rough punching can do won't need to be too specifically defined since there's a spell explicitly for the finer stuff.

Ah, but is Mage Hand 100% accurate? (The playtest rules do not say, btw).

Quote from: Benoist;543547I don't think it's a minor issue. I think it's a large issue that plays into the whole mentality of the game, as I explained in that post to jibbajibba when talking about Hit Points, save-or-die, level drains and the like. It's basically caving in to the idea that the rules are the game, and that if the rules don't give your MU an at-will at first level, then you "can't do anything" and you're "useless". It's bollocks. Any person who's ever played a MU in AD&D and enjoyed it will tell you it's bollocks. From flasks of oil to hirelings, from actual role playing to the exploration parts of the game, it's total bollocks. And that's this mentality I find harmful to the game as a whole. It's this one-size-fits-all, everyone-should-have-the-same-fun-with-all-classes thing that gets to me.

Look. The outcome I am ACTUALLY hoping for here is that these spells people want as at-will will be there for them to use, ALONG WITH options to turn them off, suggestions to tweak the list and so on, by the book, so that it will be officially noted that this is not "the" way to play the game. Make it an option. That I'm very cool with. And you will note, mate, that I ACTUALLY have been saying this pages and pages ago. So there. Not quite the taliban you imagined, heh? But it's better to cast me into that role. Makes for easier dismissals.


Sure.


Shortening the range to 10 feet (which would be too extreme I think) would basically leave the same questions unanswered, wouldn't it? Can I use magic missile as a 10 foot pole, then? To extinguish flames? To move a carpet and make diversion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adjudication and creative uses of spells. Oh hell yes! But I think these possibilities need to be carefully thought out before making the spell an ability you could use at will.

You're right, that specific argument is bollocks. it's also simply using extreme language to emphasize the poster's displeasure over it. However, that doesn't change the fact that for some, perhaps many, being able to do what the game defines as "magical" things more often lends the player the feeling of playing a "wizard" more readily. i know this because it's the one point of praise i have for 4e, and also why I love casters in RQ. Chucking flasks of oil, firing a crossbow, or being the designated torch-bearer and mapper do not lend themselves to the feeling of being "wizardly" for me and others. I like the idea of being able to grab things from a distance, chill my drinks, change the color of my cloak, cause flowers to appear for children, etc... "at-will". It lends an air of magic and mystery to the wizard. I also love the idea of high level spells being rituals like in ACKs. Also "wizardly" IMO. Note how none of this has anything to do with numbers or combat. A creative player should be able to find some limited usefulness from these minor effects, but IMO it can be taken too far, such as with magic missile IMO. It is possible to have both and still have it be D&D, and I find your rigid insistence on your own personal definition of D&D being the correct one to be what's truly going to be harmful to D&D's continued success. I don't advocate change for it's own sake, and I feel too much change just makes for a completely different game (4e), but adding some flavor and appeal to D&D is not a crime or tragedy, so the hysterics are counter-productive.