Weak Characters.

[Hallavast]

I just don't see what the fuss is about. Power and good roleplaying are two different things. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character. This point is fixed. And the power issue is something you work out with your DM. If the DM feels that a weak character will work fine in his campaign, then by all means feel free to play one!

False.

I wanna play a Conan type barbarian character. My main goal is to kick down doors, chop up baddies, and grab some loots. Towns and "nonviolent NPCs" are simply backstory for the DM to use in order to start/continue the adventure.

It's just a different style of play. Good RP and character development are not of intrinsic value. They're only as important as the group wants them to be. Same with power.

[Ormagoden]

False.

I wanna play a Conan type barbarian character. My main goal is to kick down doors, chop up baddies, and grab some loots. Towns and "nonviolent NPCs" are simply backstory for the DM to use in order to start/continue the adventure.

It's just a different style of play. Good RP and character development are not of intrinsic value. They're only as important as the group wants them to be. Same with power.

Conan is a well-developed character.

[Frosty]

False.

I wanna play a Conan type barbarian character. My main goal is to kick down doors, chop up baddies, and grab some loots. Towns and "nonviolent NPCs" are simply backstory for the DM to use in order to start/continue the adventure.

It's just a different style of play. Good RP and character development are not of intrinsic value. They're only as important as the group wants them to be. Same with power.

Good RP is certainly important in any ROLE-PLAYING-GAME. What you're describing is not in fact an RPG. Your group can certainly play a game and have TONS OF FUN just kicking down doors and beating things up, and it's not a WRONG or BAD game to play. It's just not an RPG, which is the core of what we're discussing here.

That said, one *can* also have PLENTY of characterization with Conan-style barb characters. You *can* interact with non-violent NPCs in a meaningful and memorable way even as Conan. Let's face it. Conan the charater wouldn't have been as memorable to all the other people in his world if he didn't actually stop to talk to, intimidate, or fornicate with those people. Conan would've been BORING if all he did was fight.

[Hallavast]

Conan is a well-developed character.

My character falls into the conan archetype. He is not Conan. He is not nearly so developed. My character, when you think about it, does not really have a deep or compelling personality. His enemies deserve death because they are the enemy. Might makes right. Women are inferior. I like swords. You know, that whole deal.

[Frosty]

My character falls into the conan archetype. He is not Conan. He is not nearly so developed. My character, when you think about it, does not really have a deep or compelling personality. His enemies deserve death because they are the enemy. Might makes right. Women are inferior. I like swords. You know, that whole deal.

And there you have the beginnings of some characterization, cliched it may be.

[Ormagoden]

My character falls into the conan archetype. He is not Conan. He is not nearly so developed. My character, when you think about it, does not really have a deep or compelling personality. His enemies deserve death because they are the enemy. Might makes right. Women are inferior. I like swords. You know, that whole deal.

I was pointing out that your basis for comparison was rather flawed.

[Hallavast]

Good RP is certainly important in any ROLE-PLAYING-GAME. What you're describing is not in fact an RPG. Your group can certainly play a game and have TONS OF FUN just kicking down doors and beating things up, and it's not a WRONG or BAD game to play. It's just not an RPG, which is the core of what we're discussing here.
That's a rather jaded and needless distinction. You don't want to call it a roleplaying game, because it's not story driven. You're forgetting the game part. The game that I described has roleplaying. It's just not the focus. Parse terms and argue semantics all you want. The fact is, dungeons and dragons can be (and is often) used for the kind of game I just described. That game utilizes the rules to simulate and roleplay a fantasy combat for the purpose of escapism.


Conan would've been BORING if all he did was fight.
Conan is boring. But that's my opinion.

[Hallavast]

And there you have the beginnings of some characterization, cliched it may be.

Exactly, but it's not "good" characterization. It's cliche and boring, but it meets the bare minimum requirements of "roleplaying".

In other words, while you need a character concept to roleplay, you certainly don't need a good or well thought-out one. Conan is an uninteresting, shallow psychopath. The character I've presented is even worse than conan, because it only consists of the characteristics i've outlined. But it meets the bare minimum.

[Frosty]

It is a very important distinction for this thread, because good roleplaying is important in the type of game that would cause the OP to come here and ask about the effects of Power on Characterization.

The pure dungeon crawl way of playing DnD has ZERO relevance for this thread. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character for the type of game being discussed in this thread.

Why you'd waste TIME bringing in examples of play that bear no relevance to the current discussion is beyond me. Maybe you're just really bored.

[Ormagoden]

It is a very important distinction for this thread, because good roleplaying is important in the type of game that would cause the OP to come here and ask about the effects of Power on Characterization.

The pure dungeon crawl way of playing DnD has ZERO relevance for this thread. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character for the type of game being discussed in this thread.

Why you'd waste TIME bringing in examples of play that bear no relevance to the current discussion is beyond me. Maybe you're just really bored.

Well said sir, well said. Much nicer than the way I was going with it.

[Hallavast]

It is a very important distinction for this thread, because good roleplaying is important in the type of game that would cause the OP to come here and ask about the effects of Power on Characterization.
Maybe I was reading into your statement a little too far. You seemed to be making broad (false) statements about gaming in general. I was responding to that.



The pure dungeon crawl way of playing DnD has ZERO relevance for this thread. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character for the type of game being discussed in this thread.
I have faith that there's a difference between "a dungeon crawl with little focus on non-combat" and "a pure dungoen crawl" (whatever that is). The former could surely be relevant to the OP. Otherwise, you'd be claiming good RP doesn't take place in dungeon crawls. Consider a game of heroquest (if you're familiar with the game) where the players talk to each other and to the villains in character. That would be a roleplaying game, but the players are obviously more interested in rolling dice. The player who plays one of the weaker characters isn't necessarily better or worse at RP. They are separate, as you say, but you go on to comment that RP is way much more better and more important. THIS is rather beside the question of the OP, in itself.



Why you'd waste TIME bringing in examples of play that bear no relevance to the current discussion is beyond me. Maybe you're just really bored.
I am truly relieved and inspired that the other people who read and comment on a fantasy webcomic forum have better things to do than I.

[Gametime]

Conan is a well-developed character.

Not really. He's extremely one-dimensional, and any flaws he possesses never end up mattering in the slightest because he can and does fight his way out of every situation. He has escaped from an impenetrable prison filled with unspeakable horrors from the depths of time, despite starting out chained to a wall and completely unarmed! (Mind, he needed a wizard's help to fly back to his kingdom, but the Cthulhu-punching he did all by himself.)

Now, the stories are great, and well-written, and fun, but they're formulaic stories and Conan is a formula character. He's a defining formula character, since he more or less created an archetype all his own. He's an interesting character, since he doesn't even always conform to the stereotypes he himself inspired. He's a fun character, since who doesn't like shouting "CROM!" and kicking some tail?

But well-developed? I strenuously disagree. He's a basically a Mary Sue: better than everyone at everything, except when him being worse at something is necessary to set him up in a hopeless situation that allows him to then prove how much better he is again.

[Gametime]

Why you'd waste TIME bringing in examples of play that bear no relevance to the current discussion is beyond me. Maybe you're just really bored.

Perhaps because the statement was made in response to a universal statement that didn't specify it was restricting itself to the type of game most relevant to the thread, and the poster wasn't sure if the poster being responded to had made that distinction?

[Starbuck_II]

But well-developed? I strenuously disagree. He's a basically a Mary Sue: better than everyone at everything, except when him being worse at something is necessary to set him up in a hopeless situation that allows him to then prove how much better he is again.

He is much better in the cartoon. I loved that old cartoon. Popping snakes back where they came from.

[Frosty]

Perhaps because the statement was made in response to a universal statement that didn't specify it was restricting itself to the type of game most relevant to the thread, and the poster wasn't sure if the poster being responded to had made that distinction?

The distinctions are implied and that poster should've known. Think about the context of this thread.

[Gametime]

The distinctions are implied and that poster should've known. Think about the context of this thread.

Perhaps. Given how far this thread has strayed from the OP, I wouldn't blame someone for forgetting what we were supposed to be talking about. (It's military tactics and their relevancy across various models of firearm, right? :smalltongue:)

[Frosty]

Yeah I'm surprised that the powers that be have allowed such off-topicness to continue.

[Hallavast]

The distinctions are implied and that poster should've known. Think about the context of this thread.

That poster has responded, already. That poster shall respond a second time: Your comment, itself, was off topic.

[Frosty]

That poster has responded, already. That poster shall respond a second time: Your comment, itself, was off topic.

I stand by my statement that roleplaying is always important in the type of game we're talking about in this thread.

[Hallavast]

I stand by my statement that roleplaying is always important in the type of game we're talking about in this thread.

The OP asked if Power and RP detracted from one another. It technically doesn't matter whether RP or Power are objectively important or not.

Further, if you are implying that a dungeoncrawl game is any more or less relevant than the ambiguously defined game you are referring to, then you are wrong. The game contains roleplaying. The players and GM are roleplaying in the midst of their game. This type of game fits the context just as well.

Edit: you are arbitrarily assigning importance to RP and not Power based on a distinction that need not exist for the purpose of this thread.
Edit edit: ^ is off topic as per the OP.

[Frosty]

The OP asked if Power and RP detracted from one another. It technically doesn't matter whether RP or Power are objectively important or not.

Further, if you are implying that a dungeoncrawl game is any more or less relevant than the ambiguously defined game you are referring to, then you are wrong. The game contains roleplaying. The players and GM are roleplaying in the midst of their game. This type of game fits the context just as well.

Edit: you are arbitrarily assigning importance to RP and not Power based on a distinction that need not exist for the purpose of this thread.
Edit edit: ^ is off topic as per the OP.

Not off topic at all. The OP has a question about the potential conflict between powergaming and effective roleplaying. I am making the claim that there are no conflit because to me, the two issues are separate things that do not interact much with each other.

Since the OP appears to be worried about how to roleplay effectively, I am telling the OP to just not WORRY about the power level and just go for crafting a three-dimensional, interesting character first. Power level is a separate issue to be discussed with the DM so as to not potential derail the campaign or overshadow others.

As for what I was referring to, I was using "dungeoncrawler" as a shorthand for "gameplay where almost all of it is fighting, and very little of it on roleplay, whether it be in the dungeon, in town, or wherever. Little emphasis is placed on roleplay." And since the OP is conerned about roleplay, any game where little emphasis is placed on roleplay has no relevance to this discussion.

[Lycar]

Why should i use colorspray? how about why would i EVER use evocation?

My character is a genius, a prodigy, with an intellect rivaling that of the worlds greatest genius's TODAY. he is not just some buffoon who likes to adventure for fun; his intellect is far greater than most mortal men, and he would know it.


my character, with magic, can rewrite reality, control minds, make matter itself, so why would he ever turn himself into a glorified flamethrower?

Brute force is the purview of the simpleton; evocation is simply the magical version of that. why would my character, with his incredible intellect and potential, ever lower himself to the level of a barbarian, a brute, a simpering monkey.

My wizard are highly intelligent individuals, and they know it; why would they doubt that magical brute force would be any more sophisticated than physical brute force?

Well, because using the genius level intellect of your character as a reason to denounce evocations as useless is playing the rules, not the game.

SoDs and SoSs being mechanically superior to blast spells at higher levels is an artifact of the rules, not neccessarily what the game designers intended.

Also, being GOD makes it a wee bit difficult for the other players to, you know, still matter.

A Batman is a different thing, because he is an enabler and not someone who has to seriously consider why he has any of those xp-moochers running around with him...

But a very intelligent person might also argue thus:

Mentor: "Well, my pupil, the question often arises if it is better, in a life-or-death fight, to use arcana that hinder or outright disable a foe, or those which directly damage your enemies. The answer, of course, lies in applying strategic thoughts to the matter at hand:

As every competent player of strategy games can tell you, the key to being a good strategist is to always maximise your minimum gain.

Now, an invocation like a Web spell, or maybe a Glitterdust has a chance to disable some of your foes temporarily. Unless you manage to disable all of them at once, you face the fact that you still have not only not killed off a single one of your enemies, you also need to deal with those which your magic didn't affect, or, more often, which you could simply not fit into the area of effect.

That is, by the way, the reason why you should never travel alone if you can help it. Sure, a mere warrior will never be able to bend reality to his will like we do, but he can skewer foes. And thus, kill off the ones your spell did not disable. Also, even if you did disable all your foes, you need to go about actually killing them. Because your spell will wear off sooner or later, usually sooner, and unless you managed to kill off your foes, you are right back at square one. Minus one spell that is.

If you use a damaging evocation, however, you will always get some result. Maybe you do not kill off all your foes, or even some of them, but even if the foes somehow managed to ward of the worst of your evocation, they will still be weakened. And thus fall so much easier to the steel of your warrior compatriots. You really should never be without some of those...

Therefore, the steadynes and certainity of results of evocations clearly beats the fickle and random results of conjurations or illusions. Exept maybe Evard's Black Tentacles. Now that one always produces results. Best of both worlds... hrm hrm...."

Lycar

[Gametime]

Well, because using the genius level intellect of your character as a reason to denounce evocations as useless is playing the rules, not the game.

SoDs and SoSs being mechanically superior to blast spells at higher levels is an artifact of the rules, not neccessarily what the game designers intended.

Also, being GOD makes it a wee bit difficult for the other players to, you know, still matter.

A Batman is a different thing, because he is an enabler and not someone who has to seriously consider why he has any of those xp-moochers running around with him...

But a very intelligent person might also argue thus:

Mentor: "Well, my pupil, the question often arises if it is better, in a life-or-death fight, to use arcana that hinder or outright disable a foe, or those which directly damage your enemies. The answer, of course, lies in applying strategic thoughts to the matter at hand:

As every competent player of strategy games can tell you, the key to being a good strategist is to always maximise your minimum gain.

Now, an invocation like a Web spell, or maybe a Glitterdust has a chance to disable some of your foes temporarily. Unless you manage to disable all of them at once, you face the fact that you still have not only not killed off a single one of your enemies, you also need to deal with those which your magic didn't affect, or, more often, which you could simply not fit into the area of effect.

That is, by the way, the reason why you should never travel alone if you can help it. Sure, a mere warrior will never be able to bend reality to his will like we do, but he can skewer foes. And thus, kill off the ones your spell did not disable. Also, even if you did disable all your foes, you need to go about actually killing them. Because your spell will wear off sooner or later, usually sooner, and unless you managed to kill off your foes, you are right back at square one. Minus one spell that is.

If you use a damaging evocation, however, you will always get some result. Maybe you do not kill off all your foes, or even some of them, but even if the foes somehow managed to ward of the worst of your evocation, they will still be weakened. And thus fall so much easier to the steel of your warrior compatriots. You really should never be without some of those...

Therefore, the steadynes and certainity of results of evocations clearly beats the fickle and random results of conjurations or illusions. Exept maybe Evard's Black Tentacles. Now that one always produces results. Best of both worlds... hrm hrm...."

Lycar

Except blinding or stunning your foes also makes them easier to skewer for your warrior compatriots. Targeting a weak save with a powerful save-or-die isn't quite as certain as using an evocation, but the result is orders of magnitude more devastating if successful.

Even traveling solo, save-or-dies tend to be better past a certain level. Every wizard should know one or two damaging spells - you do need to kill things yourself sometimes - but a weak evocation isn't going to be any better at keeping you alive than a good save-or-die. Facing a group of bandits? Fireball! They're all at half health, completely unimpeded, and proceed to tear you to shreds the following turn. If, instead, you were to Glitterdust them, those affected would be unable to effectively attack you. At the very least, you've bought yourself some time. The lesson to be taken is that damage is useless unless you can kill someone; status effects are much more likely to be relevant.

So, yeah. If they can't hurt you back, you can kill them at your leisure. If they can hurt you back, you're in constant danger even if they're at one hit point.

[Sinfire Titan]

Also, being GOD makes it a wee bit difficult for the other players to, you know, still matter.


No, that's Level 1 Optimization. GOD should be about hindering his enemies and aiding his mindless peons allies so everyone in the party survives the encounter with a minimal resource investment.

GOD is an expanded Batman. A Wizard optimized to Level 1 Optimization is on-par with the Twice-Betrayer build.

[Tinydwarfman]

Except blinding or stunning your foes also makes them easier to skewer for your warrior compatriots. Targeting a weak save with a powerful save-or-die isn't quite as certain as using an evocation, but the result is orders of magnitude more devastating if successful.

Even traveling solo, save-or-dies tend to be better past a certain level. Every wizard should know one or two damaging spells - you do need to kill things yourself sometimes - but a weak evocation isn't going to be any better at keeping you alive than a good save-or-die. Facing a group of bandits? Fireball! They're all at half health, completely unimpeded, and proceed to tear you to shreds the following turn. If, instead, you were to Glitterdust them, those affected would be unable to effectively attack you. At the very least, you've bought yourself some time. The lesson to be taken is that damage is useless unless you can kill someone; status effects are much more likely to be relevant.

So, yeah. If they can't hurt you back, you can kill them at your leisure. If they can hurt you back, you're in constant danger even if they're at one hit point.

+1. Why blast, when you can put your foes to sleep/stunned/blinded/entangled, and then proceed to kill them.

[Lycar]

Except blinding or stunning your foes also makes them easier to skewer for your warrior compatriots. Targeting a weak save with a powerful save-or-die isn't quite as certain as using an evocation, but the result is orders of magnitude more devastating if successful.



+1. Why blast, when you can put your foes to sleep/stunned/blinded/entangled, and then proceed to kill them.

Uh people... that was supposed to be IC reasoning why one would rather prefer to blast then to SoX.

The point being that the whole 'targetting a weak save' is a metagame thing.

Blasting a whole group of enemies down just enough, so that the Great Cleave fighter can mow them down like wheat with a scythe, means your fighter buddy will love you for it.

And besides: All this 'superior tactics' stuff only matters if you (or rather, you GM) makes it matter. If the fights are of the kind that you can only survive them by employing SoD/SoS spells, well, then I say your GM needs to offer a bit more variety.

After all, a larger group of lower CR enemies is supposed to be as challenging as a single foe of about your party's CR. And against a large group of lower CR enemies, blasting is pretty effective. Especially with a Cleave fighter type in the group.

It boils down to different playstyles but by solely depending on the 'superior' tactics makes the game lose a lot of potential. As usual, YMMV and all that.

Lycar

[Yukitsu]

Uh people... that was supposed to be IC reasoning why one would rather prefer to blast then to SoX.

The point being that the whole 'targetting a weak save' is a metagame thing.


Not entirely. "Hey, that squidfaced thing is spindly, has a huge brain and is wearing robes! I bet he has great reflexes and is super tough!"

Or- "Hey, that gigantic tiger is fast as lightning and super muscular! I bet it's able to resist all sorts of mental commands!"

You can often get the weak save with a glance, and when you can't, it's often strong on most of its saves. Outsiders in particular have no real visible weak saves, or if they do, it's often a lie, and is actually also a great save.

[ScionoftheVoid]

The point being that the whole 'targetting a weak save' is a metagame thing.

So you use mind-addling affects on people with weak minds and effects resisted by physical endurance on weedy people. Not hard, not metagaming. You'll guess wrong sometimes but you have more than one spell slot.


Blasting a whole group of enemies down just enough, so that the Great Cleave fighter can mow them down like wheat with a scythe, means your fighter buddy will love you for it.

Until an enemy is at 0 or lower HP they are not impaired at all. Blasting is no help until the enemies die. SoS effects actually do things. Your Great Cleave fighter buddy who can't take down a group of mooks without help when it is evidently their thing is incompetent. Even if he needs help Colour Spray works better than Burning Hands and Web better than Fireball. Blasting does not help until the battle is finished, Battlefield Control and Save-or-Suck/Die/Just Suck-No Save effects help thoughout the battle.


And besides: All this 'superior tactics' stuff only matters if you (or rather, you GM) makes it matter. If the fights are of the kind that you can only survive them by employing SoD/SoS spells, well, then I say your GM needs to offer a bit more variety.

SoD/SoS spells are (in general) better tactics, blasting may still work but it will almost always be worse. SoD/SoS will lower resource expenditure far more efficiently than blasting will, in most cases. Winning on turn one is possible due to pure luck for a SoSer, unless their opponent(s) is(are) immune to the effect, regardless of how powerful the opponent(s) is(are). A Blaster can only win on turn one if the opponent(s) is(are) not immune to the effect, the opponent's(opponents') HP totals are lower than their maximum damage and they get lucky (as lucky as the SoSer, at least).


After all, a larger group of lower CR enemies is supposed to be as challenging as a single foe of about your party's CR. And against a large group of lower CR enemies, blasting is pretty effective. Especially with a Cleave fighter type in the group.

SoS tends at low levels to deal with groups of enemies better than blasting does (see: Sleep, Colour Spray, Grease). At higher levels hordes of enemies are not an appropriate challenge unless they are well above normal CR for that level, the close-combat guys would barely need help, a Haste would do. Maybe a Reach, Chained Bull's Strength or something if you invested in metamagic feats.


It boils down to different playstyles but by solely depending on the 'superior' tactics makes the game lose a lot of potential.

I don't think that anyone backed up superior tactics being the only option, merely the better one (as noted by their being "superior"). Why would the use of these effects make the game "lose a lot of potential", in any way?

Just my thoughts and questions.

[lsfreak]

The point being that the whole 'targetting a weak save' is a metagame thing.

You have three people before you: a lean martial artist, a heavyset bouncer, and slightly nerdy debater. They are dressed for their respective activities. Could you guess which two would be more likely to stumble on a balance beam? Which two would be more likely to fail a logic test? Which two would be more likely to get drunk off less alcohol?

[Tinydwarfman]

You have three people before you: a lean martial artist, a heavyset bouncer, and slightly nerdy debater. They are dressed for their respective activities. Could you guess which two would be more likely to stumble on a balance beam? Which two would be more likely to fail a logic test? Which two would be more likely to get drunk off less alcohol?

But if this is D&D, then the nerdy debater also bends the laws of reality to his whim, and has better saves than the other two combined. :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But if this is D&D, then the nerdy debater also bends the laws of reality to his whim, and has better saves than the other two combined. :smalltongue:

Even if his saves are all X higher than the others' combined, his Will is likely X+6 where his Fort and Ref are X+3, or similar.

[krossbow]

If the character reasons like that, I agree it's a well-developed character trait that opens many possibilities.

If it is instead the reasoning of the player, it's a line of thought that closes possibilities, since it diminishes the number of different concepts.

I read it more as the opinion of the player than the character; but I might be wrong.For me, optimizing means implementing a concept in a way that makes you the most powerful. That's what "optimal" actually means; "the most effective" or "the best".




Its BOTH. He had an open disdane of evocationists, and would often go out of his way to humiliate blaster mages when he'd encounter them. Had a good time heckling them in character, and made no secret of my characters views of such things. Had a good time in the beginning when he earned the nickname "Reaper of dreams" from people due to his habit of carrying a scythe and decapitating helpless opponents(gogo coup de grace!).

I have to admit, i can't comprehend how one couldn't combine mechanics and RPing story/backstory into one; Roleplaying should be second nature. even should you Design your character with Function in mind, i just can't see how it can inhibit making a fun character!

In one campaign, i asked around what everyone else was going to be playing before rolling my character; We had no divine spellcaster. I had intended to make a barbarian from the desert wastes in the beginning, but i knew, character or no character, it would be far more enjoyable for us to be alive than have to be TPK'd a few sessions in.
So i rolled up a Chaotic good half orc cleric of Pelor; A few modifications to his story, and he was more or less the same character (He'd ended up being saved by clerics from a monastery on the desert outskirts, and converted, ect.). Funnest character i've ever had too, despite being designed specifically for his party mechanics contribution; Acted like Brian blessed If he were a preacher, and was a blast to RP.

I just can't see how it can inhibit Roleplaying; A good roleplayer can craft a good backstory and personality easily.



However, If one has a concept that they have their heart and soul on, there's nothing wrong with choosing that first, and mechanics second; just thats going to require a different playstyles by the DM to make the party work together (and there is no wrong way to play, as long as everyone is having fun, and on the same page).

[Gametime]

Uh people... that was supposed to be IC reasoning why one would rather prefer to blast then to SoX.

The point being that the whole 'targetting a weak save' is a metagame thing.

Blasting a whole group of enemies down just enough, so that the Great Cleave fighter can mow them down like wheat with a scythe, means your fighter buddy will love you for it.

And besides: All this 'superior tactics' stuff only matters if you (or rather, you GM) makes it matter. If the fights are of the kind that you can only survive them by employing SoD/SoS spells, well, then I say your GM needs to offer a bit more variety.

After all, a larger group of lower CR enemies is supposed to be as challenging as a single foe of about your party's CR. And against a large group of lower CR enemies, blasting is pretty effective. Especially with a Cleave fighter type in the group.

It boils down to different playstyles but by solely depending on the 'superior' tactics makes the game lose a lot of potential. As usual, YMMV and all that.

Lycar

But your character doesn't notice any effects of the damaging spells he casts until the enemy drops. Without metagaming, there's no way to know that it affected them at all - enemies function just as well at low hit points. Sure, you can extrapolate that the ogre you just scorched is a little weaker, but you could also hazard a guess that maybe you should've cast a different spell as he gets ready to cleave you in two. Y'know, a spell to knock him unconscious in one go, which some spells explicitly do.

Which isn't to say that you can't justify blasting in character - you can, and it's a blast (rimshot!) to play. But it's hardly any more reasonable or any less metagamed.

[Lycar]

You can often get the weak save with a glance, and when you can't, it's often strong on most of its saves. Outsiders in particular have no real visible weak saves, or if they do, it's often a lie, and is actually also a great save.


So you use mind-addling affects on people with weak minds and effects resisted by physical endurance on weedy people. Not hard, not metagaming. You'll guess wrong sometimes but you have more than one spell slot.

This is not what I mean.

What I mean is this:


But your character doesn't notice any effects of the damaging spells he casts until the enemy drops. Without metagaming, there's no way to know that it affected them at all - enemies function just as well at low hit points.

Enemies should show some signs of being weakened when low(er) on HP. As should characters for that matter. But as the system works, 1 HP is as good as 100 or 10.000 as far as your effectivenes goes.

SoD/SoS spells on the other hand... well, they are a pretty binary affair: Either the victim makes the safe, then there is no effect. Or it is pretty much Game Over for that foe.


Which isn't to say that you can't justify blasting in character - you can, and it's a blast (rimshot!) to play. But it's hardly any more reasonable or any less metagamed.
One would expect a foe that just got fireballed to be weaker then one who didn't. But it only shows in how the melee guys now only need 1 hit to off the gnoll instead of 2. That they can till dish out the hurt as good as before is a mechanical artifact. A flaw of the game if you will.

It makes the game simpler, sure, but the price is that blasting doesn't do as much as the other spells, unless you outright incinerate (dissolve, electrocute, freeze etc) your enemies.

However, one would expect the world to work differently. One would expect foes, who are still smoldering, to be less of a threat then those who are at full health. Again, the only way this manifests is the way melee types can dispatche those foes easier (as they need to shave off less HP), not that they are any less dangerous.

But that is a metagame issue. The characters should not know about this. The should find making a decision between:

A) SoD/S spells who are an all-or-nothing affair and
B) Blast spells, which will always have some effect

to be one of personal tastes and not one of rules efficiency.

Maybe instituting some houserules, like 'mandatory' elemental side effects to blast spells and 'safe ends' to the SoS spells would make the choice a bit tougher then a no brainer.

After all, when there are basically two ways of disabling enemies with spells, and one is rendered basically impotent by the rules, then something is amiss...

Lycar

[Starbuck_II]

But that is a metagame issue. The characters should not know about this. The should find making a decision between:

A) SoD/S spells who are an all-or-nothing affair and
B) Blast spells, which will always have some effect

to be one of personal tastes and not one of rules efficiency.

Maybe instituting some houserules, like 'mandatory' elemental side effects to blast spells and 'safe ends' to the SoS spells would make the choice a bit tougher then a no brainer.

After all, when there are basically two ways of disabling enemies with spells, and one is rendered basically impotent by the rules, then something is amiss...

Lycar

But most save or dies cause something on a success. Finger of Death causes a piddy of damage.

[Gametime]

But that is a metagame issue. The characters should not know about this. The should find making a decision between:

A) SoD/S spells who are an all-or-nothing affair and
B) Blast spells, which will always have some effect



So what you are arguing is that the effectiveness of a spell in the game does not, or should not, translate into character? Because if I'm swinging just as powerfully as I was before getting blasted, then my opponents would have to be stupid to think I was weaker just because I'm "supposed to be."

Also, I'd like to point out that blast spells don't always have an effect. Evasion negates ones relying on Reflex, and missing negates ones relying on an attack.

[krossbow]

now it seems things are coming down to buffing evocation to prove that SoD spells aren't better than damage.

RAW. RAW.