Plane shift and why I don't understand caster love

[Z3ro]

What with all the martials vs casters threads going around, I must say there's a particular element of caster classes that I never understood. The scenario goes like this:

An argument about martial vs casters breaks out. The martial side says there's nothing a caster can't do that they can't. The caster side points to a spell like plane shift or resurrection as an example of the limitless power a caster has.

But I've never understood how the argument was supposed to be a good thing, and I'll use plane shift as an example. In the abstract, yes, allowing a person to travel to the various planes they want is incredibly powerful, and does give the caster a huge boost over someone who can't do that.

But in the game, the spell specifically lets you take people with you, which will always end up being your party. You need to go to this plane or that, you use the spell to go there, and have your adventure. At the end you plane shift back. In this scenario, to me, it's always felt like the caster is a glorified magic item or plot device.

So my question to people who like playing casters: when you cast a spell like plane shift to move the party forward, do you feel like you've made a difference in the game, or do you end up feeling like a magic item? I ask, because when I play casters, it always feels like the later, which is why I prefer blasters.

[mr_odd]

That's partially my whole point in the debate. 5e places a focus on the party rather than the individual.

[lianightdemon]

You can always still get an amulet of the planes (dmg) Depending on how hard to get magic items are in your game.

Sure casters get a lot more toys to play with but how often do you really need them?

[GiantOctopodes]

I agree. Since this is not a solo game, while I 100% think it is important to have at least 1 full caster in the party, the things casters can do that 'martials' cannot are: Resurrection, Plane Shifting, Elemental Adaptation, Summoning, and Long Range Teleportation.

Of those, the only thing provides a clear and distinct advantage over a martial, and the only reason to want more than 1 in a party, is summoning. Everything else can be done by the same person, if it's a cleric or druid, and suddenly sticking a warlock in vs a ranger is not *nearly* as clear of a benefit, as the things that are 'impossible' without casters are already possible. You've met your caster quota, and now the ranger can shine just as much as his ranged damage counterpart from the caster side. Sure a Bard would be a better pick than either of those, but that's a whole different party optimization topic entirely.

[Eslin]

It doesn't strike you as uneven that you have to have at least one caster, but can happily do without any martials?

A couple of other problems I've noted: One, certain players feel kind of crappy when they know that they're not contributing anything unique but others are and two, in games where the DM gives experience based on contribution (the warlock basically sat that fight out, he gets 10% of the experience, the paladin charged in, drew their fire and executed their leader, he gets 40% of the experience) casters tend to pull ahead in levels because they're contributing while the martials aren't.

[Z3ro]

It doesn't strike you as uneven that you have to have at least one caster, but can happily do without any martials?

That's kind of the opposite of the point I was making; no party needs casters. In my plane shift example, if there's no one capable of casting the spell, the DM will either 1) provide some way (like an NPC or sidequest) for it to happen, or 2) pick a different adventure. I've never played in a session where we just threw up our hands because we didn't have the particular spell to solve a problem.



A couple of other problems I've noted: One, certain players feel kind of crappy when they know that they're not contributing anything unique but others are

But again, that's kind of what I was asking. In my plane shift example, the caster is providing something unique, but I (as a mostly martial player) don't feel the list bit bad. In fact, I prefer to avoid those type of utility/diversity roles altogether, and don't mind when I'm just another damage dealer. My last 5E party was probably my all-time favorite, with a monk, barbarian, fighter, and nature cleric. All we did was smash things, but we smashed things good.



and two, in games where the DM gives experience based on contribution (the warlock basically sat that fight out, he gets 10% of the experience, the paladin charged in, drew their fire and executed their leader, he gets 40% of the experience) casters tend to pull ahead in levels because they're contributing while the martials aren't.

This is a good point for that particular playstyle, but I've never played that way and don't know how common it is.

[Kerrin]

I don't understand all the intense discussions on this type of thing over the years, I think because I play in cooperative groups where players and their characters generally try to cooperate with each other.

I've never played in a competitive group, so maybe that's why I've not seen these problems in my play experiences that keep getting discussed.

I guess for me it's all theoretical.

[Gwendol]

"Can happily go without any martial"

Yeah, right. What is that supposed to prove and why is it important? The DM can just as well declare an adventure/campaign for a non-magic party and rest assured the rules support that kind of campaign.

[Eslin]

That's kind of the opposite of the point I was making; no party needs casters. In my plane shift example, if there's no one capable of casting the spell, the DM will either 1) provide some way (like an NPC or sidequest) for it to happen, or 2) pick a different adventure. I've never played in a session where we just threw up our hands because we didn't have the particular spell to solve a problem.

But again, that's kind of what I was asking. In my plane shift example, the caster is providing something unique, but I (as a mostly martial player) don't feel the list bit bad. In fact, I prefer to avoid those type of utility/diversity roles altogether, and don't mind when I'm just another damage dealer. My last 5E party was probably my all-time favorite, with a monk, barbarian, fighter, and nature cleric. All we did was smash things, but we smashed things good.

This is a good point for that particular playstyle, but I've never played that way and don't know how common it is.

Then you play a very different way I do. If it makes sense for, say, their quarry to plane shift out of there and take the artifact with him, then their quarry will do so. If they don't have plane shift, too bad for them, they should have planned better, and they're going to have to go out of their way to find a scroll or item or npc or something to get to the other plane if they want to do so and I'm not going to go out of my way to provide one.

I make and run the game world around them, and it's not going to change just because they've deliberately chosen to not have certain capabilities. It's like that campaign a while back when players didn't bother grabbing knowledge skills on the grounds that, in their words, 'anything the DM wants you to know, he'll tell you' and ended up fumbling around in the dark, getting blindsided by abilities they didn't know creatures had and eventually all dying.

Not every problem can be solved, there have been times even the best they could put together couldn't quite do what they wanted to do, but if they deliberately leave gaps in their repertoire they are aware they will likely come to regret it.

[Z3ro]

Then you play a very different way I do. If it makes sense for, say, their quarry to plane shift out of there and take the artifact with him, then their quarry will do so. If they don't have plane shift, too bad for them, they should have planned better, and they're going to have to go out of their way to find a scroll or item or npc or something to get to the other plane if they want to do so and I'm not going to go out of my way to provide one.

I make and run the game world around them, and it's not going to change just because they've deliberately chosen to not have certain capabilities. It's like that campaign a while back when players didn't bother grabbing knowledge skills on the grounds that, in their words, 'anything the DM wants you to know, he'll tell you' and ended up fumbling around in the dark, getting blindsided by abilities they didn't know creatures had and eventually all dying.

Not every problem can be solved, there have been times even the best they could put together couldn't quite do what they wanted to do, but if they deliberately leave gaps in their repertoire they are aware they will likely come to regret it.

Ok, it is clear we play a very different style. But let me ask you this:

The bad guy grabs the artifact and plane shifts out. No one in the party has the spell to follow (I feel it appropriate to point out this is not a martial problem, it's entirely possible any given caster doesn't have the spell). Now, I understand your world doesn't revolve around the players, but you had to know they couldn't cast the spell. It seems to me you now have two choices:

1) the players throw up their hands, ignore the bad guy, and go find another adventure. This seems annoying, both narratively and as a DM; you don't want them to go off to somewhere you haven't prepared and have to wing it.

2) You, knowing they couldn't cast the spell, have an alternative method for them to achieve it. Now as much as you say you just create the world and let them play, to a certain extent that's not true; you know the players don't have plane shift, and you made the bad guy capable of it. That means your responsible for when he gets away. Now, it seems you suggest it is possible for the players to find an alternative; maybe it's expensive, or puts them at some other disadvantage, but how is this different from what I was proposing?

[GiantOctopodes]

Ok, it is clear we play a very different style. But let me ask you this:

The bad guy grabs the artifact and plane shifts out. No one in the party has the spell to follow (I feel it appropriate to point out this is not a martial problem, it's entirely possible any given caster doesn't have the spell). Now, I understand your world doesn't revolve around the players, but you had to know they couldn't cast the spell. It seems to me you now have two choices:

1) the players throw up their hands, ignore the bad guy, and go find another adventure. This seems annoying, both narratively and as a DM; you don't want them to go off to somewhere you haven't prepared and have to wing it.

2) You, knowing they couldn't cast the spell, have an alternative method for them to achieve it. Now as much as you say you just create the world and let them play, to a certain extent that's not true; you know the players don't have plane shift, and you made the bad guy capable of it. That means your responsible for when he gets away. Now, it seems you suggest it is possible for the players to find an alternative; maybe it's expensive, or puts them at some other disadvantage, but how is this different from what I was proposing?

Eslin runs a more sandbox style game, wherein he (in theory) has the other areas they could go already populated, so he wouldn't need to wing it in the first case, and probably gave the enemy plane shift when he designed him, 6 levels before the players ever encountered him. If I understand his style of DMing correctly, the players would have the opportunity to discover that he is known to possess the ability to travel through the planes using their knowledge and investigation skills, and could in theory obtain a means of overcoming that before ever going to face him, whether with or without a caster. That's why I don't think it would be as big of a deal, even in his campaign, as he makes it seem, but I could be 100% wrong, as ultimately I can't speak for him. Either way, if they didn't have proper preparation, caster or no, I suspect the BBEG would build up an army on whatever plane he went to, and ignoring him would end up with a possibly insurmountable threat returning later on.

And Eslin, no, it doesn't strike me as odd that a caster is practically required, because it's not. Actively choosing not to have one locks off certain parts of the game, certainly, but it doesn't leave it unplayable. Just like if you actively choose not to have someone good at social interaction, or tracking (magically or not), or stealth, you made your choice, and it's your own fault that you won't participate in those aspects of the game. Sure, no underwater or planar adventures for you, but I think we can agree on this- it's only a problem if you do not have those abilities and the enemy *does*. Which is to say, in a campaign more PC centric than your own, if the players aren't using those tools from the toolbox, absolutely no issues are caused, if the DM also does not use them, or removes them from the game world. The overwhelming disadvantage that is inherent in a lack of a caster is caused by missing tools that your enemy has and can use against you, which certainly makes it a requirement to have a caster in your campaign or those like it, but not in all campaigns.

Do I think it's an issue that casters add tools overall to the toolbox of what can be done in the game world? Not even remotely. Would I rather that Martials added more unique tools not available through other means, thus making them potentially just as indispensable as casters? Absolutely. But I don't mind at all the one caster per party 'requirement', I think you would agree that a properly prepared party, one armed with magical devices that allow for elemental adaptation, summoning, and planar travel, can certainly overcome the challenges a lack of a caster provide, even if they would have a much easier time (and more resources free to enhance their strength in other ways) if they had just chosen a caster in the first place.

[Z3ro]

Eslin runs a more sandbox style game, wherein he (in theory) has the other areas they could go already populated, so he wouldn't need to wing it in the first case, and probably gave the enemy plane shift when he designed him, 6 levels before the players ever encountered him. If I understand his style of DMing correctly, the players would have the opportunity to discover that he is known to possess the ability to travel through the planes using their knowledge and investigation skills, and could in theory obtain a means of overcoming that before ever going to face him, whether with or without a caster. That's why I don't think it would be as big of a deal, even in his campaign, as he makes it seem, but I could be 100% wrong, as ultimately I can't speak for him. Either way, if they didn't have proper preparation, caster or no, I suspect the BBEG would build up an army on whatever plane he went to, and ignoring him would end up with a possibly insurmountable threat returning later on.


Holy jeez; I've never played in a campaign that had that amount of prep work. Congratulations if you're able to do that kind of work. I'm not even being sarcastic, that's seriously impressive. I can see how, if that's the world you setup, having a caster ready for anything becomes more important. But I would also think that your players, being used to your style, would make choices (even as martials) to either cover as many options as possible, or only stuck to missions they knew they could achieve. Kind of the opposite of a PC-centric approach.

[pwykersotz]

A lot of it has to do with immediacy. The lowly commoner can wander the planes, parlay with deities, and uncover lost secrets. The Wizard just has tools to make them happen quicker.

As others have said, it's a playstyle difference. I favor casters because that's where my imagination has always taken me, but I had a tone of fun with my fighter and never once questioned whether I was effective. By the end of Lost Mines, the wizard and I were about equal for heroic and game-changing awesomeness.

[Eslin]

Ok, it is clear we play a very different style. But let me ask you this:

The bad guy grabs the artifact and plane shifts out. No one in the party has the spell to follow (I feel it appropriate to point out this is not a martial problem, it's entirely possible any given caster doesn't have the spell). Now, I understand your world doesn't revolve around the players, but you had to know they couldn't cast the spell. It seems to me you now have two choices:

1) the players throw up their hands, ignore the bad guy, and go find another adventure. This seems annoying, both narratively and as a DM; you don't want them to go off to somewhere you haven't prepared and have to wing it.

2) You, knowing they couldn't cast the spell, have an alternative method for them to achieve it. Now as much as you say you just create the world and let them play, to a certain extent that's not true; you know the players don't have plane shift, and you made the bad guy capable of it. That means your responsible for when he gets away. Now, it seems you suggest it is possible for the players to find an alternative; maybe it's expensive, or puts them at some other disadvantage, but how is this different from what I was proposing?
1) That does happen quite often. There is rarely just one important thing happening at one time, even if there is 'everything is getting invaded by demons' then that invasion will have several points of effect. And there is nowhere I haven't prepared, I have enough information on any area they might go to wing it.

2) No, the players are responsible when he gets away. If they care enough about what he's doing to continue going after him rather than trying to find something more suited to their skills, they're going to have to figure out a way to hop planes. I won't have set anything up for them to do so, but the world is full of options and for most tasks the tools exist if sought cleverly.


Eslin runs a more sandbox style game, wherein he (in theory) has the other areas they could go already populated, so he wouldn't need to wing it in the first case, and probably gave the enemy plane shift when he designed him, 6 levels before the players ever encountered him. If I understand his style of DMing correctly, the players would have the opportunity to discover that he is known to possess the ability to travel through the planes using their knowledge and investigation skills, and could in theory obtain a means of overcoming that before ever going to face him, whether with or without a caster. That's why I don't think it would be as big of a deal, even in his campaign, as he makes it seem, but I could be 100% wrong, as ultimately I can't speak for him. Either way, if they didn't have proper preparation, caster or no, I suspect the BBEG would build up an army on whatever plane he went to, and ignoring him would end up with a possibly insurmountable threat returning later on.

And Eslin, no, it doesn't strike me as odd that a caster is practically required, because it's not. Actively choosing not to have one locks off certain parts of the game, certainly, but it doesn't leave it unplayable. Just like if you actively choose not to have someone good at social interaction, or tracking (magically or not), or stealth, you made your choice, and it's your own fault that you won't participate in those aspects of the game. Sure, no underwater or planar adventures for you, but I think we can agree on this- it's only a problem if you do not have those abilities and the enemy *does*. Which is to say, in a campaign more PC centric than your own, if the players aren't using those tools from the toolbox, absolutely no issues are caused, if the DM also does not use them, or removes them from the game world. The overwhelming disadvantage that is inherent in a lack of a caster is caused by missing tools that your enemy has and can use against you, which certainly makes it a requirement to have a caster in your campaign or those like it, but not in all campaigns.

Do I think it's an issue that casters add tools overall to the toolbox of what can be done in the game world? Not even remotely. Would I rather that Martials added more unique tools not available through other means, thus making them potentially just as indispensable as casters? Absolutely. But I don't mind at all the one caster per party 'requirement', I think you would agree that a properly prepared party, one armed with magical devices that allow for elemental adaptation, summoning, and planar travel, can certainly overcome the challenges a lack of a caster provide, even if they would have a much easier time (and more resources free to enhance their strength in other ways) if they had just chosen a caster in the first place.
Yep, absolutely correct. You read my intentions pretty well, so honestly in something like this you pretty much can speak for me. I don't really need to say much, you've said it pretty much perfectly.
Second paragraph wise, that does make sense. I've had a party go entirely martial characters just to see how well they could do with very limited tools, they ignored what they couldn't do and just focused on trying to do the best they could with what they had. Ended up dying because they chose to try to kill a dragon, but they had fun with it and got a surprising amount done before that point.


Holy jeez; I've never played in a campaign that had that amount of prep work. Congratulations if you're able to do that kind of work. I'm not even being sarcastic, that's seriously impressive. I can see how, if that's the world you setup, having a caster ready for anything becomes more important. But I would also think that your players, being used to your style, would make choices (even as martials) to either cover as many options as possible, or only stuck to missions they knew they could achieve. Kind of the opposite of a PC-centric approach.
It's not like every single NPC in the world is statted out - I just have information on each region and generate complexity if the players happen to go there. Until they check it out, Norkorea has some basic information on economy, geography, political structure and inhabitants, it's only when they check it out that it becomes fully realised.

There's more to it than that, I optimise a few NPCs whenever I'm bored and place them at different points, invent organisations and map out the occasional castle. But in general I work out in broad strokes what a setting's like, logically extrapolate events based on that and bring the players in when I get up to a bit that is interesting enough. Events would unfold without them, and occasionally do if they go off and become pirates or something, and sometimes they have to work hard to get involved in the first place, but I find the story is better when the players choose how to fit in with it.

It does preclude the players getting swept up by events past the first part (in a game I started recently they're all refugees nations the rampaging human empire has destroyed, but once they escape the army it's their choice), but in general you have to railroad players to get that to happen anyway so I don't mind.

[jkat718]

Eslin, I'd be really interested in how you go about writing your campaigns. I've always wanted to make an open-world, do-whatever-you-want setting, but my players aren't really into that. They're much more comfortable in a train car, and like to work within the bounds of an adventure where the only thing that truly hinges on them is their success in combat. Whenever myself or one of the other two DMs in the group (we play with a rotation) gives the party a real, game-changing decision, we usually end up with blank looks and a question of "well, what're we supposed to do?" which I, for one, hate. I would love to make a seeing that was diverse and self-sustaining enough to help me teach my players to direct themselves. If you've already written about your preparation methods, feel free to just point me there. I'm really intrigued. :smallbiggrin:

[Eslin]

Eslin, I'd be really interested in how you go about writing your campaigns. I've always wanted to make an open-world, do-whatever-you-want setting, but my players aren't really into that. They're much more comfortable in a train car, and like to work within the bounds of an adventure where the only thing that truly hinges on them is their success in combat. Whenever myself or one of the other two DMs in the group (we play with a rotation) gives the party a real, game-changing decision, we usually end up with blank looks and a question of "well, what're we supposed to do?" which I, for one, hate. I would love to make a seeing that was diverse and self-sustaining enough to help me teach my players to direct themselves. If you've already written about your preparation methods, feel free to just point me there. I'm really intrigued. :smallbiggrin:

I haven't, it's just how I thought DMing should work. D&D to me is like an elder scrolls game, but better in all the ways the games are good - more freedom, more exploration, more choices. I kept extrapolating on the fly until I could do it without thinking, and I deal with players who won't choose by just continuing to have the world run around them until they learn to join in - though it isn't much of a problem, they tend to learn to choose while they learn to play D&D. Setup wise, I've never really sat down and shared it, but I suppose I could make a general 'Sandbox campaigns - how do you create and runs yours?' thread, post some stuff there and get input from others.

[Ziegander]

Eslin, I'd be really interested in how you go about writing your campaigns. I've always wanted to make an open-world, do-whatever-you-want setting, but my players aren't really into that. They're much more comfortable in a train car, and like to work within the bounds of an adventure where the only thing that truly hinges on them is their success in combat. Whenever myself or one of the other two DMs in the group (we play with a rotation) gives the party a real, game-changing decision, we usually end up with blank looks and a question of "well, what're we supposed to do?" which I, for one, hate. I would love to make a seeing that was diverse and self-sustaining enough to help me teach my players to direct themselves. If you've already written about your preparation methods, feel free to just point me there. I'm really intrigued. :smallbiggrin:

I've found the easiest way to hammer the playstyle home, because it's a playstyle as much as it is a DM campaign design style, is to start the PCs off with small, simple adventures with open-ended situations. Start at level 1 with a "straightforward" dungeon crawl, but add in a few parts where the PLOT depends on whatever the PCs choose to do. Start off really small like that. Like, let's say, the party meets a group of injured goblins, nursing their wounds, who are startled by the PCs and who will fight if provoked, but don't immediately attack (because they know they will likely die). That's the kind of situation where the PCs have to decide for themselves what to do. Have them deal with a few situations like this, get them used to the idea that, in your campaigns, they really can do whatever they want, and the plot will be influenced based on the decisions they make in-character. As they are getting used to it, give them more and more situations in which their choices shape the game's plot. That's how I started it off years ago, and by now my players know that they can do anything they want, and also, perhaps more importantly, I'm never going to force them (except for occasionally before the first session) to make any choice, I'm never going to intentionally even hint that perhaps they should say or do something.

[jkat718]

@Ziegander

I think my problem is that I know my party will (nearly) always choose a fight. Rarely, they might get information from a wounded enemy first, bit they never let them go. I think it's just an artifact from when we awarded xp based on kills (which we quickly realized was a bad system, but not before we got used to killing everything on sight).

[pwykersotz]

@Ziegander

I think my problem is that I know my party will (nearly) always choose a fight. Rarely, they might get information from a wounded enemy first, bit they never let them go. I think it's just an artifact from when we awarded xp based on kills (which we quickly realized was a bad system, but not before we got used to killing everything on sight).

You've got to sweeten the deal for them to not attack for a while to get them used to not killing, usually with treasure or valuable information. Also out-of-character talks work too. I just had one of my kill-happy parties spare a foe because I casually mentioned the day before how taking the life of another person is actually tough for a majority of people, and how I don't feel the need to punish the party by making a recurring villain or negative plot point out of every mercy they show.

[themaque]

To answer the original question, NO I don't feel bad about it.

When I play a wizard I often go Utility Mage over Blaster. I attempt some battlefield control but mostly my job is to make everyone else's job easier and ensure the campaign keeps flowing. Let everyone else shine in their area of expertise allowing me more freedom in mine.

If we need to go across the country, I have a plan for that.
If we need to hop to a different dimension, I have a plan for that.
If we find ourselves in the middle of nowhere and need to shore up defenses, I have a plan for that.

Plan ahead, keep growing your arsenal of spells, and like the "old" adage goes ..

"Do your job right, and people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

[Malifice]

It doesn't strike you as uneven that you have to have at least one caster, but can happily do without any martials?

Why?

If the DM has an adventure in the planes, he sets up a mcguffin to get you there. Some NPC hires you and takes you to a magical portal somewhere. Your party of Fighters has its adventure in the nine hells, then faces a race against time to reach the portal home before it closes off.

No Wizards in Stargate man, and they seemed to do just fine.


A couple of other problems I've noted: One, certain players feel kind of crappy when they know that they're not contributing anything unique.

Read the DMG. It has a wealth of information to deal with just this situation.

[jkat718]

@Malifice

Firstly, don't poke Eslin. He will eat you alive. Twice.

Secondly, Eslin runs campaigns that are explicitly not made to be party-friendly. They are designed for verisimilitude (ie. made to work with or without the party). If you need a macguffin to chase the BBEG into the planes, then you'd better have known that ahead of time and gotten it before he set off his doomsday device. Now, it's the apocalypse and it's your fault for not having a caster with Teleport. Now, I know many DMs don't run their games like this, but the system itself shouldn't force DMs to if we don't want to.

EDIT:

Read the DMG. It has a wealth of information to deal with just this situation.

This is unconstructive. The assumption is that we've all either read the DMG--and either agree, disagree, or ignore it as we see fit--or have enough experience to go without it.

[oxybe]

It's mainly an issue of problem solving.

Fighter types are generally handed a hammer and told to use it. While there are creative and inventive ways of using that hammer, it's still very much limited by the bounds of what hammer is and can do. While it might sound like i'm talking as though a non-caster is limited to violence as means to solve problems, it's more like his options lack variety or subtlety by design:

Use a skill/ability check
Hit it
Use a tool you have on hand
etc...

While player ingenuity and creativity can accomplish much given GM leniency, the non-casters are still very much "grounded" in how they look at a problem and solve it.

Casters, even if you're playing a party-friendly one, simply tend to have more possible answers to problems or situations that can arise, since (generally speaking) they have all the mundane options available to the non-casters PLUS magic.

Most people would be suspicious of someone tailing a guard to get into a compound, but a dog? LOOKITTHEPUPPYWITDABIGEYES! It just so happens the puppy is a caster who's changed their form. Or used it on the rogue because he's smart enough to not just meander inside an enemy compound.

The ability to fly almost on demand is incredible and it adds a whole new dimension on how the wizard looks at solving a problem based off of physical limitations (even if the answer is "make fighter fly and throw him at problem").

But in addition to this a wizard can, and should, still carry around mundane problem solvers: oil, some canvas, flint&steel, a handaxe, some rope & a knife are still a vital part of the adventurer's toolkit you should have on hand, if only so you don't waste your magic slots on mundane stuff. Most anything a non-caster can do, a caster can also do (though the margin of success might vary as the NC might be more specialized in the non-magical form of the task), but the caster generally has far more ways to look at a problem and has more tools on how to solve them that he can also mix with the noncaster variant.

[Urpriest]

One thing nobody has mentioned that's enormously important in these discussions: balance isn't, primarily, about different players hogging the spotlight. That's a symptom, but it's not the primary one.

The main point of balance isn't two players competing in a campaign, it's two classes competing to be used by a player.

If a player wants to play an archer who's savvy about nature, they can play a Ranger...but they can also play a Bard. The Ranger might have slightly higher DPR, but the Bard has a lot more they can do, helping the player both have more fun and further the group's aims. If the two classes are balanced, then the choice would be a difficult one, and might come down to the player's flavor goals. Most people who argue that casters and martials are unbalanced would argue that the choice isn't a difficult one, that the Bard is more capable and more fun and that any player in this position who considered all the relevant facts would agree. That's what people mean when they say the system is unbalanced.

[Eslin]

Why?

If the DM has an adventure in the planes, he sets up a mcguffin to get you there. Some NPC hires you and takes you to a magical portal somewhere. Your party of Fighters has its adventure in the nine hells, then faces a race against time to reach the portal home before it closes off.

I'm pretty sure I won't. If there's something happening in another plane that the players are interested in, they'll need to figure a way to get there if they can't do it on their own, and I'm not going to make sure one exists just for their sake if it otherwise wouldn't.

[Z3ro]

Most people who argue that casters and martials are unbalanced would argue that the choice isn't a difficult one, that the Bard is more capable and more fun and that any player in this position who considered all the relevant facts would agree. That's what people mean when they say the system is unbalanced.

I do disagree with that bards are more fun than rangers. Not only that, but comparing a bard to a ranger for ranged damage is a great example of balance; sure, bard gets swift quiver first (ugh), but level 1-9, then 17-20, the ranger's unquestionable the better archer. Levels 10-16 the bard may be a bit better, but it's not by a mile.

But neither of which is a matter of fun. As I was trying to express, sometimes hitting things is fun. I happen to think it's great fun. Given the choice (and I had the choice in a recent campaign) I chose ranger, and don't regret it for a second.

[Eslin]

I do disagree with that bards are more fun than rangers. Not only that, but comparing a bard to a ranger for ranged damage is a great example of balance; sure, bard gets swift quiver first (ugh), but level 1-9, then 17-20, the ranger's unquestionable the better archer. Levels 10-16 the bard may be a bit better, but it's not by a mile.

But neither of which is a matter of fun. As I was trying to express, sometimes hitting things is fun. I happen to think it's great fun. Given the choice (and I had the choice in a recent campaign) I chose ranger, and don't regret it for a second.

Well, not really. Bards of many kinds are kind of underwhelming before 10 or so, they're the most parabolic class 5e has, but rangers are definitely not better post 17 - that's when the bard's getting foresight for all day advantage on attack rolls, saves and ability checks and opponents taking disadvantage on attacks against him. Or just true polymorphing the entire party into dragons.

[Z3ro]

Well, not really. Bards of many kinds are kind of underwhelming before 10 or so, they're the most parabolic class 5e has, but rangers are definitely not better post 17 - that's when the bard's getting foresight for all day advantage on attack rolls, saves and ability checks and opponents taking disadvantage on attacks against him.

While foresight is nice, it has the high opportunity cost of being the only 9th level spell the bard's going to cast. And even if they do, advantage on attacks is only marginally better than the +2 ranger gets from archery style, while the ranger is getting his extra horde-breaker attack, for 5 attacks vs. the bard's 4. At best it's a wash.


Or just true polymorphing the entire party into dragons.

Well, he's not really an archer then, now is he?

[Eslin]

Well, he's not really an archer then, now is he?

No, but he is a dragon. As is his entire party. +2 wise, he can take a level in fighter to get +2 on his ranged attacks. A ranger can't take a level in anything to get advantage on all attacks, saves, ability checks and cause all attackers to have disadvantage.

[pwykersotz]

One thing nobody has mentioned that's enormously important in these discussions: balance isn't, primarily, about different players hogging the spotlight. That's a symptom, but it's not the primary one.

The main point of balance isn't two players competing in a campaign, it's two classes competing to be used by a player.

If a player wants to play an archer who's savvy about nature, they can play a Ranger...but they can also play a Bard. The Ranger might have slightly higher DPR, but the Bard has a lot more they can do, helping the player both have more fun and further the group's aims. If the two classes are balanced, then the choice would be a difficult one, and might come down to the player's flavor goals. Most people who argue that casters and martials are unbalanced would argue that the choice isn't a difficult one, that the Bard is more capable and more fun and that any player in this position who considered all the relevant facts would agree. That's what people mean when they say the system is unbalanced.

I completely agree with this analysis. +1

[Z3ro]

To answer the original question, NO I don't feel bad about it.

When I play a wizard I often go Utility Mage over Blaster. I attempt some battlefield control but mostly my job is to make everyone else's job easier and ensure the campaign keeps flowing. Let everyone else shine in their area of expertise allowing me more freedom in mine.

If we need to go across the country, I have a plan for that.
If we need to hop to a different dimension, I have a plan for that.
If we find ourselves in the middle of nowhere and need to shore up defenses, I have a plan for that.

Plan ahead, keep growing your arsenal of spells, and like the "old" adage goes ..

"Do your job right, and people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

Totally missed this post. First, thanks for answering my question. But my response is, when you're playing that style, do you feel like you're dominating the game? Does this type of play make you feel like you're the strongest member of the party by having a number of abilities the others don't?

[themaque]

Totally missed this post. First, thanks for answering my question. But my response is, when you're playing that style, do you feel like you're dominating the game? Does this type of play make you feel like you're the strongest member of the party by having a number of abilities the others don't?

Not If you use a little something called TEAMWORK. Yes, a wizard CAN do just about anything, but not all at the same time. It would be foolish to try when you have other options right there.

Instead trying to scout myself with spell use invisibility on the Rouge, he goes from being sneaky to the friggen predator. Better than I could do with the spell.
There is a big strong fighter just waiting to deal damage, why not help him out with a haste or get him some flanking with a summoned monster.

No one exists or plays in a vacuum. As a utility caster it's my job to help everyone do their job better. And as long as everyone has a moment to shine, no ones feelings are hurt when I pull a scroll out of my pocket and help overcome some problem.

BBEG: "You will never take me down fools!" -teleport-

Me: "Trill, you slip that medallion in his pocket?"
Rogue: "Yup."
Me: "Let's go say hello eh?" -scribe then Teleport-

BBEG: "What? How?!"
Fighter: " BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!" -decapitation-

Yeah, I was a plot device, but everyone had a part to play and everyone had fun.

[themaque]

There was ONE game I did feel bad about my role.

It was a STARGATE game and I was playing the Daniel Jackson character. All kinds of knowledge and research capabilities. The problem here was I was a vessel for GM exposition explaining the situation. I was REALLY good at it, but I felt an NPC would have been a better choice. Like you said originally I felt more like a plot device in function than a full character.

Side Note: I loved my back story for that game. I was originally a mathematician who wrote his thesis paper explaining the improbability to the point of impossibility of extra-terrestrial life.
Someone in SG-1 found it hilarious to open my eyes to broader possibilities.

[Feldarove]

Kinda answering the question, in our current campaign we made characters for each other, I made my friend an evocation wizard, because he is always playing the support or utility role and I thought it would be good for him to just blast things.

He has really been enjoying it, and has like 200 more kills than the rest of the party.

But he still uses wizard for utility when appropriate.

My point being, I think some people feel like the party's bitch when they are the utility box or first aid kit +wiz/cleric)

[Urpriest]

I do disagree with that bards are more fun than rangers. Not only that, but comparing a bard to a ranger for ranged damage is a great example of balance; sure, bard gets swift quiver first (ugh), but level 1-9, then 17-20, the ranger's unquestionable the better archer. Levels 10-16 the bard may be a bit better, but it's not by a mile.

But neither of which is a matter of fun. As I was trying to express, sometimes hitting things is fun. I happen to think it's great fun. Given the choice (and I had the choice in a recent campaign) I chose ranger, and don't regret it for a second.

The thing about the damage difference is that it's not (as far as I've heard) large enough to be qualitative. It's not like there are some monsters a Bard's damage is just completely insufficient for, but a Ranger is. Both deal enough ranged weapon damage to be competitive.

In 5e, much like 4e, all classes have access to meaningful at-will abilities. The Ranger will spend most of their time just hitting things, but so will Bards and gishy Clerics and Druids, while Warlocks will spend most of their time using Eldritch Blast, and other casters will use their cantrips (if less often than Warlocks). The difference is that sometimes that doesn't work. It's your turn, and you're in a situation that can't be handled by your standard attacks. If you're a caster, this is when you pull out an ability from your deeper toolbox, so you can still contribute. If you're a 5e martial, though, you just...wait for the caster's turn. Maybe they buff you, maybe they do something else, but either way you spent a turn not doing anything, or doing something that wasn't working. You have just as much "just hitting things" fun playing the caster as the martial character, but with a caster you also have fun in those situations when "just hitting things" doesn't work, while you would lose some of that fun as a martial. It's just objectively less fun, unless you enjoy helplessness, in which case maybe there are better venues than tabletop games. :smallwink:

If the Ranger had been written with higher DPR but lower-power toolbox abilities than the Bard, that would have been a decent tradeoff. But as-is, the impression I get is that the Ranger simply doesn't have a relevant toolbox at all (heck, isn't the Bard better at skills?), which is why people complain about balance.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I've never found myself helpless as a martial. There's always something you can do.

[pwykersotz]

The thing about the damage difference is that it's not (as far as I've heard) large enough to be qualitative. It's not like there are some monsters a Bard's damage is just completely insufficient for, but a Ranger is. Both deal enough ranged weapon damage to be competitive.

In 5e, much like 4e, all classes have access to meaningful at-will abilities. The Ranger will spend most of their time just hitting things, but so will Bards and gishy Clerics and Druids, while Warlocks will spend most of their time using Eldritch Blast, and other casters will use their cantrips (if less often than Warlocks). The difference is that sometimes that doesn't work. It's your turn, and you're in a situation that can't be handled by your standard attacks. If you're a caster, this is when you pull out an ability from your deeper toolbox, so you can still contribute. If you're a 5e martial, though, you just...wait for the caster's turn. Maybe they buff you, maybe they do something else, but either way you spent a turn not doing anything, or doing something that wasn't working. You have just as much "just hitting things" fun playing the caster as the martial character, but with a caster you also have fun in those situations when "just hitting things" doesn't work, while you would lose some of that fun as a martial. It's just objectively less fun, unless you enjoy helplessness, in which case maybe there are better venues than tabletop games. :smallwink:

If the Ranger had been written with higher DPR but lower-power toolbox abilities than the Bard, that would have been a decent tradeoff. But as-is, the impression I get is that the Ranger simply doesn't have a relevant toolbox at all (heck, isn't the Bard better at skills?), which is why people complain about balance.

I honestly have trouble conceiving a scenario where a character without spells has difficulty contributing. I'm not talking about white-room scenarios, obviously those can be whatever you like. But just like Schrodinger's Wizard has any possible spell, so does Schrodinger's Barbarian. Between tools, ranged weapons, nets, negotiations, exploiting the environment, and countless other options, I can see how a spell might be more useful in a given scenario, but it's hard to think of a time when an entire class is rendered helpless.

[Eslin]

I honestly have trouble conceiving a scenario where a character without spells has difficulty contributing. I'm not talking about white-room scenarios, obviously those can be whatever you like. But just like Schrodinger's Wizard has any possible spell, so does Schrodinger's Barbarian. Between tools, ranged weapons, nets, negotiations, exploiting the environment, and countless other options, I can see how a spell might be more useful in a given scenario, but it's hard to think of a time when an entire class is rendered helpless.

Flying creatures in general make most martials a lot less useful, since ranged combat is often inefficient unless you're dexterity based. Now, please note that nobody has used Schrodinger's wizard, people keep bringing it up in opposition and it actually is strawmanning, please stop it.

Now, it's possible that these things would make a caster helpless too - if you don't have the right spell, you're helpless sometimes. I find that monks and paladins also have a tendency to be able to solve more things than the rest of the martials, incidentally.

Enemy is underwater, hundreds of metres down.
Enemy is flying and bombarding you, out of reach of bows.
Enemy had destroyed the bridge after them, leaving a deep rocky chasm between you and them.
Enemy has disappeared, you have no idea where he's gone, he's left no trail.

[pwykersotz]

Flying creatures in general make most martials a lot less useful, since ranged combat is often inefficient unless you're dexterity based. Now, please note that nobody has used Schrodinger's wizard, people keep bringing it up in opposition and it actually is strawmanning, please stop it.

Now, it's possible that these things would make a caster helpless too - if you don't have the right spell, you're helpless sometimes. I find that monks and paladins also have a tendency to be able to solve more things than the rest of the martials, incidentally.

Enemy is underwater, hundreds of metres down.
Enemy is flying and bombarding you, out of reach of bows.
Enemy had destroyed the bridge after them, leaving a deep rocky chasm between you and them.
Enemy has disappeared, you have no idea where he's gone, he's left no trail.

Err...I wasn't strawmanning with it. I was giving equal open-endedness to both sides. Still, I didn't mean to frustrate you. Sorry about that.

[Jakinbandw]

Enemy is underwater, hundreds of metres down.
Enemy is flying and bombarding you, out of reach of bows.
Enemy had destroyed the bridge after them, leaving a deep rocky chasm between you and them.
Enemy has disappeared, you have no idea where he's gone, he's left no trail.

For fun:

1: depth charges. Work on submarines and should work on Monsters too. Might take a bit to prepare, and a good skill check.

2: flying mounts! Should be a must have for any all martial party. With the right feat it gets even better.

3: flying mounts 2 - return of the griffon. Could also just use a grappling hook, or even knock down a tree

4: Depends, but assuming you meant he planshfted, or teleported, you may be able to get a good idea of their base of power from some more checks. You don't need to know where they are, as long as you know where they will be. Setting a trap by spreading rumours also works. Make your enemy come to you and fight on your turf.

[Pex]

It's perfectly fine for there to be some issue a spellcaster can handle that a warrior cannot. Such a concept existing should not be and is not an abomination of gamedom. The question then is whether there exists an issue a warrior can handle but a spellcaster cannot. It is telling such an issue cannot easily be thought of, and just saying anti-magic field feels like a cop-out. Is this lack of an easy answer itself an abomination of gamedom? Perhaps at low level the issue exists but not at high level. Is that an abomination anyway?

I'm more inclined to view this as a matter of one's personal taste rather than overall objective fact. It's more important to me that a warrior is not useless. I vehemently disagree he was in 3E and you can shove the Tier System. The Tier System is right about versatility of options. It is not an indicator of class worth. However, now the concern is about 5E. The warrior is not useless in 5E. Not being able to do absolutely everything is not the same thing as being useless. While I have no issue with 3E I do recognize 5E listened to those who complained about it and made choices to address those concerns even though I have my own gripes on the choices. If you can't even acknowledge progress has been made into addressing whatever issue you had there's no point in discussion because you're determined to be upset and rage about it all.

Edit: "You" is not addressing anyone in particular. It's just vernacular.

[Rowan Wolf]

I think that some of the issue arise from the limitation that being a 'martial' character implies, combined with the way magic is handled in the game and the expectation of the players.

That being said that every gaming group is different and those differences in play style can really effect how caster/martial (mundane) character effect their world and what they bring to the table.

[Ashrym]

Secondly, Eslin runs campaigns that are explicitly not made to be party-friendly. They are designed for verisimilitude (ie. made to work with or without the party). If you need a macguffin to chase the BBEG into the planes, then you'd better have known that ahead of time and gotten it before he set off his doomsday device. Now, it's the apocalypse and it's your fault for not having a caster with Teleport. Now, I know many DMs don't run their games like this, but the system itself shouldn't force DMs to if we don't want to.

That's not the game requiring the class. That's the DM requiring the class and then blaming it on the game.


The thing about the damage difference is that it's not (as far as I've heard) large enough to be qualitative. It's not like there are some monsters a Bard's damage is just completely insufficient for, but a Ranger is. Both deal enough ranged weapon damage to be competitive.

In 5e, much like 4e, all classes have access to meaningful at-will abilities. The Ranger will spend most of their time just hitting things, but so will Bards and gishy Clerics and Druids, while Warlocks will spend most of their time using Eldritch Blast, and other casters will use their cantrips (if less often than Warlocks). The difference is that sometimes that doesn't work. It's your turn, and you're in a situation that can't be handled by your standard attacks. If you're a caster, this is when you pull out an ability from your deeper toolbox, so you can still contribute. If you're a 5e martial, though, you just...wait for the caster's turn. Maybe they buff you, maybe they do something else, but either way you spent a turn not doing anything, or doing something that wasn't working. You have just as much "just hitting things" fun playing the caster as the martial character, but with a caster you also have fun in those situations when "just hitting things" doesn't work, while you would lose some of that fun as a martial. It's just objectively less fun, unless you enjoy helplessness, in which case maybe there are better venues than tabletop games. :smallwink:

If the Ranger had been written with higher DPR but lower-power toolbox abilities than the Bard, that would have been a decent tradeoff. But as-is, the impression I get is that the Ranger simply doesn't have a relevant toolbox at all (heck, isn't the Bard better at skills?), which is why people complain about balance.

Rangers do have much higher damage than bards. They also pop out more than just 2 bonus attacks. It's more like volley then bonus then hordebreaker. That's 3 on 1 target, 2 on another, and 1 on everything else they can fit in that burst.

They gain double proficiency plus advantage on certain checks and bonus languages simply selecting the current campaign setting and common enemies. Those are better abilities than credit is given, just more strict in requirements.

[Eslin]

That's not the game requiring the class. That's the DM requiring the class and then blaming it on the game.

That's not the case. The characters in the world around them are going to use the tools available to them - what am I going to do, not have the black dragon at the bottom of a lake or high in the air just because they didn't bring someone who can deal with that?

[Ashrym]

That's not the case. The characters in the world around them are going to use the tools available to them - what am I going to do, not have the black dragon at the bottom of a lake or high in the air just because they didn't bring someone who can deal with that?

You can do whatever you want in your game. But in the end, it's your game in which you created the scenario where planar travel is required and in making that requirement without an allowance to achieve it outside of spells (magic item, portal, NPC, or whatever) you created a situation that required a a class for that specific purpose and are responsible for the situation you created.

This is the flying castle scenario all over again.

A DM who insists on a certain location that can only be accessed in certain ways but only allows for spells to create that access is creating the need for those spells.

[Malifice]

@Malifice

Firstly, don't poke Eslin. He will eat you alive. Twice.

I can handle myself mate.


Secondly, Eslin runs campaigns that are explicitly not made to be party-friendly. They are designed for verisimilitude (ie. made to work with or without the party). If you need a macguffin to chase the BBEG into the planes, then you'd better have known that ahead of time and gotten it before he set off his doomsday device. Now, it's the apocalypse and it's your fault for not having a caster with Teleport. Now, I know many DMs don't run their games like this, but the system itself shouldn't force DMs to if we don't want to.

Ok, but if you play your game like this, you cant complain about the consequences of your own play style and blame the game for it. The game allows for different play styles remember. In fact in 5e, its explicit. Look at the DMG. No other DMG in the games history contains as much 'optional rules' and guidance on making the game your own.


This is unconstructive. The assumption is that we've all either read the DMG--and either agree, disagree, or ignore it as we see fit--or have enough experience to go without it.

Eslin complained about players hogging the limelight. I pointed him to the DMG which contains a number of tips for how to handle just such this situation. I fail to see how that is 'unconstructive'.

Let me perhaps be clearer. When players hog the limelight, In my experience thats generally down to bad or inexperienced DMing. Some players can be outright jerks of course no matter how experienced or red hot the DM is, but (again based on my experience) in 9/10 campaigns its the DM thats not doing enough.

I guess I get annoyed at pure theorycrafting (while acknolwedging its value to an extent). Im sure if Eslin played at my table he wouldnt see the 'caster v martial' disparity. I certainly make sure tha fighter types get a chance to shine as much as the casters, pace out my short and long rests, keep up the pressure on the party and tailor my adventures and campaigns to the party as a whole (with each player and character having a chance to shine).

Each to their own though.

[Knaight]

So my question to people who like playing casters: when you cast a spell like plane shift to move the party forward, do you feel like you've made a difference in the game, or do you end up feeling like a magic item? I ask, because when I play casters, it always feels like the later, which is why I prefer blasters.

The actual action isn't much, but there's a definite edge to the options you have to solve problems, and I generally feel that. I actually favor martial characters in general, and only rarely play mages is any system. In 5e, the martial characters feel less impressive and the casters more impressive than a lot of games.


I guess I get annoyed at pure theorycrafting (while acknolwedging its value to an extent). Im sure if Eslin played at my table he wouldnt see the 'caster v martial' disparity. I certainly make sure tha fighter types get a chance to shine as much as the casters, pace out my short and long rests, keep up the pressure on the party and tailor my adventures and campaigns to the party as a whole (with each player and character having a chance to shine).
That you can work around a flaw in the system doesn't somehow mean it isn't there. In a bunch of other systems I really don't have to think about pacing out different types of rest, I don't have to contort things to particular character types, so on and so forth. That it's necessary in 5e is a flaw in the system. It's a more minor flaw than in some other systems (e.g. D&D 3.x), but it's still there.

[Malifice]

I'm pretty sure I won't. If there's something happening in another plane that the players are interested in, they'll need to figure a way to get there if they can't do it on their own, and I'm not going to make sure one exists just for their sake if it otherwise wouldn't.

But the thing is only happening on the other plane because you (as the DM) put it there.

Youve created an adventure that expressly requires magic to commence, then complained when the PC's dont have the required magic to start the adventure!

Is this a problem with the rules, the magic system or maybe the problem lies something else?

Im not having a go here either mate, its your game and run it how you like. I am perhaps suggesting that you (as the DM) may very well be creating the very problem youre compaining about with your playstyle.

[Malifice]

That you can work around a flaw in the system doesn't somehow mean it isn't there. In a bunch of other systems I really don't have to think about pacing out different types of rest, I don't have to contort things to particular character types, so on and so forth. That it's necessary in 5e is a flaw in the system. It's a more minor flaw than in some other systems (e.g. D&D 3.x), but it's still there.

How do you consider encounter pacing (and rest pacing) a 'flaw' in the system? DnD is (and always has been) a game centred around resource management - and a game with a DM who controls that resource management to ensure the game runs smoothly, all the players are engaged and challenged and so forth.

Encounter pacing (and encounter risk and content), resting and recovery of resources and so forth is a central part of the game, and always has been.

[Malifice]

You can do whatever you want in your game. But in the end, it's your game in which you created the scenario where planar travel is required and in making that requirement without an allowance to achieve it outside of spells (magic item, portal, NPC, or whatever) you created a situation that required a a class for that specific purpose and are responsible for the situation you created.

This is the flying castle scenario all over again.

A DM who insists on a certain location that can only be accessed in certain ways but only allows for spells to create that access is creating the need for those spells.

Quoted for truth.

Its no different from me creating an adventure with a door that can only be opened by a fighter of at least 11th level, and then comlpaining when my party doesnt have a fighter of at least 11th level - and calling it out as 'a flaw in the system'.

'Caster v martial' disparity only appears when the DM allows it to occur. Its not an inherent feature of the game.

[Knaight]

How do you consider encounter pacing (and rest pacing) a 'flaw' in the system? DnD is (and always has been) a game centred around resource management - and a game with a DM who controls that resource management to ensure the game runs smoothly, all the players are engaged and challenged and so forth.

It's a system that only really works well if there are certain extremely constraining assumptions in play. There must be a certain range of fights per day, they must be exasperated by short rests in a certain fashion, so on and so forth. It's an obnoxious distraction that has to be managed, when I'd much rather be dealing with the parts of the game that are actually interesting. That the system breaks down as badly as it does if the time scale moves a bit is thus a flaw.

[Malifice]

It's a system that only really works well if there are certain extremely constraining assumptions in play.

Those constraints are part of DnD and always have been in some form or another. DnD is (at its mechanical core) a resource management game.


I'd much rather be dealing with the parts of the game that are actually interesting.

Such as?

[Xetheral]

'Caster v martial' disparity only appears when the DM allows it to occur. Its not an inherent feature of the game.

While I agree it isn't an inherent feature of the game, the disparity is a problem that apparently occurs under a variety of common (and uncommon) playstyles, and, I would argue, is therefore worthy of discussion and consideration.

While I agree it's possible to run a game in A style where the disparity never occurs, the furor on this topic strongly suggests that it's NOT possible to run a game in EVERY style where the problem never occurs.

With my playstyle I've very rarely encounter the disparity, even in 3.5, but I have had to work around the problem to ensure it was a non-issue. I therefore agree that the game would be better if the disparity didn't exist. However, because the discrepancy is both a low-priority issue for me and arguably a fundamental part of the D&D genre, I find most solutions (e.g. ToB/4e) are more trouble than they're worth.

[Deathtongue]

Those constraints are part of DnD and always have been in some form or another. DnD is (at its mechanical core) a resource management game.

Then D&D needs to completely rethink its basic assumptions. Forcing the DM to schedule extra encounters against the needs of the plot to maintain gameplay balance is, let's be frank here, tiresome, boring, and breaks the 4th wall. It's been around a decade since this particular strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html) and the game designers should've realized that there's a problem with the whole attrition model.

And honestly, D&D attrition model was always kind of janky and video-gamey. Actual fantasy stories, including the iconic ones like Conan and LotR and Willow, have one challenging combat, maybe two, before heroes break out the camp and recuperate and tell stories. The only kinds of stories where the heroes go through 3-4 challenging encounters between rest periods are grindhouse action movies.

[Malifice]

While I agree it isn't an inherent feature of the game, the disparity is a problem that apparently occurs under a variety of common (and uncommon) playstyles, and, I would argue, is therefore worthy of discussion and consideration.

If thats the case, and its down to playstyle and is not an inherent problem in the system, perhaps we should be discussing how to tweak your playstyle to counter the imbalance?

At its core, a well prepared caster has a limited number of 'I win' buttons (flashy resources) at their disposal. The price they pay for this is generally lower resources in other areas (hit points, weapon and armor selection, skills etc).

This isnt a 'flaw' - its an intentional design choice. When you play a Wizard, you accept that you will be squishy and (when deprived of your spells) quite vulnerable.

By pacing out your rests and encounters appropriately (which is a core feature of the game) you can stop your casters from hitting those 'I win' buttons at will, and instead peg them into saving them to end the occasional encounter in a flashy way. The Wizard player feels good for doing it when the situation occurs, but it doesnt occur all the time. Spell slots are a limited resource remeber (no different from HP or gold). And keeping an eye on the parties resource management is the role of the DM - and not the role of the players.

[Malifice]

Then D&D needs to completely rethink its basic assumptions.

Or you need to play a different game. I'm not being a **** here - DnD is a resource management game where you role play. There are games out there that are not resource management games that are also roleplaying games.


Forcing the DM to schedule extra encounters against the needs of the plot to maintain gameplay balance is, let's be frank here, tiresome, boring, and breaks the 4th wall. It's been around a decade since this particular strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html) and the game designers should've realized that there's a problem with the whole attrition model.

Some game designers have realised that the attrition model isnt the best (or only form) for a roleplaying game to take. If you dont like the attrition model, perhaps you should try one of those games.

But DnD is (at its mechanical core) a resource management game. Hit points, vancian casting, items with 'charges' daily/ encounter/ short rest limits on use of class features and powers etc. It is what it is.

My point being that a good DM is not only aware of this fact, paces his encounters and adventures accordingly, but also does it without overtly breaking the 4th wall.

[Gwendol]

It's a system that only really works well if there are certain extremely constraining assumptions in play. There must be a certain range of fights per day, they must be exasperated by short rests in a certain fashion, so on and so forth. It's an obnoxious distraction that has to be managed, when I'd much rather be dealing with the parts of the game that are actually interesting. That the system breaks down as badly as it does if the time scale moves a bit is thus a flaw.

Only if catering to the needs of the most demanding player / PC (in terms of short/long rests). The game doesn't break down if the number of encounters vary, or if the pacing differs.

[Deathtongue]

Or you need to play a different game. I'm not being a **** here - DnD is a resource management game where you role play. There are games out there that are not resource management games that are also roleplaying games.

No, screw that. Who says that D&D is primarily a resource management game where you role play? Have you ever heard D&D pitched like that? When people try to convince a oWoD or Final Fantasy or WoW fan that they should play D&D, do people typically add to their sales pitch 'and you must micromanage several sets of semi-fungible resources such as hit points and magic item consumables and spells and class features, because they strongly influence your success? And what's more, genre conceits and the needs of the story are completely subservient to this feature, so think twice before unloading on the BBEG?' People do that for 4X and RTS games, but not for D&D. When game devs or advertisements or promotional media pitch the idea of D&D, they mention some combination of zero-to-hero advancement, a lovable band of misfits pooling their talents at the fated hour, being a hero both big and small in a troubled land, meeting exotic creatures (and killing them), blinging your toons to the gills with astounding treasure, implementing cuh-raaaaazy plans to punch way above your weight class because you're not confined by cRPG rules, and spelunking exotic locales.

If D&D's resource management scheme gets in the way of that sales pitch, then the resource management scheme needs to be rethought. And like it or not, but its resource management minigame has already been subject to some serious rethinking through 3E, 4E, and 5E D&D so you can't even use an appeal to tradition. And yet I think that it needs to be rethought even more. Why?

I linked that previous OotS comic for a reason. Encounters that only exist to fulfill some gameplay mandate, rather than being organically integrated into the story, are boring and tiresome. There's a word for video games and television shows that do this and it's not a kind one: filler.
Most action-adventure stories have frequent pauses between setpieces so that they can have character development and investigation and Chekov's gun forging scenes and etc. Grindhouse movies which have a lot of nonstop violence between encounters are almost always more shallow in comparison because there's no time to build a story, let alone reflect on what just happened. Stories that want to have lots of action scenes without devaluing the individual value of each scene have ways around this, such as flashbacks and training montages and characters splitting off Scooby-Doo style, but they're inaccessible to TTRPGs for various reasons.
D&D's current attrition model encourages maladaptive and unheroic behavior. One example: getting attacked by ninjas in the night when you're supposed to be recuperating or preparing for the next action sequence happens, but it's rare in stories; D&D characters on the other hand completely adapt their behavior on the assumption of ninjas in the night. And this would just be a harmless quirk of the rules if not for the fact that thwarting ninjas in the night significantly and asymmetrically increased your gameplay power. Imagine this conversation: "Ser Wizardington, the demons are making off with the princess, why are you not casting your best spells?" "Because we only had one minor skirmish with lemures earlier and the DM's average encounter per rest period has been dropping below three; I expect ninjas in the night." "Ser Wizardington, I have a spare rope trick spell." "Well, okay then. MASS SUGGESTION GO!" Or, hell, how about this phrase: 'Scry and Die'.

[Knaight]

Such as?
Generally, I'm interested in two things:
1) Creative problem solving.
2) The emerging narrative and interactions that come from a set of well developed characters (including the PCs), driven by the choices of the players.

To use a non-D&D example: When the PCs of a game I was recently running got ahold of some well defended salvage by tricking it's defenders (some pirates who had stolen it) into thinking it was hooked up to them, getting them to jump through space, then hauling it away while their jump drive was recharging, it was a great success. The plan was well thought through and creative, taking advantage of setting peculiarities, particularly the workings of the jump drive. It came with a fair amount of interaction, both dialog and action scenes. It was a pretty solid climax to the session, and a lot of fun for everyone involved. That's the sort of thing I find interesting.

D&D can do that sort of thing. A lot of people are pulled to it because it can do that sort of thing. It just comes with a lot of deeply entrenched resource management, without actually focusing on it to the amount it should for an actual resource management game. There's just enough mandatory resource management there to undercut other approaches, while there isn't enough to make it all that interesting (compare Torchbearer, which takes the resource management very seriously and builds the game around it fully). A DM can work around that in either direction, for or against the resource management game. That they have to is irritating.


Or you need to play a different game. I'm not being a **** here - DnD is a resource management game where you role play. There are games out there that are not resource management games that are also roleplaying games.
There's a reason I generally do. Still, for people who really like the whole d20, class based, etc. aspect that's a shame.

[Malifice]

No, screw that. Who says that D&D is primarily a resource management game where you role play?

Hit points, spell 'slots', powers usable x per day/ rest, 'charges' on items etc etc etc.

How many 'spells per day' do you have? How many 'hit points' do you have left? How much GP did you character earn in that last adventure? How much experience points does he have?

Mechanically speaking, DnD is a game of resource management. You might not like that, but thats what it is. At its mechanical core.

If youre not getting the play experience you want from DnD, then perhaps try a different game. One thats not fundamentally one about resource management.

Here you agree that its about attrition and resource management:


D&D's current attrition model encourages maladaptive and unheroic behavior.


One example: getting attacked by ninjas in the night when you're supposed to be recuperating or preparing for the next action sequence happens, but it's rare in stories; D&D characters on the other hand completely adapt their behavior on the assumption of ninjas in the night. And this would just be a harmless quirk of the rules if not for the fact that thwarting ninjas in the night significantly and asymmetrically increased your gameplay power. Imagine this conversation: "Ser Wizardington, the demons are making off with the princess, why are you not casting your best spells?" "Because we only had one minor skirmish with lemures earlier and the DM's average encounter per rest period has been dropping below three; I expect ninjas in the night." "Ser Wizardington, I have a spare rope trick spell." "Well, okay then. MASS SUGGESTION GO!" Or, hell, how about this phrase: 'Scry and Die'.[/list]

Why do you assume that manipulation of the rest mechanic is the only way the DM can control the pacing and resource management inherent in the mechanics of the game? Working to a time limit is another (common) one. Inabilty to rest due to bad guys patrolling is another. A simple mechanic like 'random encounters' makes the decision to rest a matter or risk v reward. Its an element of player choice. The players deduce that its too risky to rest in the current environment, or deduce that withdrawing from the environment (dungeon) to rest will only allow the monsters to prepare and adapt to the tactics used by the players.

Soldiers dont lead an assault firing off all their rocket launchers, only to fall back to get resupplied and then come back in a day or two. Why?

There are ways that you (as a DM) can control the environment in a way that doesnt take player choice away, but makes it more of a risk/ reward in blowing that big high level spell, or resting in the middle of the dungeon, or using that scroll of 'big boom boom'. When the players do it, let them shine for sure. Thats why you play a wizard. But its up to the DM to keep the pressure on.

Keeping the pressure on, maintaining balance, keeping the game challenging (by limiting and controlling resources) and allowing all players to shine from time to time, isnt the DM detracting from the game, its quite the opposite!

[Malifice]

Generally, I'm interested in two things:
1) Creative problem solving.
2) The emerging narrative and interactions that come from a set of well developed characters (including the PCs), driven by the choices of the players.

And there is both absolutely nothing wrong with that, and absolutely no reason why DnD cannot provide the vehicle for both.

To use GNS jargon, youre playing a 'gamist' game for a 'narrativist' end. Its possible, but you either need a permissive and inclusive group of players (and importantly DM) or perhaps should be playing a different RPG entirely (or better yet, both!)

[Knaight]

And there is both absolutely nothing wrong with that, and absolutely no reason why DnD cannot provide the vehicle for both.

To use GNS jargon, youre playing a 'gamist' game for a 'narrativist' end. Its possible, but you either need a permissive and inclusive group of players (and importantly DM) or perhaps should be playing a different RPG entirely (or better yet, both!)

Using GNS jargon, it's more narrativist-simulationist for the end, and the creative problem solving aspect has aspects of gamism. With that said, there's a reason 5e is far from my default game.

[Malifice]

Using GNS jargon, it's more narrativist-simulationist for the end, and the creative problem solving aspect has aspects of gamism. With that said, there's a reason 5e is far from my default game.

Well run by a good DM and you wont even notice the resource management element of DnD.

The DM is in control of the metagame considerations. He should translate those metagame considerations into environmental factors that are set up tocontrol the resource management; while remaining invisible as metagame devices in the process.

In game (not metagame) considerations should dictate to players when they choose to rest (for example). Be that the frequency of random encounters, time limit for the completion of the adventure, an intelligent BBEG that (if given enough time) can adapt to these tactics and counter them, monsters being (also) given time to rest and fortify/ prepapre or any other logical and reasonable 'in game' reason.

You (as the DM) place the contraints on the adventure. When placing those contraints you should bear in mind the actual mechanics of the game system itself. And then make those 'metagame' constraints as invisible as possible.

[Knaight]

Well run by a good DM and you wont even notice the resource management element of DnD.

The DM is in control of the metagame considerations. He should translate those metagame considerations into environmental factors that are set up tocontrol the resource management; while remaining invisible as metagame devices in the process.

I'm aware. I assure you that as the GM, I notice the elements in that role. Even as a player they tend to be noticeable, though as someone who GM's all the time and finds the system end of things interesting that might just be a personal quirk.


You (as the DM) place the contraints on the adventure. When placing those contraints you should bear in mind the actual mechanics of the game system itself. And then make those 'metagame' constraints as invisible as possible.
This amounts to a lot of time spent actively working around the system, which includes a fair amount of mental energy that could have gone to improving a lot of other things about the game instead. It's a task imposed by the system, and it's precisely because of that that I consider it a flaw.

[Malifice]

This amounts to a lot of time spent actively working around the system, which includes a fair amount of mental energy that could have gone to improving a lot of other things about the game instead. It's a task imposed by the system, and it's precisely because of that that I consider it a flaw.

Im not sure youre 'working around the system' by DMing this way.

Any more than a director is 'working around the system' by not breaking the 4th wall.

[Knaight]

Im not sure youre 'working around the system' by DMing this way.

Any more than a director is 'working around the system' by not breaking the 4th wall.

It's effort that doesn't need to be expended for just about every non-D&D system I have ever played, and that does have to be expended for D&D. That seems like working around the system for me.

[obryn]

It's a system that only really works well if there are certain extremely constraining assumptions in play. There must be a certain range of fights per day, they must be exasperated by short rests in a certain fashion, so on and so forth. It's an obnoxious distraction that has to be managed, when I'd much rather be dealing with the parts of the game that are actually interesting. That the system breaks down as badly as it does if the time scale moves a bit is thus a flaw.
Just wanted to qft this.

Balancing daily vs. Non-daily resources is not a core feature or selling point of D&D. It's a burdensome sideshow to a game about exploring dangerous Dungeons and fighting deadly Dragons.

If you want a resource management game, you're better served by a system designed for it, like Torchbearer. ;)

[pwykersotz]

Regarding forcing random encounters, I actually have the opposite problem. My players want more chances to kill things. Our other DM is a phenomenal storyteller, but he has a poor eye for balance and combat tends to be one-sided and uninteresting. (There are rare exceptions). Since I run a better fight, they tend to want me to put in more situations where they can use their smite-y powers. Thus I find myself adding more encounters than I normally would.

I don't use the 'random' encounter metric though, for me those rolls are not for the table, they are for the design phase. If I roll 1d4 phase spiders attack, I roll the d4 when making the game and determine that three phase spiders skitter about this area and that they are motivated by hunger for fresh blood in higher quantities than rats. I might throw in that the BBEG has patrols scatter and kill big game because the phase spiders have been effective guard dogs, and that deep in the webs lies a useful map carried by a previous courier. Basically, it all integrates into the narrative.

[Malifice]

Regarding forcing random encounters, I actually have the opposite problem. My players want more chances to kill things. Our other DM is a phenomenal storyteller, but he has a poor eye for balance and combat tends to be one-sided and uninteresting. (There are rare exceptions). Since I run a better fight, they tend to want me to put in more situations where they can use their smite-y powers. Thus I find myself adding more encounters than I normally would.

I don't use the 'random' encounter metric though, for me those rolls are not for the table, they are for the design phase. If I roll 1d4 phase spiders attack, I roll the d4 when making the game and determine that three phase spiders skitter about this area and that they are motivated by hunger for fresh blood in higher quantities than rats. I might throw in that the BBEG has patrols scatter and kill big game because the phase spiders have been effective guard dogs, and that deep in the webs lies a useful map carried by a previous courier. Basically, it all integrates into the narrative.

And its the narrative that should drive your encounters and rest options.

Players blow everything on the first room, fall back and rest for an hour? They shouldnt be surprised to find that word of what they did has spread through the ruins, and monsters (and the BBEG) are alert, prepared and reinforced. Throw this at them once or twice, and the players will be reluctant to engage in the 5 minute adventuring day in the future - theyll natually (through player choice) pace themselves. conserve resources and push harder for longer.

You can also used timed adventures; 'recover item x in time y or bad thing z happens'.

Importantly, by mixing up allowable rest times, you highlight different classes. Increased short rests favor Fighters, Monks and Warlocks. Increasing your long rests favors the primary spellcasters and Paladins. By simply mixing up your rest pacing you'll naturally rotate different characters thier chance to shine.

If youre finding casters are outshining everyone else, tighen up on your policing of long rests (and allow slightly more short rests). Spells are a resource, and they need to be managed by those casters.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's effort that doesn't need to be expended for just about every non-D&D system I have ever played, and that does have to be expended for D&D. That seems like working around the system for me.


this doesn't make sense.

it's part of the system. you may not like it but it is. Ignoring it will detract from the gameplay experience because it'll throw off the balance.

if you really don't want to deal with it, you could use the mythic hero rules and structure every combat so that you expect people to blow all their resources.

[Malifice]

this doesn't make sense.

it's part of the system. you may not like it but it is. Ignoring it will detract from the gameplay experience because it'll throw off the balance.

if you really don't want to deal with it, you could use the mythic hero rules and structure every combat so that you expect people to blow all their resources.

Exactly. The system is expressly designed around the short/long rest mechanic and balancing encounters according to party composition with a focus to creating challenges for all players, depletion of resources and so forth. In a system where different classes benefit differently from different rest types, and the core mechanic of the system is resource management, its the central balancing mechanism.

You cant exactly ignore this underlying mechanic, and then complain when the game doesnt balance properly.

[obryn]

You cant exactly ignore this unedrlying menchanic, and then complain when the game doesnt balance properly.
You can however say, "this is a cruddy mechanic, and D&D is better without it."

[Malifice]

You can however say, "this is a cruddy mechanic, and D&D is better without it."

You can indeed be critical of the mechanic. And there are RPG's that dont rely on resource management and encounter balancing to be effective.

DnD isnt one of them though. Im only suggesting that many of these balance issues are caused by people paying no more than just lip service to the underlying menchanics of the game. The DMG is pretty explicit in many areas about the problems of the 5 minute adventuring day, how to balance enounters, drain resources, challenge all characters equally, share the limelight etc within this 'meta' game mechanical consideration.

Personally I like it. When its done well, it really works.

[Eslin]

You can indeed be critical of the mechanic. And there are RPG's that dont rely on resource management and encounter balancing to be effective.

DnD isnt one of them though. Im only suggesting that many of these balance issues are caused by people paying no more than just lip service to the underlying menchanics of the game. The DMG is pretty explicit in many areas about the problems of the 5 minute adventuring day, how to balance enounters, drain resources, challenge all characters equally, share the limelight etc within this 'meta' game mechanical consideration.

Personally I like it. When its done well, it really works.

Except it can't be shoehorned in without breaking verisimilitude. In most circumstances the number of combats the DMG suggests doesn't fit in with what makes sense for where you are in the game world. And you can't challenge all characters easily unless they're either equal in usefulness or you tailor what's happening to their abilities.

[Malifice]

Except it can't be shoehorned in without breaking verisimilitude.

Yes it can.

You're making an statement of fact via subjective bias. You might not be able to balance enounters, pace rests, and deplete reources without breaking verisimilitude but that doesnt mean that happens at every table.


In most circumstances the number of combats the DMG suggests doesn't fit in with what makes sense for where you are in the game world. And you can't challenge all characters easily unless they're either equal in usefulness or you tailor what's happening to their abilities.

You dont have to throw the exact number of encounters per day that the DMG suggests. Youre being a bit obtuse. Those are recommended guidelines. There are plenty of ways to provide challenging encounters, deplete resources and pace your adventure without 'x number of encounters per day'.

Time limits on adventures. The environment makes it too dangerous to rest. Monsters adapting to tactics of players who do work on the 5 minute adventuring day.

Look at HoTDQ. No chance to rest at all in the first night. Maybe a short rest or two once youre in the keep.

Occasionally mix it up. Have adventures where long rests are impossible to come by due to a time limit. Martials will shine. Have adventures where there is no time limit and casters will shine. Some adventures favor martials. Some favor casters. Its your job as the DM to balance them out over the campaign so everyone gets a shot in the spotlight.

And of course you tailor your adventure to your players characters. You dont? Why on earth would you intentionally create (or even run) an adventure as a DM that your players cant... play in?

Youre acting as though as a DM you somehow step into and run some kind of fantasy world 'as is' - as an impartial rules adjudicator and that about it.

Surely thats not how you see the art of Dungeon Mastering? Your job is not just to set DC's and adjudicate outcomes of actions. A computer can do that. Your role is to underestand, challenge and entertain the PC's by presenting them with adventures that appropriately engage and challenge them all equally.

If you cant come up with ways to challenge PC's, maintain verisimilitude, let them share the spotlight and ensure a challenging and rewarding adventure with the unlimited power over the fictional reality you have as the DM, then is that the games fault, or the DMs?

[Knaight]

You cant exactly ignore this underlying mechanic, and then complain when the game doesnt balance properly.

The underlying mechanic isn't being ignored. It's being criticized as a nuisance that gets in the way of better game play. Your last several posts have been made with the assumption that the people criticizing D&D are trying to use it, failing, and only doing so because they don't use it properly. What's actually happening is that people are either using it or just familiar enough with the issues to circumvent them entirely, but don't particularly want the hassle involved in doing so.

[Malifice]

The underlying mechanic isn't being ignored. It's being criticized as a nuisance that gets in the way of better game play. Your last several posts have been made with the assumption that the people criticizing D&D are trying to use it, failing, and only doing so because they don't use it properly. What's actually happening is that people are either using it or just familiar enough with the issues to circumvent them entirely, but don't particularly want the hassle involved in doing so.

If people dont want the hassle of using the underlying mechanic that balances the classes, then they shouldnt complain when the balance goes out the window.

For example, allowing long rests after every encounter makes Wizards and other full casters (and Paladins) OTT compared to Fighters, Warlocks and Monks (who rely on longer adventuring days, and frequent short rests to shine).

I understand if the metagame element of adventure pacing is annoying to some people, but they cant complain about imbalance when they ignore it.

[Knaight]

If people dont want the hassle of using the underlying mechanic that balances the classes, then they shouldnt complain when the balance goes out the window.


The complaints about balance going out the window are that the balance is generally screwy even with the underlying mechanics in place. The complaints about the underlying mechanics are an entirely different point. That's before getting into how even the aimed for balance point is kind of sad - "balanced only at this precise mixture of encounters and rests" isn't exactly a high bar.

[Jakinbandw]

If your having trouble working in the proper number of encounters into one day, maybe try using the gritty resting rules. Having the right balance of encounters before a weeks rest should be fairly easy to pull off, along with consiquences for a 5 minute work week.

There are options laid out in the dmg.

[Malifice]

The complaints about balance going out the window are that the balance is generally screwy even with the underlying mechanics in place.

Thats where you and I disagree.

When those metagame factors are adequately policed by the DM, then balance isnt an issue at all.


The complaints about the underlying mechanics are an entirely different point. That's before getting into how even the aimed for balance point is kind of sad - "balanced only at this precise mixture of encounters and rests" isn't exactly a high bar.

Partly agree here. But its always been a core assumption in DnD.

Kobolds at 1st level, moving on to your first Ogre, then trolls and giants before Dragons at 20th.

We always used to wonder where the Kobolds went after 1st.

Its metagame, but its pretty much been a core assumption of DnD.

[obryn]

If people dont want the hassle of using the underlying mechanic that balances the classes, then they shouldnt complain when the balance goes out the window.
Why ever not?

"This game which promises heroic adventures of all sorts doesn't work well unless I create adventures with remarkably narrow narrative constraints" isn't exactly an unfair criticism.

[Malifice]

If your having trouble working in the proper number of encounters into one day, maybe try using the gritty resting rules. Having the right balance of encounters before a weeks rest should be fairly easy to pull off, along with consiquences for a 5 minute work week.

There are options laid out in the dmg.

I personally use the rule where a short rest is 'any appropriate amount of time more than around 5 minutes and less than 8 hours where the party has time to rest, bind wounds, drink water, eat and catch their breath'.

Long rest is the same, but should be at least a few hours in duration, and should include proper sleep and rest.

Both are pretty flexible so its whatever fits best with the story. The important function of them is to replenish resources. Allowing too many throws that mechanic into chaos and upsets balance.

[Malifice]

Why ever not?

"This game which promises heroic adventures of all sorts doesn't work well unless I create adventures with remarkably narrow narrative constraints" isn't exactly an unfair criticism.

If you disregard any mechancial element of the game, and it goes wonky as a result, is that the fault of the game or the decision to ignore the mechanics?

[obryn]

If you disregard any mechancial element of the game, and it goes wonky as a result, is that the fault of the game or the decision to ignore the mechanics?
You seem to be skipping ahead to where poor design is considered the DM's job to work around instead of the designer's job to not introduce and/or accept in the first place.

[Malifice]

You seem to be skipping ahead to where poor design is considered the DM's job to work around instead of the designer's job to not introduce and/or accept in the first place.

Is it designed porrly when it works (when done correctly).

Ill give you one thing, it could certainly be made easier to implement. Im not sure I want to go back down the path of 4e homogenous classes though.

[Xetheral]

And of course you tailor your adventure to your players characters. You dont? Why on earth would you intentionally create (or even run) an adventure as a DM that your players cant... play in?

There's a dedicated thread on this particular question: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388091-DM-Style-and-the-Importance-of-Balance. Thread summary: of the people who posted in that thread, opinions are all over the place on how much, if any, adventures should be tailored to the players. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any consensus that D&D was specifically designed with (or without) that tailoring in mind.

[Malifice]

There's a dedicated thread on this particular question: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388091-DM-Style-and-the-Importance-of-Balance. Thread summary: of the people who posted in that thread, opinions are all over the place on how much, if any, adventures should be tailored to the players. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any consensus that D&D was specifically designed with (or without) that tailoring in mind.

Even though the DMG expressly dedicates whole chapters on how to establish and maintain that balance, challenge the party, deplete resources, design adventures to showcase different classes and allow everyone to shine, etc etc?

I find the argument that DnD 'isnt supposed to be balanced' wilfully blind.

[obryn]

Is it designed porrly when it works (when done correctly).
Yes, because resource management isn't the game. It's the homework.

People don't play D&D for the excitement of managing resources, and DMs don't love the game for its micromanagement of refreshing said resources.

Although as Knaight said, there's deeper problems, and it largely circles back to D&D's insistence that all player fiat abilities and declarative statements must be made via the magic systems.

[Malifice]

Yes, because resource management isn't the game.

It is the game. Its the mechanical system underlying the roleplaying aspect.

I can roleplay in virtually any game. **** you can roleplay without any underlying game rules whatsoever (think theatre sports). But when those rules exist, we should examin them.

For example (no edition wars) there is zero difference 'roleplaying' a fighter in 4th editon that in 1st edition.


People don't play D&D for the excitement of managing resources, and DMs don't love the game for its micromanagement of refreshing said resources.

Says who? The whole point of the game for many people is aquiring GP, XP, feats, more HP, more spells etc, and the management of those resources.


Although as Knaight said, there's deeper problems, and it largely circles back to D&D's insistence that all player fiat abilities and declarative statements must be made via the magic systems.

An argument that presupposes all people want player fiat abilities and declarative statements.

Some people just want to roll dice and bash **** over the head.

[Xetheral]

Even though the DMG expressly dedicates whole chapters on how to establish and maintain that balance, challenge the party, deplete resources, design adventures to showcase different classes and allow everyone to shine, etc etc?

I find the argument that DnD 'isnt supposed to be balanced' wilfully blind.

I'm merely summarizing the discussion in that thread, since it's directly on point to the current debate in this thread. No one has yet introduced the contents of the DMG as evidence one way or the other yet, which might be a helpful contribution to the discussion.

[obryn]

It is the game. Its the mechanical system underlying the roleplaying aspect.
...
Says who? The whole point of the game for many people is aquiring GP, XP, feats, more HP, more spells etc, and the management of those resources.
...
An argument that presupposes all people want player fiat abilities and declarative statements.

Some people just want to roll dice and bash **** over the head.
First part - you're confusing the form for the function. The game has resource management elements, but it's not the entirety of the game, nor is resource management the point of playing (or running) the game. If you read the back cover, D&D isn't promising exciting adventures in accounting or budgeting.

Second part - again, that's not the point. The point is what your character can *do* with that cool stuff. The management is the homework, the action is the game.

Third part - this is an argument for allowing complexity gradients in characters, not for how D&D gates fiat behind magic. I was not making the argument you're responding to.

[Malifice]

First part - you're confusing the form for the function. The game has resource management elements, but it's not the entirety of the game, nor is resource management the point of playing (or running) the game. If you read the back cover, D&D isn't promising exciting adventures in accounting or budgeting.

Second part - again, that's not the point. The point is what your character can *do* with that cool stuff. The management is the homework, the action is the game.

Third part - this is an argument for allowing complexity gradients in characters, not for how D&D gates fiat behind magic. I was not making the argument you're responding to.

Good points.

[Knaight]

Is it designed porrly when it works (when done correctly).

Ill give you one thing, it could certainly be made easier to implement. Im not sure I want to go back down the path of 4e homogenous classes though.

When the correct method is finicky? Absolutely. As an analogy, consider programming languages or unsimplified mathematical functions. The vast majority of programming languages are Turing complete, and technically work when used correctly. That doesn't make the various esoteric languages deliberately designed to be bad anything but, and it doesn't excuse proper languages being difficult.

Technically working, but only under needlessly specific conditions is poor design. Moreover it's not like removing this implementation block somehow leads to 4e. 4e was also very much made for a certain range of encounters per day, and plenty of non-4e games are much more flexible.

[Logosloki]

The resource management discussion has a lot of truth to it but i don't believe anyone is saying that that is something to advertise.

When you talk about dnd you are going to talk about setting, lore, mythos, your character's story and her place in the world. You aren't going to say you went up to some bbeg and declared you were attacking four times and then blowing an action surge to attack four times again. Then later on during a short rest you gained that surge back.

Resource management and the faucets and sinks associated with it are the core and coincidentally the problem. Martials don't have enough variety in resource options and casters do have a larger pool of unique options. The gap is far smaller than it was in 3.5 but it is still in existence.

Take maneuvers for example. There are 16 maneuvers available to a battlemaster at the third level of which they choose three. You gain 6 more over time from a pool of ... those same 16. You start off with 4 uses per short rest and you gain ... two more by level 15. That is not to say that maneuvers are bad, some of them are amazing but if you look at the fighter's analogue, the warlock you see that the warlock is packing 15 spells, four cantrips, one 6,7,8 and 9th spell and 8 evocations. If you go tome and pick up the tome special you can even start collecting rituals.

[Dimers]

So my question to people who like playing casters: when you cast a spell like plane shift to move the party forward, do you feel like you've made a difference in the game, or do you end up feeling like a magic item?

I enjoy both casting and non-casting characters. Whether I'm a thief picking a lock on a door the party doesn't have time to break down, a face saying just the right words to the king, or a magician moving the party vast distances in an eyeblink, there are times that I suspect my character's contribution was the only way to get past an obstacle without wrecking the gameplay, the storyline, or both.

I don't like those situations existing, but they're bound to pop up because life ain't perfect. When they do, I don't positively enjoy being the progressing character, but I actively dislike it when I'm a powerless one. So given the choice, I play characters with high versatility rather than low.

When my ability set makes things much better for the party but isn't required, that feels much better than either being useless or being a plot device.

[obryn]

Technically working, but only under needlessly specific conditions is poor design. Moreover it's not like removing this implementation block somehow leads to 4e. 4e was also very much made for a certain range of encounters per day, and plenty of non-4e games are much more flexible.
Yeah, there's one interesting way in which the editions differ, here, and 5e is IMO by far the hardest to manage of the bunch.

In 0e-2e, you have some classes with Daily resources and some without (though HP are kind of a supra-daily resource shared by every character). If there's a chance to retire and rest, you know exactly what you're getting, but there's still management necessary to avoid the 15-minute workday. If there's a lot of rests, casters are disproportionately advantaged, because a single spell can easily end an encounter.

3e varied as the edition expanded, but it started out with a similar management scheme - only moreso because spellcasting was turbo-charged.

4e is an interesting one, because it put every character on the same refresh scheme. Every character has Daily, Encounter, and At-Will abilities, and a short rest after every encounter is expected. Now, there's still an expected number of encounters per day, but skipping that advice advantages all characters, evenly. Everyone gets to blow their dailies, basically, and it's largely possible to balance encounters to account for this.

5e, in trying to strike a weird balance, has made it really hard to manage resting because every character is on a different ability refresh, 'short' rests aren't assumed after every encounter, and dailies are still really powerful. So a DM needs to manage two separate kinds of rest, and be aware of what's coming back after each. What's more, compare what a Battlemaster gets vs. say a Monk on a short rest. The Battlemaster is just back up to being able to do interesting things, and a Monk is stun-locking the bad guys left and right. So it's kind of the worst of both worlds, from the DM chair.

[themaque]

One of the most fun characters I've played was a Ranger. This was back in 2nd edition. I had some minor spells, but few people look to the ranger as their dedicated caster. In fact i cast spells so rarely people would forget I even could.

I played him like batman. Smart, capable, and attempted to plan ahead. Work AROUND a problem instead of through it.

He was something most people would consider a "martial" class and I ran circles around the Mage.

It's the character, the player, and the GM who decide what is good or bad in game. Sure some classes may be easier than others, but no class is worthless if it's fun.

[mrumsey]

I think I actually lean toward Eslin on this one (as far as my DM style goes). If you have an open world, there is almost 100% chance that the characters can find whatever they need. I.E. If someone somewhere can travel planes, the characters *CAN* find a way to make it happen. I know who/where (approximately) this resource is. The party doesn't HAVE to take a wizard along, but it helps. They don't HAVE to take a rogue/bard with use magic item, but it helps. What then becomes the challenge is can the players:

1) Find this resource without it being handed to them.
2) Convince/Capture/Wield this resource, or hire someone who can.
3) Actually do this before the timer dings.

1 and 2 are generally easy for my players to grasp. 3 is sometimes harder. I have had some groups where I *HAD* to play Elder Scrolls style or nothing gets done. This is where you have to dispatch an assassin before the coronation in 3 days...and you get there in the nick of time 47 months later. Because they can't NOT get distracted by how shiny their shoes are. They would have no fun and accomplish nothing. I don't hold this against them, it was just their group dynamic.

With other groups I can get a little more dirty on timings and have them fail because they are more goal oriented. These groups didn't get sad because they failed, they generally got mad. And then thought of a way to punish the person who defied them in the first place.

The second group is more fun for me because the players get creative and I HAVE to get aggressive or the game just disintegrates. I enjoy the other group as well because it is more laid back, but for me, as a DM, I enjoy being challenged by my players as much as challenging them.

I hold myself lucky that I've only gotten one player ever who wanted all of his things to work always with no challenge and be a demi-god at lvl 2.

Forgive me for rambling. It happens. 3 year olds and whatnot. I don't even remember what I started talking about.