Hey you darn kids get off my edition!

[Cosi]

... What do you mean when you say high-fantasy? I would not describe Harry Potter as high-fantasy, nor all settings of D&D for that matter.

Honestly, I wasn't confining myself to anything tighter than "fantasy". Sorry if that wasn't obvious, or if I put a word in there I didn't mean to.


In this case (plane shift allowing adventures in different planes) abilities are plot devices.

Not really, or at least not to such a degree. The key difference in my mind is that plane shift is an ability the Wizard has, while a cave that leads to the Abyss is a resource the DM provides. It's the difference between the DM having to say yes and the DM having to say no. Obviously, there's some degree of sliding scale, but I think there's an obvious difference.


Who said getting to that cave was easy? ... OK that part was insinuated to be easy, but the last leg of the journey across the boiling sea sounds brutal.

I think that weakens the case for the two abilities being the same. If you use plane shift to get to the Abyss, or heaven, or the Elemental Plane of Fire, you don't have to rely on finding a gate (which is DM fiat) and you don't have to do the travel adventure. If you need a gate, the opposite is true.


So what if it is a low level adventure. Still a planar one that doesn't use plane shift.

But it still uses magic. It's not your magic, but it is magic. Compare it to, say, bringing someone back from the dead. You need magic to do that. You can do it before you have the magic to do so, but you achieve that by relying on someone else's magic, not by doing it without magic.


On one side we have the "god-wizard" group. They want to play and tell stories about god-wizards who bend reality at a whim. Not necessarily to the exclusion of everything else but if something gets in the way of that sort of story, such as limiting the wizards power, it will have to go.

I don't think that's quite correct (also, the term "god-wizard" is, IMHO, kind of dismissive). It's that I don't see the benefit of reducing the power of high level characters to make the period where low level characters can be mundane longer, and that I don't think the proposed tactics are efficient at achieving that goal. I don't feel particularly strongly either way about the power-level of characters. There are stories I like that are low-level (Broken Empire, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones), stories I like that are mid level (Mistborn, Codex Alera, Shadow Ops), and stories I like that are high level (Creatures of Light and Darkness, Malazan, MTG). I tend to be more vocal about my support for high level options, because I don't really see a constituency for gutting the parts of the game that allow you to do Conan.


Now the problem is we can't really reconcile these two play styles in the same system.

You can and you can't. D&D 3e supports Conan and it supports Mistborn and it supports (with some house-rules and/or gentleman's agreements) Malazan. But it doesn't support those things as well as a dedicated system would. Because it makes sacrifices to tell other stories. You could certainly clean some things up both mechanically (Fighters) and conceptually (have Tiers), but at some level having one system do all of those things can't work perfectly. You're going to make some sacrifices (for example, low level play wants a grid more than high level), but you also get some things (for example, you can do Wheel of Time or other zero-to-hero stories).

Also, D&D is (at least in theory), the industry leader. While a smaller outfit can afford to produce Exalted or the GoT RPG for one-true-wayers of high power or low power or eastern or grimdark fantasy, D&D needs to be a bigger tent.

[Arbane]

Yes, obviously the Belt of Giant Strength should go to the guy who can possess a Werewolf and be immune to weapons instead of the guy who dies to a hail of arrows before ever even reaching the enemies.

And here we have (one of) the other problems with D&D magic: Wizards are good at TOO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. Very few fantasy spellcasters can do as many different magic tricks as a level 10+ wizard in 3.5 D&D.

Including some GODS. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367382-The-Spells-of-Odin)

[Gettles]

I don't think that's quite correct (also, the term "god-wizard" is, IMHO, kind of dismissive). It's that I don't see the benefit of reducing the power of high level characters to make the period where low level characters can be mundane longer, and that I don't think the proposed tactics are efficient at achieving that goal. I don't feel particularly strongly either way about the power-level of characters. There are stories I like that are low-level (Broken Empire, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones), stories I like that are mid level (Mistborn, Codex Alera, Shadow Ops), and stories I like that are high level (Creatures of Light and Darkness, Malazan, MTG). I tend to be more vocal about my support for high level options, because I don't really see a constituency for gutting the parts of the game that allow you to do Conan.


You can and you can't. D&D 3e supports Conan and it supports Mistborn and it supports (with some house-rules and/or gentleman's agreements) Malazan. But it doesn't support those things as well as a dedicated system would. Because it makes sacrifices to tell other stories. You could certainly clean some things up both mechanically (Fighters) and conceptually (have Tiers), but at some level having one system do all of those things can't work perfectly. You're going to make some sacrifices (for example, low level play wants a grid more than high level), but you also get some things (for example, you can do Wheel of Time or other zero-to-hero stories).

Also, D&D is (at least in theory), the industry leader. While a smaller outfit can afford to produce Exalted or the GoT RPG for one-true-wayers of high power or low power or eastern or grimdark fantasy, D&D needs to be a bigger tent.

You are confusing me here. You keep referring to magic users and "high level" and warriors as "low level" the problem is in these scenarios we are talking about, they are both the exact same level(as far as in game mechanics go no one is comparing a level 20 wizard to a level 5 fighter) and if both classes are at the same level common sense should dictate that they should be able to handle similar challenges in game. The fact that this is almost never the case is while these arguments constantly spring up.

What is the point of both classes ending at the same numerical level if by all measurement their actual power levels are no where near each other?

[Cluedrew]

Honestly, I wasn't confining myself to anything tighter than "fantasy". Sorry if that wasn't obvious, or if I put a word in there I didn't mean to.OK, I don't think that really changes the much but it makes a few things clearer in my head. Thank-you for the clarification.


Not really, or at least not to such a degree. The key difference in my mind is that plane shift is an ability the Wizard has, while a cave that leads to the Abyss is a resource the DM provides. It's the difference between the DM having to say yes and the DM having to say no. Obviously, there's some degree of sliding scale, but I think there's an obvious difference.Yes there is an obvious difference between a plot device ability and a plot device location (and a plot device item and a plot device character). But often all of them can be used to tell the same sorts of stories. And no I'm not saying it will be the exact same story every time.


I don't think that's quite correct (also, the term "god-wizard" is, IMHO, kind of dismissive).From the rest of your paragraph I think you mean I was misrepresenting your position. I'm not trying to represent anyone's position exactly, just highlight the two camps that have formed around this issue. As for god-wizard, to me that is just the most straight forward way to describe a wizard with powers on the level of a god. I describe some of my own characters that way.

[JAL_1138]

JAL_1138,
I want a frame of your post, as it just maybe
THE BEST POST EVER!

:smallbiggrin: Thanks. I'm mostly kidding with the vitriol (but not kidding about the horrible character deaths from things like a lone goat or a few squirrels; those happened), hence the bluetext...but I must admit to really kind of feeling that way when I hear anyone complain about character death (assuming that it wasn't caused by something blatantly unfair, or because of a rules dispute, anyway--there are times it makes sense to be annoyed over it, even to me).

[LibraryOgre]

So? Either the enemy's plan advances constantly (in which case you don't pull 5 minute work-days in 3e, and why do I care?) or it doesn't (so there's no penalty for resting in AD&D, and why do I care?). Or maybe you actually need that firepower, and you rest regardless of penalties. If you want PCs to rest less you need to put them on a clock or give them abilities that can be recharged during the day.

Because of that advancing clock. A 3.x wizard can blow his load every day, and come back with a full set of spells the next day. A high-level AD&D wizard might need to spend days recovering his spent spells... 23 hours, 10 minutes, to recover all of his spells.

When your abilities recharge far more slowly, the 10 minute work day becomes less viable, because you can't go back to work tomorrow... you might not be able to go back to work until Thursday, by which time you've fallen WAY behind.

[Knaight]

Because of that advancing clock. A 3.x wizard can blow his load every day, and come back with a full set of spells the next day. A high-level AD&D wizard might need to spend days recovering his spent spells... 23 hours, 10 minutes, to recover all of his spells.

When your abilities recharge far more slowly, the 10 minute work day becomes less viable, because you can't go back to work tomorrow... you might not be able to go back to work until Thursday, by which time you've fallen WAY behind.

This still breaks down for anything where fighting every day is unlikely, and there's all sorts of totally valid narratives that don't have that pacing.

[Cosi]

You are confusing me here. You keep referring to magic users and "high level" and warriors as "low level" the problem is in these scenarios we are talking about, they are both the exact same level(as far as in game mechanics go no one is comparing a level 20 wizard to a level 5 fighter) and if both classes are at the same level common sense should dictate that they should be able to handle similar challenges in game.

Common sense dictates the exact opposite of that. The Warrior's skill set is that he is good with a sword. The Wizard's skill set is that he controls the fabric of reality. Obviously the Wizard is going to be more powerful than the Warrior, because he has abilities that scale into a high level environment. What is "mundane guy" supposed to do to be competitive with someone who has plane shift, teleport, or planar binding?

The reason I describe "sword guy" as low level, is because it is low level conceptually. Sword guy never develops a solution set that deals with high level problems, because his abilities are low level.


Yes there is an obvious difference between a plot device ability and a plot device location (and a plot device item and a plot device character). But often all of them can be used to tell the same sorts of stories. And no I'm not saying it will be the exact same story every time.

Sure, on a surface level, at least sort of. But the effect in the game is radically different, because it moves narrative power from the DM to the PCs, which is sort of the point of playing a TTRPG rather than watching a movie.


Because of that advancing clock. A 3.x wizard can blow his load every day, and come back with a full set of spells the next day. A high-level AD&D wizard might need to spend days recovering his spent spells... 23 hours, 10 minutes, to recover all of his spells.

When your abilities recharge far more slowly, the 10 minute work day becomes less viable, because you can't go back to work tomorrow... you might not be able to go back to work until Thursday, by which time you've fallen WAY behind.

As Knaight has pointed out, that only works if you assume that the enemy has some evil plan that is consistently progressing. If the enemy is, for example, a tomb full of traps and bound fiends, it probably won't have made any particular progress by tomorrow or even a week from now. The set-up where characters are balanced at the level of individual encounters is a better set-up, because it doesn't require you to warp the story.

It's also worth noting that if abilities recharge faster in general, the abilities of villains recharge faster as well, so in a set-up like 3e, those villains with active plans will be (roughly speaking) able to accomplish the same amount of evil plan in the 3e party's downtime as their 1e equivalents could in a 1e party's downtime.

[Knaight]

As Knaight has pointed out, that only works if you assume that the enemy has some evil plan that is consistently progressing. If the enemy is, for example, a tomb full of traps and bound fiends, it probably won't have made any particular progress by tomorrow or even a week from now. The set-up where characters are balanced at the level of individual encounters is a better set-up, because it doesn't require you to warp the story.

They can have some evil plan that is consistently progressing and still not hit the pacing of multiple encounters per day.

[Cosi]

They can have some evil plan that is consistently progressing and still not hit the pacing of multiple encounters per day.

True, but I think it's a weaker case. If the enemy makes progress every X time units, you could theoretically get the effect Mark wants by setting spell refresh times to X+N time units, even if both AD&D and 3e fall short of doing so.

[Cluedrew]

What are we talking about? I'm serious I scanned quickly through the thread and as far as I can tell this whole sub-topic starting in post 96 when it was stated:
Casters with 9 spell levels are not a bug, they are a feature.That evolved into a topic about amping up martials. Then the topic slowly changed into something... related to caster/martial disparity but I'm not sure what anymore. (I've been focusing too much on the point-by-point.)

[LibraryOgre]

Honestly, I don't think they're talking about what I'm talking about. My point is simply that some of the changes made by d20 enabled a "five minute adventuring day" by removing restrictions on mages.

[Knaight]

Honestly, I don't think they're talking about what I'm talking about. My point is simply that some of the changes made by d20 enabled a "five minute adventuring day" by removing restrictions on mages.

Sure, and my point is that the restrictions don't actually mean anything unless the pace is really high. If the encounters work out to something like once per week on average (which is still pretty fast by literary standards), then the magic user isn't meaningfully restricted by earlier editions.

[digiman619]

Common sense dictates the exact opposite of that. The Warrior's skill set is that he is good with a sword. The Wizard's skill set is that he controls the fabric of reality. Obviously the Wizard is going to be more powerful than the Warrior, because he has abilities that scale into a high level environment. What is "mundane guy" supposed to do to be competitive with someone who has plane shift, teleport, or planar binding? The reason I describe "sword guy" as low level, is because it is low level conceptually. Sword guy never develops a solution set that deals with high level problems, because his abilities are low level. By being the whirlwind of death and determination pre-D&D book had warriors be. Yes. Baron von Evil and his Cultists of Doom can have their rituals armies of skeletons, but the 'sword guy' in these contexts were masters of combat to such a degree that slicing through the dozens of monsters should only be a slight challenge. In fact, they were so good in combat that magic needed to catch up to them.

[Arbane]

Common sense dictates the exact opposite of that. The Warrior's skill set is that he is good with a sword. The Wizard's skill set is that he controls the fabric of reality. Obviously the Wizard is going to be more powerful than the Warrior, because he has abilities that scale into a high level environment.

I can think of at least a dozen hypothetical magic systems (and quite a few actual published ones) where the capability gap between spellcasters and snivelling peasants martials is anywhere from 'narrow' to 'nonexistent'. (For example, in some systems, there's actually things magic can't do!)

There's a lot of possible fixes, but most of them would require redoing D&D magic from the ground up to avoid just breaking it completely.

[oxybe]

By being the whirlwind of death and determination pre-D&D book had warriors be. Yes. Baron von Evil and his Cultists of Doom can have their rituals armies of skeletons, but the 'sword guy' in these contexts were masters of combat to such a degree that slicing through the dozens of monsters should only be a slight challenge. In fact, they were so good in combat that magic needed to catch up to them.

a few things of note:

magic is a catch-all term we can use to emcompass "phenomenon we don't understand" and "correlation = causation"

as such if you were "cursed" by someone and something bad happens, then you were obviously the target of black magic.

on the flipside if there is a drought and you kill a lamb in the name of demeter and two days later "BAM! RAIN!" it's obviously because you did the ritual right, right? magic was often used to explain phenomenon we didn't understand and serve as a warning against certain actions.

This is often why many mages in yore aren't mortal or often have traces of divine or supernatural blood, note that i'm talking more in the mythological sense then a literary one.

Circe the Enchantress was the daughter of Helios, the sun god

Merlin was a cambion, a half demon: the son of a mortal woman and an incubus.

Baba Yaga simply is. She isn't a human, just a unique supernatural creature.

Japanese lore has mages who are more akin to contractors: they make requests and pay offerings to powerful beings that serve them in return. the mage is entirely human and has little to no power his own, his skill being more akin to diplomacy with supernatural creatures

Algonquin Shamans could be considered a sort of manitou, the spiritual energy in everything, chemist: they knew the order of things and how to align the energy to get the desired effect from healing the sick to warding off malevolent spirits.

even then in litterature most mages were more akin to a force of nature given a face then a character you were meant to relate to.

the modern wizard, the man who can fire mystical rockets from his fingers and speak to people leagues away, is a modern invention. then again, if you told someone 100 years ago we would conquer the sky and put men on the moon, an international database accessible by pretty much anyone with more knowledge on any topics then ever with no centralized hub, the ability to talk to someone across the world and see their face in live, etc... they would call you a lunatic.

You'll also notice that it's around the same time we started putting men on the moon and developing the technologies that would become the internet that we began seeing a more human wizard, one who's mythical power came from himself rather then simply harnessing the forces around him or being born of a god or demon.

the modern human is basically a wizard, only instead of "message" we use "skype" and instead of "fireball" we use "grenade". "Legend Lore" is basically just a Google or Wikipedia Search and Reddit is basically the current version of the "Identify" spell (and if you use the 4chan variant, that glass of wine might be required!).

for the most part we simply don't identify with the farmer/everyman hero since his way of life is pretty alien to us and "guy who gets by on his wits and charm alone" is more akin of a romantic ideal then someone you closely identify with.

the main reason there is such a gap is that we simply haven't been at a technology level where the wizard is relateable for as long as the fighter was.

to put it in 3.5 terms, pre-1900's were akin to level 1-4. the early 1900's were 5-7. We've now hit full swing and the fighter starting to lose steam and wizard is picking up the pace.

[Cluedrew]

On the Modern Wizard: {Claps} No, really, I found myself clapping as I read that.

For me it comes down to how flavorless the wizard is. Because there is no internal justification on how the wizard works anything flies and the wizards ends sub with power surpassing gods. Of course internally the reasoning is that they "bend reality" so that the end result could be anything, but how do they do this? Memorization, that is all it is. Random gestures and words that can be crammed into 6 seconds memorized from a book and then reality just breaks. That doesn't make sense to me.

Actually I have an easier time at believing in the one who gets by on wits and charms, because I have met real people who are better at that then me, so for me it is easier to see someone better at it still.

[LibraryOgre]

Because Wizards are defined so broadly (really, for most of D&D they're "Can do anything but heal"), it's hard to put caps on them.

But, take a look at Birthright. You have regular wizards, but you also have Magicians. Magicians don't have any divine or elven blood, meaning they can cast 1st and 2nd level spells from any school, and illusions and divinations from all levels. When so limited, warriors (even without magical abilities) become far more on par, simply because the wizard is denied the unlimited power that he's otherwise given.

So, if the problem is that martials can't hang with spellcasters, remember that you have a mod of a mod of a mod of a system designed to work pretty well for about 3-5 levels, and ok until about 9th level. And you're wanting to start at 12th.

[Bohandas]

Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

BTW, Are there any existing threads on the forum specifically for discussing Grod's Law; because that's an important design tip. I've seen lots of otherwise really good games crippled by not following it (the way the inventory system works in Dungeons of Dredmor for exampl)

[Bohandas]

the modern wizard, the man who can fire mystical rockets from his fingers and speak to people leagues away, is a modern invention. then again, if you told someone 100 years ago we would conquer the sky and put men on the moon, an international database accessible by pretty much anyone with more knowledge on any topics then ever with no centralized hub, the ability to talk to someone across the world and see their face in live, etc... they would call you a lunatic.

Hell, those little thumb drives would have been pretty implausible as recently as the 1990's

[Clistenes]

a few things of note:

magic is a catch-all term we can use to emcompass "phenomenon we don't understand" and "correlation = causation"

as such if you were "cursed" by someone and something bad happens, then you were obviously the target of black magic.

on the flipside if there is a drought and you kill a lamb in the name of demeter and two days later "BAM! RAIN!" it's obviously because you did the ritual right, right? magic was often used to explain phenomenon we didn't understand and serve as a warning against certain actions.

This is often why many mages in yore aren't mortal or often have traces of divine or supernatural blood, note that i'm talking more in the mythological sense then a literary one.

Circe the Enchantress was the daughter of Helios, the sun god

Merlin was a cambion, a half demon: the son of a mortal woman and an incubus.

Baba Yaga simply is. She isn't a human, just a unique supernatural creature.

Japanese lore has mages who are more akin to contractors: they make requests and pay offerings to powerful beings that serve them in return. the mage is entirely human and has little to no power his own, his skill being more akin to diplomacy with supernatural creatures

Algonquin Shamans could be considered a sort of manitou, the spiritual energy in everything, chemist: they knew the order of things and how to align the energy to get the desired effect from healing the sick to warding off malevolent spirits.

even then in litterature most mages were more akin to a force of nature given a face then a character you were meant to relate to.

the modern wizard, the man who can fire mystical rockets from his fingers and speak to people leagues away, is a modern invention. then again, if you told someone 100 years ago we would conquer the sky and put men on the moon, an international database accessible by pretty much anyone with more knowledge on any topics then ever with no centralized hub, the ability to talk to someone across the world and see their face in live, etc... they would call you a lunatic.

You'll also notice that it's around the same time we started putting men on the moon and developing the technologies that would become the internet that we began seeing a more human wizard, one who's mythical power came from himself rather then simply harnessing the forces around him or being born of a god or demon.

the modern human is basically a wizard, only instead of "message" we use "skype" and instead of "fireball" we use "grenade". "Legend Lore" is basically just a Google or Wikipedia Search and Reddit is basically the current version of the "Identify" spell (and if you use the 4chan variant, that glass of wine might be required!).

for the most part we simply don't identify with the farmer/everyman hero since his way of life is pretty alien to us and "guy who gets by on his wits and charm alone" is more akin of a romantic ideal then someone you closely identify with.

the main reason there is such a gap is that we simply haven't been at a technology level where the wizard is relateable for as long as the fighter was.

to put it in 3.5 terms, pre-1900's were akin to level 1-4. the early 1900's were 5-7. We've now hit full swing and the fighter starting to lose steam and wizard is picking up the pace.

There are a few stories of magicians who got their powers from study, particularly those who were said to have studied at the Dark School in Salamanca: Enrique de Villena, Eugenio de Torralba, Michael Scot...etc.

Medieval tales about Roger Bacon make him into a skilled magician (he just refused to use his powers most of the time). Same about Albertus Magnus. And the 1001 Nights are full of mortal magicians using wands and magical words and stuff.

There are tales in Spain of "warlocks", going in groups to dragon's lairs in order to capture the dragons for their blood (which granted them the power to control weather), and there are stories of "Tempestarii", people who controlled climate for a price, all around Europe.

Leonardo Da Vinci argued against the existence of wizards, described their powers, and said that just the power to control weather would be enough to allow a man to become universal king (by destroying opposing armies and blackmailing countries with bad crops and famines), so, since the world wasn't ruled by magicians, it was clear to him that magic couldn't possibly exist.

In America (from Canada to Argentina) there are many stories about sorcerers using a magic consisting on inserting different materials into their bodies (stone arrowheads, splinters, pieces of poisonous animals...etc.) and shooting them at their enemies for different effects (but I guess those would be Shamans rather than Wizards).

It is true that many of those got their powers from bargains with supernatural creatures, or even bullying those into service, but some late Roman books about magic describe uses of magic that don't require those, just writing the right symbols on the right materials. Middle East wizards were sometimes shown doing the same. Kabbalist magicians could do magic writing or reciting formulae, recreating God's speech, and Finnish spellcasters did their magic compelling the forces of Nature with magical songs.

[Bohandas]

On one side we have the "god-wizard" group. They want to play and tell stories about god-wizards who bend reality at a whim.

It's worth noting that this sort of thing is Greyhawk setting canon. Zagyg, the god of humor and eccentric geniuses, started out as a mortal wizard who literally became more powerful than the gods.


Leonardo Da Vinci argued against the existence of wizards, described their powers, and said that just the power to control weather would be enough to allow a man to become universal king (by destroying opposing armies and blackmailing countries with bad crops and famines), so, since the world wasn't ruled by magicians, it was clear to him that magic couldn't possibly exist.

I find it amusing that people (including Da Vinci, no less) have been saying wizards were implausibly OP before D&D was even invented



1. Whenever someone says "I'm not X, but..." I immediately suspect that they're lying to themselves (and the rest of us). "I'm not racist, but..." is the classic example, but it seems potentially valid here.

The proper response there is to demand they show their work. If you dismiss them out of hand you're being just as ignorant as they are


And here we have (one of) the other problems with D&D magic: Wizards are good at TOO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. Very few fantasy spellcasters can do as many different magic tricks as a level 10+ wizard in 3.5 D&D.

Not that we see, but what's the chance that we see the complete range of a character's power? The wizards of Unseen University in the Discworld novels kept pulling new powers out of their ass until the very end of the series. Furthermore, even (perhaps even especially) in D&D it's unlikely we'd see the full range of a spellcaster's power due to the spell preparation system.


Honestly, I don't think they're talking about what I'm talking about. My point is simply that some of the changes made by d20 enabled a "five minute adventuring day" by removing restrictions on mages.

That's arguably an improvement. Before it was a grod's law violation: the 5 minute adventuring day was necessary but inconvenient; now it's merely silly: the 5 minute adventuring day is necessary and it happens and it's ridiculous but still as necessary as it was and is


For me it comes down to how flavorless the wizard is. Because there is no internal justification on how the wizard works anything flies and the wizards ends sub with power surpassing gods. Of course internally the reasoning is that they "bend reality" so that the end result could be anything, but how do they do this? Memorization, that is all it is. Random gestures and words that can be crammed into 6 seconds memorized from a book and then reality just breaks. That doesn't make sense to me.

That isn't a problem in and of itself, the real issue is that that's all it takes and yet still not everyone can do it.

THat said, it hasn't been memorization since sometime in 2e at the latest. Now it's preparation, which implies they're casting part of the spell beforehand like some kind of magical FastPass.


The problem you seem to be touching on here is that D&D magic basically isn't a thing. You can't interact with "magic" in the D&D rules, because nothing is nailed down. Spells don't work in AMFs unless they do (invoke magic). They require material components unless they don't (Eschew Materials, some specific spells). And so on forever. As a result, it is all but impossible for anything to feel "wondrous" (to people in the setting) because anything magic can do is just a thing magic does.

As it should be. For it to do something that it doesn't do or be unable to do something that it does would be a contradiction in terms.


If you show up with a new form of teleportation, people aren't going to go "holy crap, that shouldn't be possible".

If it happens in the setting then by definition it is possible in the setting


There's nothing mechanically wrong with the Fighter getting his powers from magic items. That said, there are obvious conceptual issues. Most notably, why don't you just give the items the Fighter has to the Cleric and add another Wizard (or whatever) to the party? For "items" to be a reasonable power source for the Fighter, there needs to be some compelling reason he's uniquely effective with them.

Yes. Just as you are forced to use technology in the modern world if you want to perform tasks like "be a corporate executive" or "travel to the moon" or "defeat the US army", you are required to use magic in D&D if you want to perform tasks like "fight demons" or "travel to hell" or "turn the sun back on".

Hell, even in fantasy and mythology characters rely a lot on magic items and.or. The Sampo, Zeus' thunderbolt, Aegis, Mercury's shoes, Thor's hammer, the magic computer from Discworld, the gun and the submarine from Discworld (which in-setting were arguably more wondrous than the wizaards' stuff) the main characters from The Dresden Files, Devil May Cry, and Indiana Jones all carry guns...


Yes, obviously the Belt of Giant Strength should go to the guy who can possess a Werewolf and be immune to weapons instead of the guy who dies to a hail of arrows before ever even reaching the enemies.

If the archers aren't trying to take out the wizard - with his low HP and AC and supposedly high threat level - first, then obviously the fighter is still a viable threat.



ALSO, as for high level wizards, one thing that could seriously reduce their power is to simply not have the enemy cluster together like a bunch of stupid bowling pins

[Cluedrew]

It's worth noting that this sort of thing is Greyhawk setting canon. Zagyg, the god of humor and eccentric geniuses, started out as a mortal wizard who literally became more powerful than the gods. [...] I find it amusing that people (including Da Vinci, no less) have been saying wizards were implausibly OP before D&D was even invented.Well there are 2 ways to handle the strength of wizards: lessen it or change the setting to accommodate. (Actually there are more than this, but most boil down to one or both of these.) I've done both depending on the situation and story I want to tell. I tend to the first though as it gives me more flexibility in the stories I can tell with it and the settings I can tell them in.


That isn't a problem in and of itself, the real issue is that that's all it takes and yet still not everyone can do it.

THat said, it hasn't been memorization since sometime in 2e at the latest. Now it's preparation, which implies they're casting part of the spell beforehand like some kind of magical FastPass.Good point, that makes a bit more sense in that regard... still the source of power is almost entirely intellectual so even if that explains the complexity of the actual casting away the bar to entry is almost non-sensually low. Maybe learning magic by retroactively looking over someone's shoulder is not as ridiculous as it would initially appear. ... Of course then we get back to the intelligence thing.


As it should be. For it to do something that it doesn't do or be unable to do something that it does would be a contradiction in terms. [...] If it happens in the setting then by definition it is possible in the setting.I'm not entirely sure but I think you might be missing the point. It is more about feeling than actual hard facts. There are times when certain explanations don't quite line up with the others and so you can know, without even being told, that it doesn't work in a given setting. Other times, even if it has never been done before, it matches the explanations given before and you know it will (or should) work.

The issue is in D&D the explanation is roughly "it works" and so nothing violates the internal logic used to justify the wizard's magic and their power goes uncapped. Or at least, that is what I think this is all about.

[Beheld]

If the archers aren't trying to take out the wizard - with his low HP and AC and supposedly high threat level - first, then obviously the fighter is still a viable threat.

Maybe you missed that whole "being immune to weapons" thing.

The point is that a big old pile of level 1 orcs can kill the high level fighter before he closes, but they can't kill the Wizard, because the Wizard is immune to their weapons.

The problem is obviously further compounded by the fact that any Wizard can walk around with his own army that can kill high level fighters before they can close (or big tough monsters). So those armies of Orcs are going to be armies of skeletons as soon as the enemy has even a single Wizard.

[Bohandas]

Maybe you missed that whole "being immune to weapons" thing.

The point is that a big old pile of level 1 orcs can kill the high level fighter before he closes, but they can't kill the Wizard, because the Wizard is immune to their weapons.


If they have enough orcs to kill the fighter before he closes then they probably have enough to fell the wizard before he can cast his spell, or if he's already cast it before combat it's just a small matter of waiting because those spells don't last long; the only way there'd be significant time left on it is if the guy playing the wizard looked at the DM's notes and conveniently cast the spell the round before the encounter started.

[Bohandas]

Badass normal fighter could potentially work if there was a bonus to AC and the number of attacks scaled more quickly. The high level fighter shouldn't be Conan, they should be one of the guys from The Kingsmen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXB6slJSbL4#t=00m50s) or Madness Combat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YEP6EAkLDk)

EDIT:
Also, the term "badass normal" is kind of pushing it for any high level character in the d20 system, no matter what their class details are due to the fact that by level 20 even a commoner can shrug off completely implausible amounts of punishment.

[digiman619]

Also, the term "badass normal" is kind of pushing it for any high level character in the d20 system, no matter what their class details are due to the fact that by level 20 even a commoner can shrug off completely implausible amounts of punishment.

That's one the major reasons the whole "martials can't do magical things" argument always annoys me; at that high enough a level, even ignoring all class features, they can survive insane things; they can survive having a bucket of lava dumped out on them, but them flying under their own power is somehow impossible.

[Beheld]

If they have enough orcs to kill the fighter before he closes then they probably have enough to fell the wizard before he can cast his spell, or if he's already cast it before combat it's just a small matter of waiting because those spells don't last long; the only way there'd be significant time left on it is if the guy playing the wizard looked at the DM's notes and conveniently cast the spell the round before the encounter started.

Magic Jar

Duration: Until dispelled.

[JoeJ]

If they have enough orcs to kill the fighter before he closes then they probably have enough to fell the wizard before he can cast his spell, or if he's already cast it before combat it's just a small matter of waiting because those spells don't last long; the only way there'd be significant time left on it is if the guy playing the wizard looked at the DM's notes and conveniently cast the spell the round before the encounter started.

I think the argument is that if an 11th level party finds a Belt of Giant Strength it should go to the wizard, not the fighter, because the wizard can cast Magic Jar to possess a werewolf (presumably carried in the wizard's backpack for use whenever convenient), and every encounter the party has after that will be orcs with bows that are too far away for the fighter to charge into melee.

[Cazero]

Magic Jar

Duration: Until dispelled.

Trapping your own soul in a mundane object with the intent of possessing anything going nearby to make them kill each other will only work once, and only on the weak-willed. Then people will stay away from the object that sent magical energy tendrils towards the dude who just got possessed, try to break it, or look after your unattended and vulnerable body if they know better. And in the case of the orc army, they can afford to lose some disposable grunts to keep you busy and thinking your 'clever' plan worked while they seek your body. Such a waste of a spell slot.

[Beheld]

Trapping your own soul in a mundane object with the intent of possessing anything going nearby to make them kill each other will only work once, and only on the weak-willed. Then people will stay away from the object that sent magical energy tendrils towards the dude who just got possessed, try to break it, or look after your unattended and vulnerable body if they know better. And in the case of the orc army, they can afford to lose some disposable grunts to keep you busy and thinking your 'clever' plan worked while they seek your body. Such a waste of a spell slot.

No, you possess a werewolf, and then you are immune to normal weapons. Until Dispelled. Which is basically not going to happen. That's the entire point. The Wizard can be immune to weapons while walking around with an army of skeleton archers that shoot at anything. An Orc army loses to this, a fighter loses to this, meanwhile, the fighter loses to the orc army.

[Quertus]

No, you possess a werewolf, and then you are immune to normal weapons. Until Dispelled. Which is basically not going to happen. That's the entire point. The Wizard can be immune to weapons while walking around with an army of skeleton archers that shoot at anything. An Orc army loses to this, a fighter loses to this, meanwhile, the fighter loses to the orc army.

In which edition? In 3.x, magic jar lasts hour/level. IIRC, it did last forever in older editions, though.

Also, sounds like wizard possessing lycanthropes didn't need the strength boost to kill orcs, while the fighter might. So, by that token, the belt of strength should go to the fighter. Then, maybe, he'll have enough strength to push a wagon in front of him until he closes to within charging distance of the orcs.

Meanwhile, the rogue ganks the wizard's body; better hope the cleric is up for a resurrection before you hit antimagic.

[Bohandas]

No, you possess a werewolf, and then you are immune to normal weapons. Until Dispelled. Which is basically not going to happen. That's the entire point. The Wizard can be immune to weapons while walking around with an army of skeleton archers that shoot at anything. An Orc army loses to this, a fighter loses to this, meanwhile, the fighter loses to the orc army.

In some editions werewolves are only resistant to normal weapons, not immune to them.

[Cazero]

No, you possess a werewolf, and then you are immune to normal weapons. Until Dispelled. Which is basically not going to happen. That's the entire point. The Wizard can be immune to weapons while walking around with an army of skeleton archers that shoot at anything. An Orc army loses to this, a fighter loses to this, meanwhile, the fighter loses to the orc army.

Allow me to laugh.
You try to possess something that might be a werewolf. You're not sure. After all, unless you captured and bound that werewolf in something said werewolf cannot escape on his own (and thus possessing him is useless), you have not much choice in target. Then, if you somehow got incredibly lucky and have a shot at possessing a werewolf, you have a chance of failure from the save. Then, if you got moderately lucky and are now possessing a werewolf, the body you're occupying is immune to nonmagical weapon, but not to magic, magical weapons, grappling, getting all the bones in their body broken, strangulation and other forms of suffocation.

And now let's assume that you actualy can move around possessing a werewolf and that it somehow is an advantage over your potent spellcasting. Let's also assume that the skeleton army obeys the werewolf despite him not being you. Let's also assume that the logistics of that plan, wich involves un-possessing the werewolf in a situation where he can't escape or kill you immediately, dismissing magic jar, casting a succesful control spell on the werewolf so he doesn't murder you, casting a dozen animate dead spells, recasting magic jar, and repossessing the werewolf before your control spell ends, all of these on regular intervals, are never interupted by a clever fighter who saw your army coming miles away and can trivialy hide and move around in your army of non-intelligent, non-perceptive minions to murder you by surprise at any point where you're vulnerable, wich is at least once every day. What does a fighter need to beat all that?
Wait for the night. That's all he needs to do. Your skeleton can't all attack without line of sight, so the lone sword and board champion fighter will wreck them all by pack of five three until there is none left at zero significant cost (he will remain around half HP until he can rest has to win initiative before engaging each pack). Just like he can do with the orc army (and as such beats it much more easily than any wizard). He can afford to save his second wind, action surges and indomitable for when he faces your actual wizard body, and he won't need to use any of them if you don't drop the werewolf. And if you drop the werewolf, you now have one more hostile monster wrecking your precious army without it having any chance at killing it.

But let's assume you're confident enough in the fact that the fighter doesn't have a magical weapon and will not find your wizard body without a fight, so you face him as a werewolf immune to all his attacks. All of them? No.
How would you modelise a bone-breaker grappling in D&D? Obviously it's not a basic attack, but it clearly falls under physical contest. So what are the requirements? Probably grappling for a start, a better control of the grapple because just restraining movement is far from enough, and then you have a shot at breaking bones as a physical contest. That's three physical contests, maybe four. A high level fighter can apply a save or die from broken neck in one round thanks to his 3+ attacks and action surge. Say goodby to your "invicible" werewolf.
edited : assuming 5e. Wich is apparently what you do by assuming immunity.

Then you are in the worst possible situation ever for a wizard-fighter match. You are unprotected and within attack range against someone who can drop you in one round and has at least one second wind too much HP for a power word : kill. The smart thing to do is to admit defeat and teleport away. So the wizard is still alive and unharmed, but he spent months and thousands of golds into animating that army and possessing that werewolf. Meanwhile, it was an ordinary monday for the fighter.
Maybe you'll try an actualy good tactic next time, wizard. One that relies on your actual strengths, wich are not physical conflict.


And as a side note, the fighter doesn't lose to the orc army. He only needs to use the intimidation skill halfway through, be a champion, or fight them at favourable circumstances that mitigates their number advantage.

edited : changed some edition paradigms. Funny how you can forget in wich subforum you are while posting.

[JoeJ]

No, you possess a werewolf, and then you are immune to normal weapons. Until Dispelled. Which is basically not going to happen. That's the entire point. The Wizard can be immune to weapons while walking around with an army of skeleton archers that shoot at anything. An Orc army loses to this, a fighter loses to this, meanwhile, the fighter loses to the orc army.

The fighter is immune to normal weapons too, as a result of having been bitten by a werebear.

[digiman619]

The fighter is immune to normal weapons too, as a result of having been bitten by a werebear.

Well, if you're going to include that, what's stopping the wizard from being a lycanthrope too?

[JoeJ]

Well, if you're going to include that, what's stopping the wizard from being a lycanthrope too?

The wizard being a lycanthrope has been part of the claim from the beginning.

[digiman619]

The wizard being a lycanthrope has been part of the claim from the beginning.

Oh. Carry on, then.

[Cluedrew]

The fighter is immune to normal weapons too, as a result of having been bitten by a werebear.Personally, I think a level 20 fighter (that is to a fighter at the power level 20 is supposed to represent) should be immune to all weapons, not wielded by a similarly leveled martial class. Because that is they only way they will ever hit.

[Dawgmoah]

Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.

That sums it up nicely. The only time I was excited about an update was the switch from the original D&D to AD&D 1st edition. The swap from 1st to 3.5 was forced by the decision to either upgrade to what everyone else is playing (circa 2006) or build things for a 1st edition game no one would play in.

But often I think of 3.5 as a dumbed-down video game on paper for those that couldn't handle real roleplaying and I've been running it now for ten years.

[obryn]

Personally, I think a level 20 fighter (that is to a fighter at the power level 20 is supposed to represent) should be immune to all weapons, not wielded by a similarly leveled martial class. Because that is they only way they will ever hit.
You know, in AD&D, a Fighter of that level was pretty explicitly immune to everything magical, with really amazing saves down the line.

If you're going to go to the trouble of insisting a Fighter has to be totally mundane and non-magical, making them explicitly anti-magical is a good starting point. Stuff like cutting through spells, walking undamaged by walls of fire, being immune to mental influence... that sort of thing.

[Cluedrew]

... I think of 3.5 as a dumbed-down video game on paper ...You know, in a lot of ways D&D has always been a bridge between other types of games and some platonic concept of the role-playing game. The early editions directly evolved out of war games, then they had some close parallels with Computer RPGs, and of course there is 4e the MMO edition.

To obryn: So literally the anti-caster, that would be another way to do it. I can see a lot of ways of bringing the fighter up. I actually put the whole martial/caster thing down to a failure of imagination. There are so many things that could have been done, but for some reason almost none of them were. Still I think we have talked enough (for now) about the editions of D&D and their martial/caster problems so I will not say much more about it.

[Quertus]

So, where's the love (or hate) for alternate editions of other, non-D&D games? I mean, there are other systems out there, and a few even survived long enough to have multiple editions.

*I cast Atonement for the heresy of mentioning other games*

[TheIronGolem]

That sums it up nicely. The only time I was excited about an update was the switch from the original D&D to AD&D 1st edition. The swap from 1st to 3.5 was forced by the decision to either upgrade to what everyone else is playing (circa 2006) or build things for a 1st edition game no one would play in.

But often I think of 3.5 as a dumbed-down video game on paper for those that couldn't handle real roleplaying and I've been running it now for ten years.

You know I was making fun of this attitude, right? Because that criticism gets applied to every new edition of every RPG, and is wrong every single time.

[Kite474]

So, where's the love (or hate) for alternate editions of other, non-D&D games? I mean, there are other systems out there, and a few even survived long enough to have multiple editions.

*I cast Atonement for the heresy of mentioning other games*

I think it kind of falls to that old stand by of "Because it's D&D" it is and always will ,unfortunately, be the standard for all time.

As for other editions I think it's mostly due to the fact that other RPG edition cycles are way less drastic. Like their is not that great a difference between Dark Heresy 1-2 while some mechanics have changed drastically, the feel and experience remains the same

[Knaight]

I think it kind of falls to that old stand by of "Because it's D&D" it is and always will ,unfortunately, be the standard for all time.

As for other editions I think it's mostly due to the fact that other RPG edition cycles are way less drastic. Like their is not that great a difference between Dark Heresy 1-2 while some mechanics have changed drastically, the feel and experience remains the same

Other RPG edition cycles are usually smoother, but there are some bumps. Shadowrun 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 stand out. Then there's spinoffs.

[Milo v3]

So, where's the love (or hate) for alternate editions of other, non-D&D games? I mean, there are other systems out there, and a few even survived long enough to have multiple editions.

*I cast Atonement for the heresy of mentioning other games*

Well there's Old World of Darkness vs. New World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness. Where the new edition's change directly went against a giant amount of the major factors of the old. Old World of Darkness was focused on metaplot and an ancient history and everything being grimdark and gothic and hopeless, while the New World of Darkness focused on the now, setting being different between tables, major changes to the purposes and roles of all the monster until the end result is closer to something like the Babadook, X-Files, or Matrix rather than being gothic punk.

And then there is the second edition of New World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness, which made the morality systems no longer based on "being a bad person is the cause of mental illnesses." and changed the experience system to be more based around narrative aspects. I've also heard some people complain that 2e CoD adds "metaplot" to the game in the form of the God-Machine.... which is a rather ridiculous claim.

[Khedrac]

So, where's the love (or hate) for alternate editions of other, non-D&D games? I mean, there are other systems out there, and a few even survived long enough to have multiple editions.

*I cast Atonement for the heresy of mentioning other games*

Back in the day there was some between RuneQuest 2 (Chaosium) and RuneQuest 3 (Avalon Hill) players but that was decades ago.
Then Mongoose RuneQuest came out and I looked at it and ran away (actually I forgive them for the mockery of the system they made - they didn't have the rights to use the actual system so had to re-invent it).

People tend not to mention Marc Miller's Traveller (4th Ed) - I think everyone agreed that whilst it started OK it went off in the wrong direction (I was taking a maths degree at the time and I had trouble with the maths) before some publishing errors killed it properly. This rather prevented system comparison arguments.

I think the main reason why you don't see many version arguments is that most games published minor amendments, not new games under the same name. Take Call of Cthulhu - material from the 1st Edition and the 6th Edition are pretty much fully compatible. How much difference is there between GURPS 1st and 4th Eds?
Most systems are more akin to the difference between Basic and Expert D&D and the first two books of Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal D&D.

[JAL_1138]

Most systems are more akin to the difference between Basic and Expert D&D and the first two books of Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal D&D.

Moldvay / Cook-&-Marsh B/X is vastly better than that dagnabbed Mentzer version the whippersnappers are playing. Young'uns these days and their fancy-schmancy Elmore art. No appreciation for the offbeat-but-flavorful stylized artwork of Erol Otus.

[LibraryOgre]

So, where's the love (or hate) for alternate editions of other, non-D&D games? I mean, there are other systems out there, and a few even survived long enough to have multiple editions.

*I cast Atonement for the heresy of mentioning other games*

There's actually a degree of friction between people who prefer 1st Edition WEG Star Wars v. 2e (or 2e R&E) Star Wars.

I know Ars Magica had a degree of controversy when the 5th edition came out, and 3rd edition is still derided by purists.... some held 2e Ars Magica as the best, while 3e was taken purposefully Grimdark by White Wolf, and recast to be a prelude to the World of Darkness. 4th edition cleared a lot of that out (including a mention of a crusade within the Order of Hermes against a sect of vampiric Tremere), but 5th edition brought significant mechanical changes to the game.

Palladium has kind of a weird problem in that they've only had one explicit edition change... between 1st edition PFRPG and 2nd Edition PFRPG. It tends to have something of a running sink problem, though... rules from one book will be contradicted in a later book, and so the vast contradictions can cause arguments as to what is really meant and which rules are in effect.

[Dawgmoah]

You know, in a lot of ways D&D has always been a bridge between other types of games and some platonic concept of the role-playing game. The early editions directly evolved out of war games, then they had some close parallels with Computer RPGs, and of course there is 4e the MMO edition.

I agree, that is how I got started into RPGs. We, the group I was in way back when, migrated from wargames to rpgs in 1975. Spent thirty plus years running 1st edition AD&D and only the past ten or so running 3.5. So I see loads of generational differences that so many, particularly on this board, don't notice or deride as it predates their gaming and sometimes their very existence. I never played computer rpgs so references to them and their influences are a moot point to me. The trends from computer games and movies, the everfull quiver, etc, are completely alien to me. But no big deal. If people want to say "I am playing it all wrong" so be it.

For all of its problems I like 3.5 just fine. If the younger crowd gets different thrills from it that's fine. I will continue keeping track of arrows, rations, spell components and so on. Legacies of older editions and not so cool to the video gamers but what the hay. There are more than enough games out there to suit everyone's tastes.

I like all of the variety spawned by the D20 movement these past decade or so; even if I don't agree with the underpinnings or plan to use it.

[Talakeal]

That's one the major reasons the whole "martials can't do magical things" argument always annoys me; at that high enough a level, even ignoring all class features, they can survive insane things; they can survive having a bucket of lava dumped out on them, but them flying under their own power is somehow impossible.

HP im D&D have always been an abstraction. I imagine a game where badass normal is a desired outcome wont narrate surviving something implausible as "he shoots you square in the face but you are just so damn tough it bounces off!"

[Tetsubo 57]

I've been playing since 1978. I've seen lots of games fall by the wayside. My favorite version of D&D is Pathfinder so it's still alive and kicking.