What Abilities Should Players Have?

[Cosi]

If you've posted on this (or any) D&D forum, you've probably seen allegations that Wizards "break the game" because they have access to scrying or planar binding or fabricate or any number of other spells. This idea carries with it the explicit or implicit notion that those are not abilities PCs should have, either for the sake of the DM's ability to run the game or for the sake of the setting conceit of a nominally medieval world. That notion in turn raises an important (series) of questions. If their are abilities PCs shouldn't have, what abilities should they have? Are there some abilities every PC should have (an possibility being flight)? Are there some extant abilities that should be changed? Are there gaping holes in the conceptual roster of abilities available to D&D characters? Should the DM have the ability to unilaterally alter or negate PC abilities?

In order to keep everyone on the same page, I'm going to lay down some restrictions on the discussion (or at least, where it starts). First, the intention is to discuss non-combat abilities or at least abilities with non-combat implications. So teleport or wall of stone rather than cone of cold or cloudkill. Second, assume a reasonably generous reading of most abilities. So scrying allows you to teleport, planar binding doesn't count any request as automatically unreasonable, and so on. Third, the default for any ability is the 3.5 version. So if you want teleport to work differently from 3.5 say that. Maybe give an example of how you think it should work. Finally, remember this is a discussion of what abilities people should have and how those abilities should work. I understand that many of you have strong options about how abilities do work. I don't care. Save it for the next PF errata thread or the next time someone asks about how wish for items works.

I have some opinions on this topic, but I'd like to hear other people's ideas rather than focusing the discussion on what I do or don't think is worth including.

[Bakkan]

In terms of a particular campaign, it wildly varies. I have run campaigns where the question "where is my next meal coming from" was the characters' primary concern. On the other hand, I also love games where players have access to greater teleport, scrying, et cetera so that I can throw an (in my mind) impossible scenario at them and watch them use their extensive abilities to solve it. I believe that wizards break some campaigns (the ones that aren't built to handle them), not the game itself (Dungeons and Dragons), since the game can be run in such a way as to allow them to use their abilities to their potential. Few of the wizard's abilities create situations that the game rules can't handle (Invisible Spell being a notable one).

The fact that D&D provides a framework that can handle both ends of the spectrum without the mechanics themselves breaking down (usually) is a point in favor of the game as a whole. This was most eloquently summarized in the Snowbluff Axiom:

All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
I'm a firm believer in the Snowbluff Axiom. I can't think of any abilities that I would never want in my players' hands.

[trikkydik]

I think psionics is infamous in this department. I have an issue right now that I'm going to address with one of my PC's before tomorrow's session.

It involves use of the power "energy adaptation."

He used this during a tournament last session, in which the map changed features every 1d4 rounds. (Arena settings were: Continuous free fall/wind, glaciers, lava, water, and normal platform)

This energy adaptation power saved him from over 200 points of damage because it works on literally every energy type.

So I'm going to give him this ultimatum tomorrow.

Either energy adaptation works on only 1 type of energy
-OR-
You'll never see energy damage again, everything will be force damage. And the power "energy adaptation" will be completely useless.

A general rule of thumb that I use for my campaigns is "anything that is completely illogical or ends combat in 1 stroke. Will almost NEVER work."

I don't care if I make up dice rolls, I would never allow my level 30 epic nemesis to be dispatched by "baleful polymorph."
Which I also made that spell WAY less effective. Pretty much any spell with the word "baleful" before it is out in my campaign.

Looking forward to reading this thread.

[Seppo87]

There is no upper limits, it really depends on what the players and GM agree on playing.

The problem with D&D is that it doesn't make a very good job at calibrating your expectations (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2)

There a misunderstanding in that players assume D&D is meant to be the right system for telling standard fantasy stories.

Fact is, D&D is designed in its own way, and it's very different, and very unique, in both lore and mechanics, and how mechanics impact upon lore in an entirely intended way (let's not mention unintended ways, that's the road that leads to Tippyworld)

This is not specified though, so players and GMs are unprepared when it happens, and they see it as a problem.
While in fact it is a chance of telling very different, new stories.

[Zanos]

I think psionics is infamous in this department. I have an issue right now that I'm going to address with one of my PC's before tomorrow's session.

It involves use of the power "energy adaptation."

He used this during a tournament last session, in which the map changed features every 1d4 rounds. (Arena settings were: Continuous free fall/wind, glaciers, lava, water, and normal platform)

This energy adaptation power saved him from over 200 points of damage because it works on literally every energy type.

So I'm going to give him this ultimatum tomorrow.

Either energy adaptation works on only 1 type of energy
-OR-
You'll never see energy damage again, everything will be force damage. And the power "energy adaptation" will be completely useless.

A general rule of thumb that I use for my campaigns is "anything that is completely illogical or ends combat in 1 stroke. Will almost NEVER work."

I don't care if I make up dice rolls, I would never allow my level 30 epic nemesis to be dispatched by "baleful polymorph."
Which I also made that spell WAY less effective. Pretty much any spell with the word "baleful" before it is out in my campaign.

Looking forward to reading this thread.
1. It sounds like flight would have avoided many of those obstacles.
2. If he hadn't used that power, wouldn't he be super, super dead? I'm not really sure what your survival condition is in that scenario without energy resistance. Did you just want him to lose?
3. How are you getting energy damage from water and falling?
4. There is a lower level power called Energy Adaptation, Specified, that does what you're describing.

---

So one thing I really like about 3.5 is that it goes a long war to put all the tools that the GM uses in the hands of the players. Some monsters still have unique abilities, sure, but all the spells are there for anyone to access. Where many systems relegate stuff like teleporting, scrying, and making pacts with powerful outsiders to either DM fiat or NPC use only, D&D doesn't. I feel like that's a strength of the system, rather than a weakness. My point of view might be unusual in this case because I have tremendously low tolerance for railroading and DM shenanigans, but if something is capable of happening in a setting, you should have rules for how it is done that are reasonably accessible.

Many of these effects are fantasy staples, and saying only the bad guys can use them is pretty ridiculous in my mind. Some people think that high level D&D characters are like some of the more low fantasy heroes, which is why I think they're not prepared to run campaigns for characters that don't really have issues getting to places they've already been, or finding people that escape them.

[Afgncaap5]

Do you want to limit this to magic abilities, or any abilities in general? The implication feels like magic is the focus, but I think there's a few extraordinary abilities that players "should" have, whether or not they do. I actually started typing up a big list by level of what I felt was "reasonable" at the levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, but then I figured I was going a ways beyond what you were asking for.

Having said all that, I think players should have the ability to do most things, but that those things should have consequences. I also think that players shouldn't be able to do things in frictionless voids where everything goes according to plan. As a weird point, I think that some things in D&D should be changed from "spells" to being some sort of ritual or incantation that still makes them available, but doesn't make them necessarily convenient or pleasant.

So do I think that players should be able to gate in supernatural beings or travel to other dimensions? Yes. Do I think they should be able to do it every turn as long as they have appropriately high spell slots remaining or spell scrolls that might've only taken them a few days to put together? No, no I don't.

Flight, though... flight is something that players, at least the magic ones, should be able to offer. I generally don't see many issues with players acquiring it, though. Unless you mean through magic items.

[Calthropstu]

I think psionics is infamous in this department. I have an issue right now that I'm going to address with one of my PC's before tomorrow's session.

It involves use of the power "energy adaptation."

He used this during a tournament last session, in which the map changed features every 1d4 rounds. (Arena settings were: Continuous free fall/wind, glaciers, lava, water, and normal platform)

This energy adaptation power saved him from over 200 points of damage because it works on literally every energy type.

So I'm going to give him this ultimatum tomorrow.

Either energy adaptation works on only 1 type of energy
-OR-
You'll never see energy damage again, everything will be force damage. And the power "energy adaptation" will be completely useless.

A general rule of thumb that I use for my campaigns is "anything that is completely illogical or ends combat in 1 stroke. Will almost NEVER work."

I don't care if I make up dice rolls, I would never allow my level 30 epic nemesis to be dispatched by "baleful polymorph."
Which I also made that spell WAY less effective. Pretty much any spell with the word "baleful" before it is out in my campaign.

Looking forward to reading this thread.

Energy adaptation is by no means broken. As a 4th level power, even mundanes can be highly resistant to energy types by that point with relatively cheap items. You sound like you are nitpicking, and coming from me who has been accosted as being "anti player" for the things I have pulled against my high level PCs when I GM, that is saying something.

Energy Adaptation is supposed to work on all energy types in 3.5. In pathfinder, it works on your active energy type unless you're a kineticist in which case it works on all. Dreamscarred Press came up with active energy types attached to psionic focus.

Sounds to me like your player just found an efficient way around your tournament hindrances, and you are upset. Which is silly.

[Calthropstu]

1. It sounds like flight would have avoided many of those obstacles.
2. If he hadn't used that power, wouldn't he be super, super dead? I'm not really sure what your survival condition is in that scenario without energy resistance. Did you just want him to lose?
3. How are you getting energy damage from water and falling?
4. There is a lower level power called Energy Adaptation, Specified, that does what you're describing.

---

So one thing I really like about 3.5 is that it goes a long war to put all the tools that the GM uses in the hands of the players. Some monsters still have unique abilities, sure, but all the spells are there for anyone to access. Where many systems relegate stuff like teleporting, scrying, and making pacts with powerful outsiders to either DM fiat or NPC use only, D&D doesn't. I feel like that's a strength of the system, rather than a weakness. My point of view might be unusual in this case because I have tremendously low tolerance for railroading and DM shenanigans, but if something is capable of happening in a setting, you should have rules for how it is done that are reasonably accessible.

Many of these effects are fantasy staples, and saying only the bad guys can use them is pretty ridiculous in my mind. Some people think that high level D&D characters are like some of the more low fantasy heroes, which is why I think they're not prepared to run campaigns for characters that don't really have issues getting to places they've already been, or finding people that escape them.

Agreed on all accounts. Any restrictions placed on players should be placed on monsters and npcs as well. Anything the NPCs can have, the PCs should have a chance to acquire as well... even if it is simply by defeating the NPCs and taking it by force.

[Troacctid]

You're asking the wrong question. Spellcasters aren't broken because of specific things they can do, they're broken because they're blatantly better than everything else you could be doing to the point that nothing else is even relevant at high levels.

[Aegis013]

Players should have the ability to meaningfully interact with the world and influence the direction of the game/story through their abilities.

As far as how that looks from a specific, mechanical standpoint? I'd say it varies wildly from game to game. Unfortunately, there is no standard D&D campaign to base all these thoughts on. Even within RAW there is the possibility for limitless settings and stories.

Sometimes being able to interact by talking to NPCs is enough. Sometimes, it takes optimized Wizard level of shenanigans and available powers.

[Hal0Badger]

I don't have a collective list of things right now, so I may post separately as they come clear or relevant. Right now I have one thing in my mind:

Ability to protect your mount or raise its defenses:

I am not talking about Wild Cohort or something. It is a feat that grants an extra character (eventhough it is an animal and have much much lower optimization choices). What I am talking about is, the warhorse you bought, named, ride for at least 4-5 nice adventures, becomes more likely to die as you progress forward, because its HP or other defenses are very limited. I play this game as mainly barbarian-fighter hybrids, and try to solve my problems with as less magic as possible, and keeping your mount alive, if it is not special mount like a paladins mount gets very hard.

Situation goes worse if you try to buy something exotic, like lets say, a griffon, because they cost a ton of money (assuming you buy them at around level 7-8). At first, it is all nice and dandy. But as you progress, the griffon you bought, no matter how much it fights while you ride it, no matter how good you get at directing it into battle as your mount and no matter how much experience it gets; (not in terms of Experience points or levels, a griffon is an intelligent creature with a score of 5, so after awhile he should learn and improve his mobility with you riding it) it can still die to a decent breath attack from a dragon, especially with a reflex save of 7. Even if you put all your points into ride.

Again, to clarify, I am not talking about getting leadership, wild cohort etc. For example, the use of ride skill, allows you to replace your creatures armor once per turn with your ride check. More abilities like this to prevent direct damage to mounts, would allow better mundane solutions to some problems up to a degree (like flight). I know it still does not replace magic, but I really hate to see my warhorse die which I named, cared, fed and rode into battle numerous times.

[martixy]

~snip~

As long as your players put up with you, more power to ya.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Bakkan(and Snow), I too have been struggling with this problem.

For example - how to nerf magical flight for casters without running afoul of Grod's Law. I haven't been able to come up with anything more creative than requiring a Concentration check though.

I believe we should differentiate between campaign-breaking abilities and game-breaking abilities.
Teleport and plane shift could break your campaign, but are of little usefulness in encounters.
Ice assassin and polymorph can trivialize encounters, but their effect on the campaign as a whole is very limited.
Some, like planar binding have the potential to be both.

The thing is, very often people look to mechanical solution to these, when your princess lies in another castle altogether.

For example, polymorph can be fixed by inventing a reason for caster to not have access to all creature forms ever to exist.
Ice assassin and scrying can be fixed by resorting to a rather popular trope of fantasy wizards and witches, that is conspicuously downplayed in D&D - where you don't let random people have pieces of you.
Wall of Stone, Iron, etc. can incur costs that even out the equation.

While it's par for this forum to separate fluff from crunch, the point is that they are(or at least should be) inextricably linked when it comes to actual campaigns, and each can affect the other in meaningful ways.

[trikkydik]

1. It sounds like flight would have avoided many of those obstacles.
He had flight casted, but it didn't work against being forced into fire, or being hit with spells/attacks.


2. If he hadn't used that power, wouldn't he be super, super dead? I'm not really sure what your survival condition is in that scenario without energy resistance. Did you just want him to lose?
He's a gestalted level 14 Psion(telepath)/Monk
And with his stats he has a LOT of hp for his level/class. The battle went well because he was hit by melee attacks and ice spells. But a lot of damage was still absorbed.


3. How are you getting energy damage from water and falling?
The NPC he was fighting was a water Mage, he used spells involving water and ice. I'm not too sure where I mentioned him absorbing falling damage, probably a typo.


4. There is a lower level power called Energy Adaptation, Specified, that does what you're describing.

Yeah. Again, Trouble is he's gestalted. but I still say, a PC absorbing 30 points of all energy damage is pretty munchkin and limits the DM of creative ideas for adventure and chaos.



Energy adaptation is by no means broken. As a 4th level power, even mundanes can be highly resistant to energy types by that point with relatively cheap items. You sound like you are nitpicking, and coming from me who has been accosted as being "anti player" for the things I have pulled against my high level PCs when I GM, that is saying something.
He's gestalted, how strong do you want me to let him be? I'm sure he'd kill your whole party in seconds. I don't need him having energy resistance of 30 to all energy types.

Energy Adaptation is supposed to work on all energy types in 3.5. In pathfinder, it works on your active energy type unless you're a kineticist in which case it works on all. Dreamscarred Press came up with active energy types attached to psionic focus.
The fact that this power got weaker with the new revision should tell you something.

Sounds to me like your player just found an efficient way around your tournament hindrances, and you are upset. Which is silly


Well, I guess I'm not as ruthless as most DM's. I try to limit the amount of damage my PC's take, in one shot, to less than 50. I think hitting, for most PC's, by 85 points of damage from a fireball is too much.

So when I deal him 35 points of fire damage, and he reduces it to 5. I'm thinking, "how can I deal this guy elemental damage?"

But I'm not a tournament player, so I understand where you're coming from, and we probably wouldn't play this game together. So it's all good.

But If you have a response please include some good tips for a DM to deal energy damage to a PC who absorbs 30 of it, without potentially killing him in one shot.

[Cosi]

All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.

I've never seen a coherent explanation for why you should separate ability access by level of optimization rather than character level. As far as I can tell, the Snowbluff Axiom is just someone failing to understand the point of the level system.

The rest of your points seem largely reasonable, although I obviously think character level is the superior mechanism for segregating character abilities.


So one thing I really like about 3.5 is that it goes a long war to put all the tools that the GM uses in the hands of the players.

Absolutely. My personal view is that everything should be open to PCs, though with some level restrictions (no teleport at 1st) and some modifications (minionmancy needs to be rebuilt)


Some people think that high level D&D characters are like some of the more low fantasy heroes, which is why I think they're not prepared to run campaigns for characters that don't really have issues getting to places they've already been, or finding people that escape them.

This is definitely a problem. Campaigns for people with teleport, plane shift, and scrying look different than campaigns for people without those abilities. That's inevitable and, I would argue, good. But some people don't like that. It's actually those people this thread is (somewhat) aimed at. I want to know where they think people should cap out. At dimension door? At fly? At something else?


Do you want to limit this to magic abilities, or any abilities in general? The implication feels like magic is the focus, but I think there's a few extraordinary abilities that players "should" have, whether or not they do.

Any ability you think PCs should have is fine. You think Evasion is important? Tell me why. Should everyone get Uncanny Dodge at 15th level? That sounds like something interesting.


I actually started typing up a big list by level of what I felt was "reasonable" at the levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, but then I figured I was going a ways beyond what you were asking for.

That sounds awesome. I'd be particularly interested in what sorts of paradigm shift abilities (i.e. flight, teleport, plane shift) you think people should get when.


Having said all that, I think players should have the ability to do most things, but that those things should have consequences. I also think that players shouldn't be able to do things in frictionless voids where everything goes according to plan.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I'm fine with abilities like teleport not being "I Win" buttons, but I think that should be because they have counters rather than because they're inconsistent.,


So do I think that players should be able to gate in supernatural beings or travel to other dimensions? Yes. Do I think they should be able to do it every turn as long as they have appropriately high spell slots remaining or spell scrolls that might've only taken them a few days to put together? No, no I don't.

That's a fine line to walk, at least in my opinion. For plane shift to feel like an ability I have (rather than one the DM lets me use), it has to work consistently and how I expect it to. That doesn't leave a lot of room for things like you're describing.


Agreed on all accounts. Any restrictions placed on players should be placed on monsters and npcs as well. Anything the NPCs can have, the PCs should have a chance to acquire as well... even if it is simply by defeating the NPCs and taking it by force.

Largely reasonable, but there are some monster abilities PCs shouldn't have. For example, Troll regeneration where you can't be killed except by Fire or Acid. On a troll, that's cool. You have to reconfigure your tactics to beat it. On a PC, that sucks. If enemies don't have Fire or Acid, you can't lose and the game is boring. If enemies do have Fire or Acid, your ability doesn't do anything. Neither of those is a good thing. But yes, PCs should generally be allowed monster abilities.


You're asking the wrong question. Spellcasters aren't broken because of specific things they can do, they're broken because they're blatantly better than everything else you could be doing to the point that nothing else is even relevant at high levels.

I am amazed that people still act like this is a coherent argument. You're saying "Casters are better than Martials, therefore Casters are broken". That's like saying "having one Bacon Cheeseburger is healthier than having two Bacon Cheeseburgers, therefore a Bacon Cheeseburger is a healthy meal". It doesn't follow. You could equally say that non-casters are broken, because none of their abilities are useful compared to a high level caster.


For example - how to nerf magical flight for casters without running afoul of Grod's Law. I haven't been able to come up with anything more creative than requiring a Concentration check though.

Bakker's Second Apocalypse has flight, but rather than "truly" flying, sorcerers are described as "walking on echoes of the ground". So they have to contend with terrain and everything, just higher up.


Ice assassin and polymorph can trivialize encounters, but their effect on the campaign as a whole is very limited.

Going to have to disagree with that one. Making a full power clone of you (which can, by definition, make more full powered clones of you) is broken. Like, insanely broken.

[LTwerewolf]

I assume we're not really talking about power disparity between classes.

I personally don't like spells that can simply solve a major problem with no effort on the side of the caster. For example I houserule that teleport only works to specific points that are crafted. You need to have been there in order to know that specific location, but after that, you can teleport to the location. The crafted thing is generally an obelisk (arcane) or stonehenge (divine)-type building, so it's not generally super portable. That's just one example though. I don't feel wish/miracle should be such an easily accessible spell. I especially don't like spells (divine power, polymorph, shapechange) that entirely obviate entire classes.

[Troacctid]

You're saying "Casters are better than Martials, therefore Casters are broken". That's like saying "having one Bacon Cheeseburger is healthier than having two Bacon Cheeseburgers, therefore a Bacon Cheeseburger is a healthy meal". It doesn't follow. You could equally say that non-casters are broken, because none of their abilities are useful compared to a high level caster.
You don't think an extreme power disparity between different options doesn't make those options unbalanced? What do you think "unbalanced" even means?

[ryu]

You don't think an extreme power disparity between different options doesn't make those options unbalanced? What do you think "unbalanced" even means?

Actually the most easily accessible reading from that statement wasn't that the power imbalance is fine. It's that martials and similar might suck too hard.

[martixy]

I've never seen a coherent explanation for why you should separate ability access by level of optimization rather than character level. As far as I can tell, the Snowbluff Axiom is just someone failing to understand the point of the level system.

Well, I'mma have to disagree with you on this.

I believe you are failing to understand human psychology. This isn't about the mechanics of the game, it's about what people are capable of getting out of it. Real persons, on the table, staring you in the face.

[LTwerewolf]

Actually the most easily accessible reading from that statement wasn't that the power imbalance is fine. It's that martials and similar might suck too hard.

IMO it's a combination of both. Casters can solve problems too easily, mundanes not at all. Mundanes are further below the "perfect line" than casters are above (obviously this is an opinion) though.

[Cosi]

I assume we're not really talking about power disparity between classes.

True. Not really sure why Troacctid brought it up.


I personally don't like spells that can simply solve a major problem with no effort on the side of the caster.

Isn't that tautological? If a caster can solve a problem with one spell, then it isn't a major problem, is it? Now you could say that some problems (like traveling to another city) are inherently major. But that doesn't hold up because no one has problems with new spells overriding challenges like "twenty Orcs" for which fireball is a pretty perfect solution. What is it about the "long journey" part of the Hobbit that is worth preserving if "fighting lots of Orcs" isn't?


You don't think an extreme power disparity between different options doesn't make those options unbalanced? What do you think "unbalanced" even means?

My point, the same point I have made every time anyone has made this point in any thread I've posted in, is that you can't say "X > Y, therefore X is too good". It doesn't follow. You have to prove that Y is balanced (or itself too good) first. You could make literally any argument for that. You could say that non-casters are a better balance point because there are more of them, and it is therefore easier to balance the game around them. You could say that non-casters are a better balance point because you really like the Duskblade, and therefore want to preserve the Duskblade as part of the game. You could come up with some empirical test of balance that mundanes pass, and argue that it makes a good basis for design. But no one ever does any of that. They go right to "Casters are better than Fighters, therefore Casters are broken". And that argument isn't just bad, it's nonsensical.


Well, I'mma have to disagree with you on this.

I believe you are failing to understand human psychology. This isn't about the mechanics of the game, it's about what people are capable of getting out of it. Real persons, on the table, staring you in the face.

That certainly sounds like you have a coherent explanation, but it is not itself a coherent explanation.

[ryu]

IMO it's a combination of both. Casters can solve problems too easily, mundanes not at all. Mundanes are further below the "perfect line" than casters are above (obviously this is an opinion) though.

The reason I like tier one as the standard is that it literally means there's no possible problem that can't be solved when so much as one person gets a good enough idea. Now if the enemy is also tier one and it's only one person having a good idea, that idea has to be preeeeetty good, but the possibility for victory due to insane burst of rain man inspiration still exists.

[LTwerewolf]

True. Not really sure why Troacctid brought it up.



Isn't that tautological? If a caster can solve a problem with one spell, then it isn't a major problem, is it? Now you could say that some problems (like traveling to another city) are inherently major. But that doesn't hold up because no one has problems with new spells overriding challenges like "twenty Orcs" for which fireball is a pretty perfect solution. What is it about the "long journey" part of the Hobbit that is worth preserving if "fighting lots of Orcs" isn't?





A line has to be drawn, which due to the way human minds work would have to be entirely subjective, as to what constitutes a major problem. With your assertion here, there are no problems because wish/alter reality can solve anything.


The reason I like tier one as the standard is that it literally means there's no possible problem that can't be solved when so much as one person gets a good enough idea. Now if the enemy is also tier one and it's only one person having a good idea, that idea has to be preeeeetty good, but the possibility for victory due to insane burst of rain man inspiration still exists.

This is the reason I dislike tier one. It consists of very little actual effort to complete things. Wizards can solve world ending problems from the breakfast table.

[ryu]

This is the reason I dislike tier one. It consists of very little actual effort to complete things. Wizards can solve world ending problems from the breakfast table.

Which to me makes a lot of sense when at high levels you may in fact be faced with world ending problems on a weekly basis. Daily or even once every few hours if we're talking epic. Why you may even be ambushed by one DURING breakfast. At high levels people still balk at world ending problems, when those world ending problems aren't actually world ending. They're Tuesday.

[LTwerewolf]

That's my point. At high levels, that shouldn't really be a thing. Things should require effort. Else there's no actual reward for having done it other than "meh." That's not a fun game, that's self "gratification."

[ryu]

That's my point. At high levels, that shouldn't really be a thing. Things should require effort. Else there's no actual reward for having done it other than "meh." That's not a fun game, that's self "gratification."

Except if the enemy is also tier one and competent it's not without effort. Tier one is one of the hardest things in the entire game to play to its potential.

[LTwerewolf]

Except if the enemy is also tier one and competent it's not without effort. Tier one is one of the hardest things in the entire game to play to its potential.

This is just something we're not going to see eye to eye on. Two tier ones fighting like that ends up consisting of "i do this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" etc. I would challenge your claim of tier 1 being remotely challenging to play with any sort of system mastery. Wizards can break campaigns on accident.

[ryu]

This is just something we're not going to see eye to eye on. Two tier ones fighting like that ends up consisting of "i do this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" etc. I would challenge your claim of tier 1 being remotely challenging to play with any sort of system mastery. Wizards can break campaigns on accident.

The entire class list can break the game on accident. I've seen a guy do it by training animals as a farmer in a game where everyone was to start as commoners. He didn't even know what he was doing. Literally new player. Dude just liked animals.

[Calthropstu]

As long as your players put up with you, more power to ya.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Bakkan(and Snow), I too have been struggling with this problem.

For example - how to nerf magical flight for casters without running afoul of Grod's Law. I haven't been able to come up with anything more creative than requiring a Concentration check though.

I believe we should differentiate between campaign-breaking abilities and game-breaking abilities.
Teleport and plane shift could break your campaign, but are of little usefulness in encounters.
Ice assassin and polymorph can trivialize encounters, but their effect on the campaign as a whole is very limited.
Some, like planar binding have the potential to be both.

The thing is, very often people look to mechanical solution to these, when your princess lies in another castle altogether.

For example, polymorph can be fixed by inventing a reason for caster to not have access to all creature forms ever to exist.
Ice assassin and scrying can be fixed by resorting to a rather popular trope of fantasy wizards and witches, that is conspicuously downplayed in D&D - where you don't let random people have pieces of you.
Wall of Stone, Iron, etc. can incur costs that even out the equation.

While it's par for this forum to separate fluff from crunch, the point is that they are(or at least should be) inextricably linked when it comes to actual campaigns, and each can affect the other in meaningful ways.

That is actually a good point for polymorph. How does a character know what abilities a creature has? And how exactly does a pc know a creature even exists? knowledge checks are trivial at polymorph level. And would book lore even be enough?

[Big Fau]

That is actually a good point for polymorph. How does a character know what abilities a creature has? And how exactly does a pc know a creature even exists? knowledge checks are trivial at polymorph level. And would book lore even be enough?

Early on in 3.5 the knowledge skills were poorly fleshed out. Towards the end they added proper checks to identify what abilities something has directly into the monster's entry.

[anti-ninja]

Yeah. Again, Trouble is he's gestalted. but I still say, a PC absorbing 30 points of all energy damage is pretty munchkin and limits the DM of creative ideas for adventure and chaos.


SO if buy items available in the dmg im a munchkin, if use one power no tricks no special combos but it make your encounter easier im a munchkin . Why ?

[Zanos]

He had flight casted, but it didn't work against being forced into fire, or being hit with spells/attacks.

See, I thought we were talking about him avoiding the mechanic of shifting environmental hazards being a problem.


He's a gestalted level 14 Psion(telepath)/Monk

Gestalt can make very powerful characters, yes. I don't frequently play with it, myself.


And with his stats he has a LOT of hp for his level/class. The battle went well because he was hit by melee attacks and ice spells. But a lot of damage was still absorbed.

He should only have 8+(13*4.5)+(14*con mod) hit points. Even assuming a generous 18 constitution, that's 122 hit points. Solid certainly, but not astronomically high.


The NPC he was fighting was a water Mage, he used spells involving water and ice. I'm not too sure where I mentioned him absorbing falling damage, probably a typo.

I assumed you took issue with him absorbing most of the damage from your shifting environmental effects you worked on. One of the ones you mentioned was "constant falling." I didn't see how that could cause damage.


Yeah. Again, Trouble is he's gestalted. but I still say, a PC absorbing 30 points of all energy damage is pretty munchkin and limits the DM of creative ideas for adventure and chaos.

Not sure if you're aware, but the term Munchkin has a pretty bad connotation. The term is largely associated with people who will go to any lengths to game the system, including cheating.
With that in mind, it doesn't seem like he was taking anything other than fire/cold damage, so two castings of specified energy resistance or a wizard with the associated spell would have done the same thing, and may have even been more PP efficient. And honestly, by level 14, having Resist 30 to all elements from a buff spell isn't inconceivable. An empowered cone of cold could be cast by level 13 and does 73.5 damage on average. Sure, resist 30 takes a decent bite out of that, but that's what an equal level spellcaster could pretty easily be slinging out of his high end slots.


He's gestalted, how strong do you want me to let him be? I'm sure he'd kill your whole party in seconds. I don't need him having energy resistance of 30 to all energy types.

I can't speak much for his build, but my current party includes a Red Wizard of Thay, a druid that summons greenbound, ashbound augmented brown bears, a gnoll psychic warrior that can grow to and an erudite that can manifest any power or spell from any list and has unlimited power points.

He'd have some trouble, I think.


The fact that this power got weaker with the new revision should tell you something.

I wouldn't really call Pathfinder a new revision. It's more of a pseudo-clone with some decisions that a small group of people believed were improvements. Besides, the 4th level power is basically the same. Only the 2nd level power was changed. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/e/energy-adaptation)


Well, I guess I'm not as ruthless as most DM's. I try to limit the amount of damage my PC's take, in one shot, to less than 50. I think hitting, for most PC's, by 85 points of damage from a fireball is too much. So when I deal him 35 points of fire damage, and he reduces it to 5. I'm thinking, "how can I deal this guy elemental damage?"

That's fair, but your PC is level 14, and gestalt. Just as his defenses have increased, your NPCs also have new tools available to them. If you choose not to use those tools, complaining that your PCs are too strong is rather unfounded.


But If you have a response please include some good tips for a DM to deal energy damage to a PC who absorbs 30 of it, without potentially killing him in one shot.

In Frostburn, there is a metamagic feat called piercing cold. It is a +1 metamagic feat, and makes a cold spell bypass spell resistance, and deal half damage to a normally cold immune creature. Cold subtype creatures are still immune.

In Sandstorm, there is a metamagic feat called searing spell. It does something similar, but for fire spells. It technically does not have the clause to make fire subtype creatures immune to it, so you could technically kill a fire elemental with fireballs with this feat.

These feats will bypass his resistances without actually increasing the amount of damage dealt. The other solution, of course, is to do more damage. He can manifest those powers as an immediate action anyway if he needs his resistances in a pinch, so I highly doubt he'll get one shot. Dispel magic/psionics will also work to strip him of buffs.

[illyahr]

I think one of the worst things is that only magic can stop magic. I had one player who played an efficient wizard who started a major combat with his buffs already in place. One of the enemies critical hit with a greatsword for almost 60 damage. I ruled that the spells that added bonuses to his AC buckled under the strike and were dispelled. Not a serious threat (it dropped his AC by a few points but he was the heaviest hitter and went down in the next round) but everyone agreed that it was an interesting development and made sense in context.

If a wizard invests the time to learn world-altering spells, he should be able to use those world-altering spells. My biggest problem is that magic is untouchable by anyone who isn't a spellcaster. There are less than a handful of ways that a martial can affect anything magical.

[Duelpersonality]

If their are abilities PCs shouldn't have, what abilities should they have? Are there some abilities every PC should have (an possibility being flight)? Are there some extant abilities that should be changed? Are there gaping holes in the conceptual roster of abilities available to D&D characters? Should the DM have the ability to unilaterally alter or negate PC abilities?

The questions seem like they're difficult because the scope of any problems or benefits PC abilities create is wildly differtent between individual groups, regimented play, theoretical optimization, and community expectations.

That being said, I like to run games where players have agency to change the story unexpectedly, but I still have ways to keep the game from falling apart. It depends on what kind of power level your shooting for in a campaign (and I do agree that charactwr level should be a good way to determine that). At low levels (1-5), I feel that PCs should have abilities that are relatively easy to predict and have minimal effect on the world as a whole mechanically. A 5th level fighter could theoretically cause untold destruction by killing a king, but mechanically it was one fight. The ability of PCs to travel to new areas is limited, and allows a campaign to find a foothold in players' minds. This has been good in my groups at keeping the PCs from just spontaneously running off to ransack the campaign world at high levels because they can mechanically.

Levels 6-12(ish) should push that agency to a new realm of possibilities. Flight is definitely something I think should come online at this stage. The PCs should feel more supernatural than common folk in the campaign world. Starting a campaign here allows for a lot more player "control" of a campaign, between planar binding and such things. I do think the consequences of using planar binding spells should be utilized every time a PC tries, successfully or not. I'm also a proponent of magic having some kind of cost, and have used homebrew solutions to mean that all created matter is instead called (meaning that a wall of iron draws its material from somewhere).

Levels 13 and up should have PCs be among (if not the) major powers in the campaign world. This means that easy teleportation, planar travel, and at the high end even planar control could be possible. While I feel like it's hard to portray within the mechanics, I like the feel of powerful spellcasters transforming into dragons to do battle (an iconic trope in my personal view of fantasy, YMMV), but I feel that instead of being healed by the process, it should do the opposite and cause damage. Also a restriction on what abilities can be gained from polymorph and the like is desperately needed (even if a character knows what a creature can do, they shouldn't automatically know how just by changing into one. I know a human can make a baseball curve in flight by throwing it a certain way, but even though I'm a human I'm not able to perform the mechanics of it. The same could be true of any ability a creature posesses in the game).

Man, that was more long-winded than I expected.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It has been my experience that allegations that this or that ability is broken almost exclusively come down to the people making the allegation having no idea how to deal with the ability in question and/or having the completely unreasonable expectatoin that there isn't supposed to be any significant difference between low-level and high-level play beyond larger numbers.

The only thing that the playground seems to take as a given that can cause any real problem is that planar binding/gate allows the player utter and absolute control of a powerful NPC creature(s). Whether you subscribe to that particular notion or not (I don't) it stands almost completely alone as something that -genuinely- makes the game impoossible to continue if allowed.

Everything else is counterable and/or only accelerates something that can otherwise be accomplished in a mundane way. A lot of stuff can even be soft-countered or mitigated by relatiively common or even standard abilities.

Here's a few common culprits and solutions:

Flight: this one's almost hard to believe. How game breaking can something be when it can be fouled by bad weather and/or mundane weaponry (nets, lassos) or even just a readied grab? Double fail if the flight is wing-based.

Scrying, et al: Every information gathering spell has sharp limitations and keeping those limitations in mind eliminate most of the issues. Special mention to speak with dead; if the speaking aparatus (usually a mouth) is damaged or missing, the dead cannot speak and, in any case, doesn't know any more than it did in life. Special mention to contact other plane: even the gods don't know everything and this spell all but explicitly says to the DM "Ignore the dice and refuse to give info that would ruin the game."

Charm, et all: usually used to take information from the minions of BBEG's. They can't give you information they don't have. Charm only makes them a friend and is -very- easily broken while dominate is easily spotted by allies, turning them on their own side in any kind of subtle way is very prone to failure and easily turned against the PC if the affected party is discovered.

Minion-mancy: with rare exception, this mostly just comes down to bogging down the game. Simple organizational steps can be taken to speed up play to an acceptable rate. Otherwise, just fight fire with fire (massed enemies) or artillery (large AoE's are purpose built for taking on massed foes).

Save or Lose effects: these don't actually break the game so much as they're a matter of taste, plain and simple. That said, 9 times out of 10 they are encountered at roughly the same level as their hard-counter opposites. Adequate preparation takes most of the bite out of them and enemies with immunity are trivial to find. In that 1:10 case where you're just screwed, accept it and roll a new character to play until such time as the effect can be reversed. Bottom line: if you don't like 'em, talk it out with your group and compromise.

Those are most of the major culprits, I think.

[Fizban]

planar binding doesn't count any request as automatically unreasonable, and so on.
This could be read a couple of different ways. You could mean there must be no such thing as an unreasonable request, but since you're talking about reasonably permissive rulings, I have a feeling you're more referring to the hard counter put forth in the previous thread.

You can't just brush that off by saying we have to assume "permissive rulings," especially when it's so loosely worded. I believe PCs should have the ability to call up outsiders and bargain with them for services, that's awesome and I want it on all my characters, but the key word there is "bargain." The most common use of Planar Binding, is to trap an outsider and give them nothing but freedom in exchange for service. This is not bargaining, it is kidnapping and extortion. I'm not saying it can't be done RAW, but if we're talking about what PCs should and shouldn't be able to do, well obviously I don't think PCs should be able to do that.

Other than that I'd say just a general non-invulnerability clause. Stuff like time control magic abuse varies by game, but any character who can't actually be threatened needs to go.

[eggynack]

This is just something we're not going to see eye to eye on. Two tier ones fighting like that ends up consisting of "i do this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" "nuh uh because this" "uh huh because this" etc. I would challenge your claim of tier 1 being remotely challenging to play with any sort of system mastery. Wizards can break campaigns on accident.
Actually pulling off the correct web of defenses and bypassing the opponent's crazy web of defenses is pretty challenging. A wizard can break a weaker campaign without playing to their fullest potential, but the point isn't that it's somehow easier to beat a particular challenge with a fighter than a wizard. That'd be a ludicrous claim. Instead, imagine a broad set of fighters and wizards, of varying levels of game talent, and imagine a big pile of challenge difficulties, from one to, eh, screw it, infinity. The weakest wizard can beat challenges at level four, while the weakest fighter can beat challenges at, say, level five, cause they have a lower floor. The next best wizard can beat challenges at level ten, while the next fighter is at seven. You keep going on like that, except, once you hit a difficulty of, for the sake of argument, 1,242, it turns out that no fighter can possibly beat anything beyond that. Beyond that level of expertise, nothing really impacts anything, and anyone that can beat that challenge has fully met the potential of the fighter class. Meanwhile, the wizard at that level of expertise can beat challenges of difficulty 1,105,219. However, if you look at the wizard after that, they have 1,221,999 as their highest challenge defeated, and it keeps going on like that. Thus, a player can be good enough to meet the maximum potential of a fighter, but not be good enough to meet the maximum potential of a wizard, and, in fact, the sheer complexity of the wizard means that the maximum potential is likely unreachable.

Now, that's all good in theory, but what's really important is that it can be demonstrated. To that end, I'll consider the example of a 7th level fighter and a 7th level druid, cause it's the example I usually use for this, and I'm a lazy fellow. Let's assume they're fighting a single opponent that has only melee capabilities. The fighter, for the sake of argument, has as his focuses charging, tripping, and bull rushing. This means that, against this enemy the fighter only has so many choices. He can rush in and beat face, or he can rush in and trip, or he can rush in and bull rush, or he can run away, or he can position himself in a particular way, and there's not that much else realistically available to him. You could come up with other things, and so could I, but the total list of action possibilities is probably in the double digits, only going beyond that if you consider every possible self placement and action from that position as a new plan. A lot of those options can be dismissed rather quickly too, depending on circumstance, so a given player is making a relatively simple choice here, one with a low threshold for maximum potential.

At the same time, consider the druid. Consider how many options they have, even ignoring stuff like daily spell selection. On the most macro level, they have access to at least 16 spells in a day, maybe less because some are used, also more because of wisdom. But let's stick to 16, and actually, I'll drop it to 10 by disregarding orisons. Already, a comparison shows that we have twice as many "basic options" as the fighter above, and it's not like those options become much or at all less complex than the fighter basic options on deeper inspection. And then we can add four to that count of basic options, because any spell level can be converted into summons (though you could also double it because you have to decide which spell to convert), and add one more, up to 15, in the form of wild shape. That's not even close to how deep this goes, however. Consider the druid having already decided to convert a specific spell into SNA IV, and you'll see that a player placed after that decision will still have a greater optimization potential than the fighter with their whole turn. After all, SNA IV offers 16 separate creatures, and that's in addition to the possibility of getting multiples of lower levels. And each of those creature possibilities still has decision problems behind it, like where your giant crocodile should be placed or what your summoned unicorn should do. It's a single spell with more optimization potential than a fighter has in their entire career, and the druid still has the crazy option pile that is wild shape, a feature that's also individually more difficult to hit the potential on than a fighter, as well as an animal companion to command.

How could a fighter possibly be as hard to hit the potential on as all of that? I can't see a way for it to be done with any amount of, well, I guess it'd be optimization for complexity. You'd basically just have to get spells yourself, and you'd still be behind. And, while I used the druid, it's not like the wizard is less complicated. The wizard tends to have their options a bit less easy to lay out like that, because you have to get into a lot of specific spell functionality, but those options are very much there. Even something low level like silent image is likely harder to maximize than a fighter's turn. And the wizard still, of course, has their own summon monster line, one with a bunch more spell-like abilities as well as creatures that are easier to command in particular ways. All this stuff is very challenging, and you can easily create a problem that a particular player of a wizard would be unable to solve, that a better player with the same resources could manage. They just have so much they can do, and picking the right thing out of that list is a crazy challenge.

[ryu]

Everyone starting to learn why I likened playing a tier one to potential as a rain man task yet? It aint easy to take any of them as far as they'll go, and while I have learned to solve a truly staggering number of problems with wizard I had to spend some serious time learning that sheer level of chops.

[ShurikVch]

Going to have to disagree with that one. Making a full power clone of you (which can, by definition, make more full powered clones of you) is broken. Like, insanely broken.Ice Assassin of you is not an asset - it's liability: it want to kill you!

[Willie the Duck]

If you've posted on this (or any) D&D forum, you've probably seen allegations that Wizards "break the game" because they have access to scrying or planar binding or fabricate or any number of other spells. This idea carries with it the explicit or implicit notion that those are not abilities PCs should have, either for the sake of the DM's ability to run the game or for the sake of the setting conceit of a nominally medieval world. That notion in turn raises an important (series) of questions. If their are abilities PCs shouldn't have, what abilities should they have? Are there some abilities every PC should have (an possibility being flight)? Are there some extant abilities that should be changed? Are there gaping holes in the conceptual roster of abilities available to D&D characters? Should the DM have the ability to unilaterally alter or negate PC abilities?


Do note that it is not just the basic conceptual abilities like teleporting, travelling to other planes, flying, or scrying, but how those abilities--as described by the 3rd edition rules--effect the game.

Since you brought it up, let's take flight as an example. Flight, as a conceptual ability, is cool. You would frankly be upset if your swords and sorcery game specifically didn't have flight as an ability. But putting it where it is, and it being as effective as it is at circumventing so many challenges is a gaming decision that could have been altered.

Flying comes online for spellcasters at level 5 or 6. That leaves 4-5 levels of play where the rogue's skill points spent on balance really will save the day walking across the narrow ledge to hit the lever that opens the next level of the dungeon (or other example challenge that flight makes irrelevant). It's only two levels above spider climb, which makes a very small window for spiderman-esque wall battles or escapades.

Likewise, flying is an awfully good defensive position for squishy mages because of other game rule decisions, like those which make archery such a poor (and completely negated with one spell) combat tactic. In another game, flying mages would be sitting ducks (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28).

I think Kelb_Panthera was trying to say that flight was easily negated, but his examples just showed how few ways it can be. Grabs, lassos, and nets (all of which effect non-flyers too) do work, but they require someone up near the flyer when they start flying. Plus they are in-combat counters, and it is the overcoming obstacle part of flying that truly shifts the game. Wind is in fact a good counter, but it's one of those how-many-times-can-I-as-the-DM-use-this kind of things.

Does that mean that I dislike the fly spell? Of course not. However, I would say that it is significantly more game-changing than I think the designers gave it credit.

Teleportation is another one. It doesn't have to be game-changing (some would say breaking), it is because of the specific rules it has that make it so. Teleport could very easily be less abusable.

For instance, what if instead of having a few % chance of not working, instead it worked every time, but had a 1% variability in destination? Now, to scrye-and-die the BBEG, you have to get within 500' of him (if you want to teleport within 5' of them for full attack or surprise-round grapple attempt).

Addressing circumventing long-distance travel (the other problem with teleports), teleporting could move you a specific distance in a specific direction, and you had better have your information correct if you want to get to a specific place. Imagine having your wizard have to say, "alright party, we're in fantasy London. According to my poorly made medieval map, fantasy Paris is 412 miles South-East-East of here*. I'll teleport us all there 100' in the air, so we don't intersect any unknown landmass or tall trees, everyone have their featherfall rings ready. we'll undoubtedly appear in a non-descript valley, hopefully near a landmark. Ranger, you'll be on point to help us find our way to a road. Hopefully we'll meet someone who can tell us which direction leads to Paris instead of away from it." That would make teleporting still able to allow travel between cities, but because of the specifics of the rules, it certainly keeps said travel from being trivial.

*(It's actually 214 miles South-South-East)


[QUOTE HEAVILY SNIPPED FOR LENGTH] At low levels (1-5)... PCs should have abilities... minimal effect on the world as a whole mechanically... ability of PCs to travel to new areas is limited, and allows a campaign to find a foothold in players' minds...

Levels 6-12... push that agency to a new realm of possibilities... PCs should feel more supernatural than common folk... a lot more player "control" of a campaign...

Levels 13 and up should have PCs be among (if not the) major powers... hard to portray within the mechanics... shouldn't automatically know how just by changing into one.

I agree with the conceptual model, but not the specific numbers (those might be where they ought to be, but I do not feel that is where they are). In particular, look at level 9 and 5th-level spells--you have teleport (with or without scrying), plane shift, lesser planar bonding, and raise dead. That's almost all of the game-changing abilities. All the spell levels after that just allow you to do them better, more accurately, or with less of a penalty. Therefore, the division I think is most accurate is:

Levels 1-4: pseudo-realism. Most abilities are just cinematically convenient versions of things people can really do (sure, spider climb lets you climb walls quicker and more assuredly, but you are still just climbing walls). Things that really inhibited actions in medieval settings inhibit your characters (a stone keep with a barred front gate, a maze full of pit-traps, a well-built locked treasure chest, and a group of soldiers in a pike-hedge will all stymie an adventuring party and provide a challenge). The minimal mechanical effect on the world mentioned is very much in play.

Levels 5-8: Starting arbitrarily with the fly spell (along with gaseous form, stone shape, non-detection, wind wall, and moving up through dimension door, freedom of movement, death ward, and scry), this level starts hitting where the players can start using magic to do what is impossible to do with skill or natural abilities, and or to completely circumvent basic obstacles of access, knowledge, or vulnerability. There is definitely a lot more player "control." Now unless you play 15-minute workday, you won't always have all the spells you want or need available when you need them, but it is having the right spells available that starts to become the largest indicator of party success (again, starts to become).

Levels 9+: Infinite player level. The PCs don't play within boundaries, they play with boundaries. There's very little difference between 9th level and 20th level, except in more, bigger, and longer lasting. As you said, it is hard to portray within the mechanics, and the game becomes one of pulling off the correct web of defenses as eggynack puts it. There's certainly value to this level of play, but I don't understand why it should cover 12 of 20 levels, while the other two take 4 apiece.

[Troacctid]

True. Not really sure why Troacctid brought it up.



Isn't that tautological? If a caster can solve a problem with one spell, then it isn't a major problem, is it? Now you could say that some problems (like traveling to another city) are inherently major. But that doesn't hold up because no one has problems with new spells overriding challenges like "twenty Orcs" for which fireball is a pretty perfect solution. What is it about the "long journey" part of the Hobbit that is worth preserving if "fighting lots of Orcs" isn't?



My point, the same point I have made every time anyone has made this point in any thread I've posted in, is that you can't say "X > Y, therefore X is too good". It doesn't follow. You have to prove that Y is balanced (or itself too good) first. You could make literally any argument for that. You could say that non-casters are a better balance point because there are more of them, and it is therefore easier to balance the game around them. You could say that non-casters are a better balance point because you really like the Duskblade, and therefore want to preserve the Duskblade as part of the game. You could come up with some empirical test of balance that mundanes pass, and argue that it makes a good basis for design. But no one ever does any of that. They go right to "Casters are better than Fighters, therefore Casters are broken". And that argument isn't just bad, it's nonsensical.
The definition of T1 is that they are tops at everything, even the things they aren't supposed to be specialized in. Game balance requires meaningful tradeoffs. If you outperform everyone else at everything without giving anything up, you are unbalanced.

It doesn't matter if you're operating on a scale of 1–10 or 1–100. A class that has the maximum score in every category is going to be overpowered. A balanced generalist needs to leave room for specialists to be better.

[Duelpersonality]

I agree with the conceptual model, but not the specific numbers (those might be where they ought to be, but I do not feel that is where they are). In particular, look at level 9 and 5th-level spells--you have teleport (with or without scrying), plane shift, lesser planar bonding, and raise dead. That's almost all of the game-changing abilities. All the spell levels after that just allow you to do them better, more accurately, or with less of a penalty. Therefore, the division I think is most accurate is:

Levels 1-4: pseudo-realism. Most abilities are just cinematically convenient versions of things people can really do (sure, spider climb lets you climb walls quicker and more assuredly, but you are still just climbing walls). Things that really inhibited actions in medieval settings inhibit your characters (a stone keep with a barred front gate, a maze full of pit-traps, a well-built locked treasure chest, and a group of soldiers in a pike-hedge will all stymie an adventuring party and provide a challenge). The minimal mechanical effect on the world mentioned is very much in play.

Levels 5-8: Starting arbitrarily with the fly spell (along with gaseous form, stone shape, non-detection, wind wall, and moving up through dimension door, freedom of movement, death ward, and scry), this level starts hitting where the players can start using magic to do what is impossible to do with skill or natural abilities, and or to completely circumvent basic obstacles of access, knowledge, or vulnerability. There is definitely a lot more player "control." Now unless you play 15-minute workday, you won't always have all the spells you want or need available when you need them, but it is having the right spells available that starts to become the largest indicator of party success (again, starts to become).

Levels 9+: Infinite player level. The PCs don't play within boundaries, they play with boundaries. There's very little difference between 9th level and 20th level, except in more, bigger, and longer lasting. As you said, it is hard to portray within the mechanics, and the game becomes one of pulling off the correct web of defenses as eggynack puts it. There's certainly value to this level of play, but I don't understand why it should cover 12 of 20 levels, while the other two take 4 apiece.

Oh, I agree that my examples are not where the game stands, it was more in answer to what abilities "should" be, at least for my idea of a fun game across 20 levels. I probably woorded it poorly. Your model is a lot more accurate to what is in the game now.

[Deadline]

Well, a good starting place for "what abilities should a PC have" might be the List of Necessary Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items). While much of that refers to combat, it still covers quite a bit (It's possible that I misunderstood the premise of the thread). Beyond that, and venturing into much more subjective terms, I think Players should have the ability to affect the world and story in a meaningful and cathartic way, and to be able to do so equally with the other Players. The GM should help facilitate that, while also providing challenges that are entertaining to the players.

I also, in general, think that PC backstories should be used as World Building fodder for the GM, as it usually enhances player experience. Something like "PC A has a backstory strongly tied with a group of Knights called The Order of the Rose". So BAM! There now exists a knightly order with that name, and the GM would work with the PC to fit it into the world and cover how they are tied in. That only applies if you are shooting for a very story focused game though.

[Cosi]

At low levels (1-5), I feel that PCs should have abilities that are relatively easy to predict and have minimal effect on the world as a whole mechanically. A 5th level fighter could theoretically cause untold destruction by killing a king, but mechanically it was one fight.

That's definitely an effect I've noticed (and support). If you look at the source material, there's a class of stories where the majority of strategy power is positional rather than personal. For example, Legend of Korra. Korra has a bunch of magical power, but very little of it is strategic in scope. She can't destroy a city with her bending, teleport across the continent, or defeat an army. But she has (some) power in international politics because she's the Avatar. For an even clearer cut example, think about the Conan stories where Conan is a king. He couldn't personal march into another nation and conquer it, but his armies could. And his armies could do that even if he was personally a 1st level commoner or something.


I'm also a proponent of magic having some kind of cost, and have used homebrew solutions to mean that all created matter is instead called (meaning that a wall of iron draws its material from somewhere).

An interesting concept, but I don't see how it ends up being more than a curiosity. There's a lot of iron in the earth's crust, easily enough for you to cast wall of iron until the cows come home.


It has been my experience that allegations that this or that ability is broken almost exclusively come down to the people making the allegation having no idea how to deal with the ability in question and/or having the completely unreasonable expectatoin that there isn't supposed to be any significant difference between low-level and high-level play beyond larger numbers.

Mostly. There are also the people who don't want the game to scale past a certain point, or the people who are worried about the effects of teleport or fabricate on the setting.


Flight: this one's almost hard to believe. How game breaking can something be when it can be fouled by bad weather and/or mundane weaponry (nets, lassos) or even just a readied grab? Double fail if the flight is wing-based.

Also, 90+% of high level enemies fly. It's hard for me to worry about PCs flying when their enemies are Vrocks, Efreet, Elder Air Elementals, or Dragons, all of which can fly.


Minion-mancy: with rare exception, this mostly just comes down to bogging down the game. Simple organizational steps can be taken to speed up play to an acceptable rate. Otherwise, just fight fire with fire (massed enemies) or artillery (large AoE's are purpose built for taking on massed foes).

Minion-mancy is one of the most dangerous types of magic, though far from automatically broken. Some of it is basically "you get a bunch of chaff" (some uses of animate dead, followers), which is fine if you're willing to do the extra book-keeping. Some of it is "you get a bunch of PC-grade threats, which may be able to produce minions of their own" (planar binding, ice assassin, Diplomacy), which is one of the most busted things in the game.


Save or Lose effects: these don't actually break the game so much as they're a matter of taste, plain and simple. That said, 9 times out of 10 they are encountered at roughly the same level as their hard-counter opposites. Adequate preparation takes most of the bite out of them and enemies with immunity are trivial to find. In that 1:10 case where you're just screwed, accept it and roll a new character to play until such time as the effect can be reversed. Bottom line: if you don't like 'em, talk it out with your group and compromise.

Honestly, Rocket Launcher Tag is (IMHO) a totally different issue than what abilities people have. Sure, high level abilities like dominate person are rockets, but so are low level abilities like a raging Barbarian with a Greatsword and Power Attack. It's a discussion that is largely orthogonal to this one, although it occupies a similar "how should the game work" space.


This could be read a couple of different ways. You could mean there must be no such thing as an unreasonable request, but since you're talking about reasonably permissive rulings, I have a feeling you're more referring to the hard counter put forth in the previous thread.

I think you've got it. The intention is to avoid the argument that someone (I think Psyren, but I'm not 100%) advanced in some wish thread that ran something like "you can't use planar binding to get wish from an Efreet, because the spell says creatures don't obey unreasonable requests and keeping it captive to negotiate is automatically an unreasonable request". The intention of this thread is to discuss if and how people should get to bind demons, not how existing demon binding abilities work.


I'm not saying it can't be done RAW, but if we're talking about what PCs should and shouldn't be able to do, well obviously I don't think PCs should be able to do that.

That's fine, and exactly the sort of thing that should be discussed. What (if anything) you should have to give up or risk for the services of a demon is 100% on topic for this thread.


Ice Assassin of you is not an asset - it's liability: it want to kill you!

It's also under your direct mental control.


It's only two levels above spider climb, which makes a very small window for spiderman-esque wall battles or escapades.

This is something that gets brought up a lot, but I think the solution is to promote games with slower (or no) advancement, not to spread abilities out. It's not really clear to me what a version of Spiderman that is two, or five, or ten levels higher looks like, even if his friends haven't picked up new abilities in that time. It seems to me that the solution there is to simply decide what level Spiderman works at and play at that level for as long as you want.


For instance, what if instead of having a few % chance of not working, instead it worked every time, but had a 1% variability in destination? Now, to scrye-and-die the BBEG, you have to get within 500' of him (if you want to teleport within 5' of them for full attack or surprise-round grapple attempt).

I don't like making abilities inconsistent. It weakens the games where people want to have consistent teleport (because now they don't have it), and also the games that don't want teleport (because they still have to think about it). I'd rather just have a sharp set of level divides, some counters to teleport, and some design shifts to make teleport ambushes weaker.


The definition of T1 is that they are tops at everything, even the things they aren't supposed to be specialized in. Game balance requires meaningful tradeoffs. If you outperform everyone else at everything without giving anything up, you are unbalanced.

Game balance doesn't require trade-offs. The game of War is balanced, but it has no trade-offs. It doesn't even have strategy. You could have a balanced version of D&D with only one legal build. Indeed, that version of D&D would be more balanced than any other. But that's quibbling.

Quibbling aside, you do actually have trade-offs within T1. If you are a Wizard, you are not a Druid. If you are a Druid, you are not a Cleric. And so on. The level of optimization where builds homogenize is far beyond the level where non-casters are useless.

[Fizban]

I think you've got it. The intention is to avoid the argument that someone (I think Psyren, but I'm not 100%) advanced in some wish thread that ran something like "you can't use planar binding to get wish from an Efreet, because the spell says creatures don't obey unreasonable requests and keeping it captive to negotiate is automatically an unreasonable request". The intention of this thread is to discuss if and how people should get to bind demons, not how existing demon binding abilities work.
I was also on board with said ruling, so it immediately came to mind. Restating the goal: PCs should be able to bargain, not get whatever they can imagine for free.

In order to do Planar Binding right, the easiest thing is to just get rid of Planar Binding and only use Planar Ally: it guarantees that a creature willing to negotiate with you will appear, gives clear guidelines for what is reasonable and unreasonable, and the xp cost discourages wanton spamming. My first response to any suggestion of Planar Binding abuse is always to refer to Planar Ally, since it's the only spell that actually defines those terms, and if the spells must remain separate all you need to do is copy over the missing text. At that point the main difference is that Ally costs xp and guarantees a receptive target, while Binding costs extra time and resources setting up a diagram and has no guarantee they'll be willing to bargain.

You can still have good people go dark and bargain with devils via Planar Ally anyway, so I don't see a need for Planar Binding to stick around. A cleric couldn't do it regardless, but an arcanist casting Planar Ally only needs to worship a non-good god, or simply renounce all gods, in order to get someone based on their alignment. Since bargaining with a devil is considered an evil act, simply the act of asking for one can be considered enough to make one appear even if you're not evil, yet. Of course if you know their name it should be easy as pie, with a similar caveat to Gate in that naming someone for Planar Ally/Binding gives them the option to decline and not even show up.

The second part is charging the minimum true value for services. If you call an outsider to cast a bunch of SLAs that are clearly worth more than the amount you're paying them for this technically non-hazardous task, they should charge you the correct cost based on the value of the service rather than the general help. This is the other method of solving the bound wishes problem, that demanding a Wish for anything less than the price you'd pay to have someone cast it for you is always unreasonable.

All you have to do for that is note that the general services lines in Planar Ally do not apply to any sort of permanent goods or effects. Order your devil to cast Wall of Ice in combat? Sure. Cast Wish for free? No. Have an archon buff the whole party with Aid before every combat? Sure. Spam Continual Flame so you can sell the Everburning Torches later? No. It's quite easy to take the hired spellcasting cost for each of their abilities with permanent effects, total up how many times they've cast it, and have them stop once you've burned through the amount you pre-paid during the initial bargaining. The main problem I can think of here is if you call a creature for unlimited out of combat healing, which can be more difficult to quantify, but hiring a creature for a day costs the same as multiple wands of Cure Light so it should usually be fine.

How exactly to phrase the bargain depends on what sort of outsider and what sort of character, and is mostly a matter of fluff as long as you're making sure the players pay for what they get, and get what they pay for.

[ShurikVch]

It's also under your direct mental control.Up to until it will falter
For example, you will need to sleep sometimes...
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
:nale::belkar:

[eggynack]

Up to until it will falter
For example, you will need to sleep sometimes...
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
:nale::belkar:
You can just command it to not do that. Things can be pretty straightforward when you have total control based on telepathy.

[ryu]

Up to until it will falter
For example, you will need to sleep sometimes...
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
*Stab!*
:nale::belkar:

And even if what eggy said wasn't true, we're talking high level wizards. Thus that hasn't been true in ages if it was even true to begin with.

[Duelpersonality]

An interesting concept, but I don't see how it ends up being more than a curiosity. There's a lot of iron in the earth's crust, easily enough for you to cast wall of iron until the cows come home.


When I say "somewhere," I don't mean it's calling it from the closest possible source. Usually I treat such things as coming from an appropriate extraplanar source (for wall of iron, that would be the Elemental Plane of Earth). It's not meant to limit the ability at all, because then what's the point, but to provide more hooks based on what the players are doing.

So a PC gets the ability to cast wall of iron, and starts permanently calling material from the EPoE. This gets the attention of a group of xorns (I always want to use xorn as the plural) that the party has to deal with at some point. Things like that.

[ryu]

When I say "somewhere," I don't mean it's calling it from the closest possible source. Usually I treat such things as coming from an appropriate extraplanar source (for wall of iron, that would be the Elemental Plane of Earth). It's not meant to limit the ability at all, because then what's the point, but to provide more hooks based on what the players are doing.

So a PC gets the ability to cast wall of iron, and starts permanently calling material from the EPoE. This gets the attention of a group of xorns (I always want to use xorn as the plural) that the party has to deal with at some point. Things like that.

But the elemental planes are infinite? Thus who cares about you taking piles of iron out of it?

[Big Fau]

When I say "somewhere," I don't mean it's calling it from the closest possible source. Usually I treat such things as coming from an appropriate extraplanar source (for wall of iron, that would be the Elemental Plane of Earth). It's not meant to limit the ability at all, because then what's the point, but to provide more hooks based on what the players are doing.

So a PC gets the ability to cast wall of iron, and starts permanently calling material from the EPoE. This gets the attention of a group of xorns (I always want to use xorn as the plural) that the party has to deal with at some point. Things like that.

That would be fine and all if not for the fact that Wall of Iron creates the material outright, not call the iron from an elemental plane.

[Willie the Duck]

It doesn't matter, we're in theoretical space here. We can change how the spell works.

[Big Fau]

It doesn't matter, we're in theoretical space here. We can change how the spell works.

We're not talking about a thematic change so much as a mechanical revision. Changing a (Creation) spell to a (Calling) spell presents a drastic change in rules.

[Duelpersonality]

We're not talking about a thematic change so much as a mechanical revision. Changing a (Creation) spell to a (Calling) spell presents a drastic change in rules.

I'm aware it's a pretty big change. I think creating matter completely from a spell is not an ability PCs should have. I'm not trying to delve into how this change would interact with the rules as they currently stand.


But the elemental planes are infinite? Thus who cares about you taking piles of iron out of it?

The beings that happened to be occupying that particular piece of infinity.

[InvisibleBison]

The beings that happened to be occupying that particular piece of infinity.

Why would you assume that the spell happens to take some stuff from a place where someone else was already using it?

[Duelpersonality]

Why would you assume that the spell happens to take some stuff from a place where someone else was already using it?

Because as a DM it gives me a chance to add something to the story. At it's basic level it's just another adventure hook for the players, just like a rumor about an unguarded dragon hoard or a wealthy noble hiring the PCs to retrieve a family heirloom from a rival. The plus side is, even though mechanically it doesn't effect the character's ability to use the spell they learned, it gives a narrative reason for the character to consider the use of magic and what that means to the setting as a whole.

[ShurikVch]

You can just command it to not do that. Things can be pretty straightforward when you have total control based on telepathy.Firstly, You don't even answered my primary issue: what's when aforementioned control faltered?
Creator of Ice Assassin may be knocked out, sleeping, intoxicated, or just walk in some place with anti-telepathy wards
And secondly: even if your control will stay unwavering, you still will be forced to give orders like "*Don't kill me!*" all the time 24/7 - because, if somebody want to do something, and have means to achieve it, then it's pretty damn difficult to keep him from it
.

And even if what eggy said wasn't true, we're talking high level wizards.Exactly!
Ice Assassin is a high level wizard, and know all your secrets
Your contingencies would be dispelled, your phylacteries - destroyed, your Astral Chord - cut...
And it's one of those extremely rare cases when being "Aleax of you" isn't a perfect defense (and, actually, doesn't protect at all)

[LTwerewolf]

Because as a DM it gives me a chance to add something to the story. At it's basic level it's just another adventure hook for the players, just like a rumor about an unguarded dragon hoard or a wealthy noble hiring the PCs to retrieve a family heirloom from a rival. The plus side is, even though mechanically it doesn't effect the character's ability to use the spell they learned, it gives a narrative reason for the character to consider the use of magic and what that means to the setting as a whole.

As a player I would feel this would be more in the realms of a "dm screw" than "hurray plot-line" which has no basis anywhere. Especially if not brought up beforehand.



Firstly, You don't even answered my primary issue: what's when aforementioned control faltered?
Creator of Ice Assassin may be knocked out, sleeping, intoxicated, or just walk in some place with anti-telepathy wards
And secondly: even if you control will stay unwavering, you still will be forced to give orders like "*Don't kill me!*" all the time 24/7 - because, if somebody want to do something, and have means to achieve it, then it's pretty damn difficult to keep him from it

You only need to give the standing order of don't try to inflict any harm upon me in any way" once. They can't later arbitrarily decide that you didn't give the order.

[Extra Anchovies]

All this is why the smart wizards don't use Ice Assassins of themselves. They make an Ice Assassin of themselves, make Ice Assassins of that Ice Assassin, then destroy the Ice Assassin of themselves. There's nothing that ends the Assassins' continued existence after their target is destroyed, so the Assassins2 lose their need to destroy the Ice Assassin of you and continue being perfect copies of you under your absolute command.


You only need to give the standing order of "don't try to inflict any harm upon me in any way" once. They can't later arbitrarily decide that you didn't give the order.

Also this. "Absolute command" definitely extends to standing orders.

[eggynack]

Firstly, You don't even answered my primary issue: what's when aforementioned control faltered?
Creator of Ice Assassin may be knocked out, sleeping, intoxicated, or just walk in some place with anti-telepathy wards
And secondly: even if you control will stay unwavering, you still will be forced to give orders like "*Don't kill me!*" all the time 24/7 - because, if somebody want to do something, and have means to achieve it, then it's pretty damn difficult to keep him from it
Your control is total. You don't have to give the order continuously, and it isn't under threat of failing if you hit a ward, or get knocked out. An order is an order, and an order of, "Don't kill me, ever, under any circumstances, or attack me, where attack uses the broad invisibility definition (this'd be spelled out)," would just stay forever. You could even toss in the classic end to the first law of robotics, "Or, through inaction, allow me to come to harm." Do you really expect this wizard to give orders like, "Don't kill me for the next ten minutes,"? Orders don't have magical time or consciousness limits.

[ShurikVch]

You only need to give the standing order of don't try to inflict any harm upon me in any way" once. They can't later arbitrarily decide that you didn't give the order.
Sequential Execution.
You order to not kill you, then you order for something else - say, to scratch your back, or make you a cup of coffee
If he ordered something new, then it's previous task is finished
Thus one cup of poisoned coffee
Bon Appétit!

Your control is total.O RLY?
If the ice assassin travels beyond this range, it continues to function and seek out its nemesis, but you have no direct control over it.Thus, one mile is all which separate you from certain death

You don't have to give the order continuously, and it isn't under threat of failing if you hit a ward, or get knocked out. An order is an order, and an order of, "Don't kill me, ever, under any circumstances, or attack me, where attack uses the broad invisibility definition (this'd be spelled out)," would just stay forever.Firstly, there is such thing as "creative interpretation of orders" - see Jackass Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) for references :smallwink:
And secondly, Ice Assassin can Teleport Through Time (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b) and kill your family before you was even born
No, it isn't attack on you - you don't even exist yet
And, because you wouldn't be born, you are now absolutely protected from literally everything
Win/Win for Ice Assassin! :smallbiggrin:

You could even toss in the classic end to the first law of robotics, "Or, through inaction, allow me to come to harm." Do you really expect this wizard to give orders like, "Don't kill me for the next ten minutes,"? Orders don't have magical time or consciousness limits.:xykon: Liar! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar!_(short_story))

All this is why the smart wizards don't use Ice Assassins of themselves. They make an Ice Assassin of themselves, make Ice Assassins of that Ice Assassin, then destroy the Ice Assassin of themselves. There's nothing that ends the Assassins' continued existence after their target is destroyed, so the Assassins2 lose their need to destroy the Ice Assassin of you and continue being perfect copies of you under your absolute command.No luck there - you can't make Ice Assassin of Ice Assassin: Ice Assassin is not a creature, it's a spell's effect which just looks like a creature

[LTwerewolf]

Sequential Execution.
You order to not kill you, then you order for something else - say, to scratch your back, or make you a cup of coffee
If he ordered something new, then it's previous task is finished
Thus one cup of poisoned coffee
Bon Appétit!


That's not how orders work. At no point did you say stop doing it, nor does the spell say they can only have one order at a time.

[ShurikVch]

That's not how orders work. At no point did you say stop doing it, nor does the spell say they can only have one order at a time.No, it's exactly how orders work
You can't complete order to "Stand still and go forth!", unless we presuming it should be executed sequentially

[LTwerewolf]

No, it's exactly how orders work
You can't complete order to "Stand still and go forth!", unless we presuming it should be executed sequentially

Except not doing something does not interfere with doing something. Not killing someone does not interfere with getting them coffee.

[eggynack]

O RLY?Thus, one mile is all which separate you from certain death.
That's the limit after which you can no longer give new commands through telepathy. Thus, no direct control. It does not, in any fashion, magically make old orders stop working. Also, certain death? Seriously? The ice assassin is, at best, an even match for the wizard, and in actuality is nowhere close to that, because getting within a mile means instantaneous stopping of any attack attempt.



Firstly, there is such thing as "creative interpretation of orders" - see Jackass Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) for references :smallwink:
Yeah, but you have pretty tight control, and you can give a whole hell of a lot of orders. Also, your character is incredibly smart. It'd be unlikely for you to come up with some way to bypass the wizard's orders that he wouldn't have already thought of. As above, this is theoretically a mental combat between two evenly matched players, except one of those players has all possible advantages in the form of orders.


And secondly, Ice Assassin can Teleport Through Time (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b) and kill your family before you was even born
No, it isn't attack on you - you don't even exist yet
And, because you wouldn't be born, you are now absolutely protected from literally everything
Win/Win for Ice Assassin! :smallbiggrin:
So, for example, this. Now no teleports through time is on the list of things that the ice assassin isn't allowed to use, if it wasn't already.

:xykon: Liar! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar!_(short_story))
No luck there - you can't make Ice Assassin of Ice Assassin: Ice Assassin is not a creature, it's a spell's effect which just looks like a creature
Whatever gave you that idea? Everything in the spell says the ice assassin is a creature. The spell is instantaneous, so anything that would be a spell stops existing right after you cast it. I mean, geez, just look at the text: "An ice assassin spell creates a living, breathing creature." Done.

[ShurikVch]

Also, certain death? Seriously? The ice assassin is, at best, an even match for the wizard, and in actuality is nowhere close to that, because getting within a mile means instantaneous stopping of any attack attempt.Fell Drain Sonic Snap will cause Wightopocalypse; assuming some block of planar travels, Wizard will die
Shapechange into Dragon - and whole world will burn
Polymorph Any Object "Antimatter" - Wizard goes boom along with the whole world

Yeah, but you have pretty tight control, and you can give a whole hell of a lot of orders.Yes, he can - but unless he will reduce himself to control device of Ice Assassin; otherwise, there always will be chance for backstabbing

Also, your character is incredibly smart. It'd be unlikely for you to come up with some way to bypass the wizard's orders that he wouldn't have already thought of. As above, this is theoretically a mental combat between two evenly matched players, except one of those players has all possible advantages in the form of orders."Unlikely" ≠ "impossible"
And "incredibly smart" is applied to Ice Assassin too, so orders may be much less of a hindrance than you may expect to

Whatever gave you that idea?Ice Assassin is just a Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm) on steroids, and Simulacrum isn't a creature too
Also, this:
Damage caused to the ice assassin can be repaired only via a complex process requiring 1 day, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped laboratory.If it's "living creature", then why the heck can't it just heal as usual?
No, Ice Assassin is an ice statue covered by illusion

Everything in the spell says the ice assassin is a creature. ... I mean, geez, just look at the text: "An ice assassin spell creates a living, breathing creature." Done.Actually, that quote is the only place where it was said
Also, it's blatant dysfunction: what if original creature was undead or construct? (And Elementals are living, but not breathing)

The spell is instantaneous, so anything that would be a spell stops existing right after you cast it.Ahem...
Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.If it can remove them, then they are still there :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Fell Drain Sonic Snap will cause Wightopocalypse; assuming some block of planar travels, Wizard will die
Shapechange into Dragon - and whole world will burn
Polymorph Any Object "Antimatter" - Wizard goes boom along with the whole world
These are pretty awful plans. A wizard can not die against any number of wights, can deal with a dragon just fine, and even if the world explodes they're still astrally projected from a private demiplane.


Yes, he can - but unless he will reduce himself to control device of Ice Assassin; otherwise, there always will be chance for backstabbing
"Unlikely" ≠ "impossible"
If there's such a method, then the burden of proof is on you to come up with it. And then, after that method exists, it then doesn't exist, because total control is total.


And "incredibly smart" is applied to Ice Assassin too, so orders may be much less of a hindrance than you may expect to
Not just incredibly smart. Identically smart. Both creatures are basically working off the same intelligence here. Thus, any plan that the ice assassin would construct, the wizard has also constructed, cause they may as well share a brain.


Ice Assassin is just a Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm) on steroids, and Simulacrum isn't a creature too
The spell says the result is a creature. So it's a creature. That's the end of it. If simulacrum doesn't produce a creature, then it's because it lacks that very specific text that makes this creature very much a creature.



Also, this:If it's "living creature", then why the heck can't it just heal as usual?
Who cares? Honestly, this is practically a nonsequitur. A living creature can have different rules for just about anything, cause such is the nature of rules. This just happens to be a living creature with these rules for healing.


No, Ice Assassin is an ice statue covered by illusion
That's not what the text says. Just cause the target sees the thing as an ice statue, that doesn't mean that the variance in how the creature is seen is somehow just an illusion effect placed over the statue. It's just a quality of the ice assassin that it's seen differently by different people. Also, it's not like an animated ice statue wouldn't be a creature. Animated objects are creatures, after all.


Actually, that quote is the only place where it was said
Not quite. It's also in the effect line, "one duplicate creature", and it's implied by the fact that this game object is a near-perfect duplicate of a thing that's a creature, and how one of the exceptions to the perfection isn't being a non-creature.


Also, it's blatant dysfunction: what if original creature was undead or construct? (And Elementals are living, but not breathing)
Ice assassin explicitly generates only a near-perfect duplicate. If that text does indeed mean that even creatures not normally living or breathing are made living or breathing by ice assassin, instead of just meaning that it duplicates even that aspect of the creature, then that just means that those qualities are exceptions to the perfection of the copy.


Ahem...If it can remove them, then they are still there :smalltongue:
No, that just means that break enchantment can impact non-spells.

[Willie the Duck]

Minion-mancy is one of the most dangerous types of magic, though far from automatically broken. Some of it is basically "you get a bunch of chaff" (some uses of animate dead, followers), which is fine if you're willing to do the extra book-keeping. Some of it is "you get a bunch of PC-grade threats, which may be able to produce minions of their own" (planar binding, ice assassin, Diplomacy), which is one of the most busted things in the game.

Agreed. The first type (animate, and I'll also include summon monster # spells, charms and dominate) seem to work as I would want enchantments and conjurings from a stylistic standpoint. The later I see as poorly worded or thought through spells and rules which derail what I think of as abilities players have (they circumvent the party having to adventure).



Honestly, Rocket Launcher Tag is (IMHO) a totally different issue than what abilities people have. Sure, high level abilities like dominate person are rockets, but so are low level abilities like a raging Barbarian with a Greatsword and Power Attack. It's a discussion that is largely orthogonal to this one, although it occupies a similar "how should the game work" space.

Definitely. SODs and SOSs 'work too well, and promote an unfun (to me) style of play,' especially at certain levels, but what they do is certainly part and parcel of what adventuring should include.



This is something that gets brought up a lot, but I think the solution is to promote games with slower (or no) advancement, not to spread abilities out. It's not really clear to me what a version of Spiderman that is two, or five, or ten levels higher looks like, even if his friends haven't picked up new abilities in that time. It seems to me that the solution there is to simply decide what level Spiderman works at and play at that level for as long as you want.

That's certainly one way of doing it. This was more to support my finer point that styles-of-play 1 and 2 are four levels each, and style 3 is 12 levels long. I am of the belief that--if the goal was to have people play through the 20 levels of play, unlike earlier editions where at least the hearsay indicated often petered out in the 10-13 level range-- they could have looked at what level each "abilities players should have" came into effect and adjusted spell levels (or level at which that spell level is gained) and made adjustments.


I don't like making abilities inconsistent. It weakens the games where people want to have consistent teleport (because now they don't have it), and also the games that don't want teleport (because they still have to think about it). I'd rather just have a sharp set of level divides, some counters to teleport, and some design shifts to make teleport ambushes weaker.

Again, another way to address the same issue. Even without a change in the rules, more discussion in the books about 'this is what gaming at this level looks like' would have been a helpful addition.

[Willie the Duck]

These are pretty awful plans. A wizard can not die against any number of wights, can deal with a dragon just fine, and even if the world explodes they're still astrally projected from a private demiplane.

As much fun as this back and forth is (I've made up some popcorn, would either of you like some?), I think once we've gotten to the point of wizards and their ice assassin duplicates are fighting wightpocalypse battles through astrally projected proxies, all we're doing is highlighting where specific wording of specific spells does deviate the game play from where most* would consider how the game is supposed to work.

*obviously I don't speak for most, this is my perception.

[ShurikVch]

A wizard can not die against any number of wightsFor sufficiently high - he will; the best bet is to escape; this is why I said "block the planes"

can deal with a dragon just fineBreath fro any random point of the world - Wizard will be destroyed way before he will even find the dragon

and even if the world explodes they're still astrally projected from a private demiplane.Silver Sword go slice


And then, after that method exists, it then doesn't exist, because total control is total.As I pointed above, control is not total
Heck, "total control" is not a thing: how can you "total control" somebody, if you can't "total control" yourself?


Thus, any plan that the ice assassin would construct, the wizard has also constructed, cause they may as well share a brain.Firstly, who said that plan come simultaneously to the both heads, or to original's head first?
And secondly, even already existing plans may still have unnoticed holes to exploit


Who cares?I do. :smalltongue:


Not quite. It's also in the effect line, "one duplicate creature", and it's implied by the fact that this game object is a near-perfect duplicate of a thing that's a creature, and how one of the exceptions to the perfection isn't being a non-creature."duplicate creature" ≠ "creature"
Just like "sea lion" ≠ "lion"


Ice assassin explicitly generates only a near-perfect duplicate.And what exactly is "near-perfect duplicate"?

all the skills, abilities, and memoriesNote: it doesn't say something like "Special Attacks"... :smallwink:

[Duelpersonality]

As a player I would feel this would be more in the realms of a "dm screw" than "hurray plot-line" which has no basis anywhere. Especially if not brought up beforehand.

That's why player/DM communication is always important.

I'm not talking about preventing a PC from using an ability or even nerfing its functionality. But if the PCs are involved in a war between two kingdoms and one side sends assassins after them, I don't think that's an unreasonable consequence. I see the idea of having planar entities investigate magic that directly effects where they live a similar consequence. It feels more like a living world to me if a few unintended things result from what the players do.

I'm pretty sure we're on a tangent at this point, but I really like how the conversation is going. Always good to get outside perspectives.

[Extra Anchovies]

No luck there - you can't make Ice Assassin of Ice Assassin: Ice Assassin is not a creature, it's a spell's effect which just looks like a creature
The text of the spell says otherwise.

An ice assassin spell creates a living, breathing creature that is a near-perfect duplicate of an existing creature.
And because it is made of ice, parts of it can be removed and kept intact, allowing for Ice Assassins of Ice Assassins.

In short, Ice Assassin is one of the worst pieces of rules text in the entire game. It's up there with Manipulate Form.

[ryu]

The text of the spell says otherwise.

And because it is made of ice, parts of it can be removed and kept intact, allowing for Ice Assassins of Ice Assassins.

In short, Ice Assassin is one of the worst pieces of rules text in the entire game. It's up there with Manipulate Form.

No see there's an entire tier list within the tier list which ranks the most powerful abilities. Mapiulate form beats aleax which beats craft contingent spell which beats ice assassin.

[Cosi]

I was also on board with said ruling, so it immediately came to mind. Restating the goal: PCs should be able to bargain, not get whatever they can imagine for free.

I agree that the current set-up is problematic. That said, I don't think that "obey me or die" should be out of the question. There's support in the source material (i.e. fantasy stories) for needing to bargain, but there's also support for total obedience. Notably, in Master of the Five Magics summoning demons is about competing willpower. You either wholly dominate the creature or are wholly dominated by it, no negotiation necessary. The only consistent theme across fantasy is that dealing with demons is dangerous and basically a bad plan. I think you want to preserve that, but I'm not convinced there's an easy way to do so without screwing players over.


Definitely. SODs and SOSs 'work too well, and promote an unfun (to me) style of play,' especially at certain levels, but what they do is certainly part and parcel of what adventuring should include.

I like save or dies. They make characters feel powerful (you killed that dude with one spell!) and they stop fights from dragging on too long. The common conception (where fights hinge on a single die roll) is a problem, but it's pretty fixable. You can stack various immunities or re-rolls. You can use larger groups of enemies. If you're willing to change the system, you can use something like 4e's Bloodied condition to require people to use other abilities first.


Again, another way to address the same issue. Even without a change in the rules, more discussion in the books about 'this is what gaming at this level looks like' would have been a helpful addition.

Absolutely. The fact that no one ever spelled out what the game is supposed to look like at even 1/5/10/15/20 is a disaster, and one of the largest reasons for class imbalance. If the designers had a conception of high level play that involved things like "found a multi-planar trading empire" or "invade hell", the Fighter's 14th level ability would probably not be "Bonus Feat".


As much fun as this back and forth is (I've made up some popcorn, would either of you like some?), I think once we've gotten to the point of wizards and their ice assassin duplicates are fighting wightpocalypse battles through astrally projected proxies, all we're doing is highlighting where specific wording of specific spells does deviate the game play from where most* would consider how the game is supposed to work.

This touches on why I think "Tier One" is a bad target to aim for. It's too specifically and mechanically defined. If you're actually looking to make a new game, I think you need to go back to the source material. Read Lord of Light. Play Dominions. Get a feel for what sort of stories you want the high level game to support, then design around that. Focusing on Tier One ends up enshrining D&D-ism like ice assassin, Chain Binding, or magic traps to too great a degree.

I do think there are some things to be learned from how those crazy high op games work. There's a clear desire for better mechanics for doing large-scale stuff. People like having the high level game be more tactically complex (probably not as much so as full-op T1s, but more). People want to save the world. But I'm not sure that's stuff you couldn't prax out or learn from the source material.

[ShurikVch]

And because it is made of ice, parts of it can be removed and kept intact, allowing for Ice Assassins of Ice Assassins.It isn't made of ice - it just looks like it made of ice; it "made" of magic
You can't cut peace of it any more than of Unseen Servant

In short, Ice Assassin is one of the worst pieces of rules text in the entire game. It's up there with Manipulate Form.This forum need "Like" button :smallsmile:

[DarkSoul]

He's a gestalted level 14 Psion(telepath)/Monk

And with his stats he has a LOT of hp for his level/class.

...but I still say, a PC absorbing 30 points of all energy damage is pretty munchkin and limits the DM of creative ideas for adventure and chaos.

Well, I guess I'm not as ruthless as most DM's. I try to limit the amount of damage my PC's take, in one shot, to less than 50. I think hitting, for most PC's, by 85 points of damage from a fireball is too much.

So when I deal him 35 points of fire damage, and he reduces it to 5. I'm thinking, "how can I deal this guy elemental damage?"

But If you have a response please include some good tips for a DM to deal energy damage to a PC who absorbs 30 of it, without potentially killing him in one shot.

Ok, these are the relevant points. Gestalt, lots of hp, has energy resistance 30 to all elements, DM doesn't like hitting for a lot.

Quit pulling your punches. You're running a level 14 gestalt game. Everyone one of the PC's can take more punishment than the average character, and you're putting comically-overstuffed boxing gloves on all your encounters by limiting the damage you deal. Turn the important encounters into situations where, not only do the characters have access to their extremely powerful abilities (energy resistance in this case), they have to use them to even survive the battle or advance the plot. You're on the verge of "high level game" status, with gestalt so it's already a "high-powered" game. Either step up your encounters or you'll be stuck with your frustrations for a while.

[Psyren]

The reason I like tier one as the standard is that it literally means there's no possible problem that can't be solved when so much as one person gets a good enough idea. Now if the enemy is also tier one and it's only one person having a good idea, that idea has to be preeeeetty good, but the possibility for victory due to insane burst of rain man inspiration still exists.

The problem with this standard is that it's very difficult to build a whole game around (or at least, a commercially viable one.) The amount of effort and preparation time it takes for a DM to challenge even one moderately optimized T1 is a huge barrier to entry as it is, let alone a whole party full of them. Sure there exist experienced optimizers who want to DM and who can clear that hurdle, and several of which (I presume you are one of them) can be found on message boards like these. But we're a subset of a minority of one edition of a niche hobby as it is.

A party full of T3s and T4s however - they can take on a much more powerful foe through teamwork and luck without any one person just solving everything, and the GM can run such monsters pretty much out of the box while still having them be tough, yet fair and beatable. This frees them up from needing to burn all their prep time on encounter design and allows them to instead focus on crafting an engaging story and setting. Again, designing T1 encounters isn't tough for a few of us, but I'd wager that the majority of the hobby would find it onerous or burn out quickly attempting to do so.

[eggynack]

For sufficiently high - he will; the best bet is to escape; this is why I said "block the planes"
No, not even for a sufficiently high quantity. Wights don't even fly for crissakes. Also, what does block the planes even mean?

Breath fro any random point of the world - Wizard will be destroyed way before he will even find the dragon

Silver Sword go slice
That is really not a viable plan, given that you have to be very close to the wizard which has telepathic control over you. It's also not a viable plan because crafted contingent revivify is a classic part of any astral projection plan.


As I pointed above, control is not total
Heck, "total control" is not a thing: how can you "total control" somebody, if you can't "total control" yourself?
You couldn't possibly have pointed out that the control is not total, because the control is total. The text says absolute command. That's what absolute command means. And you can total control the ice assassin beyond even the degree to which you can total control yourself, because it'll follow commands that you'd never follow. Hell, it'd not breathe until it died if such is your demand.


Firstly, who said that plan come simultaneously to the both heads, or to original's head first?
And secondly, even already existing plans may still have unnoticed holes to exploit
It's not about plans coming simultaneously. It's about the fact that there are only so many counters to a simple command to not attack you, and if you or a DM can think of those counters, then so too can the wizard.


I do. :smalltongue:
Well, don't. It's completely irrelevant, as I showed. Saying you care about something irrelevant doesn't mean overmuch to me.


"duplicate creature" ≠ "creature"
Just like "sea lion" ≠ "lion"
There is no parity between those situations, because sea lion is the name of a particular creature distinct from a lion, while the duplicate in duplicate creature is strictly an adjective applying to creature, meaning that the overall object in question is still a creature.


And what exactly is "near-perfect duplicate"?
The exceptions to its perfection are explicitly noted in the text.


Note: it doesn't say something like "Special Attacks"... :smallwink:
"The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original," covers that quite well.

[Name1]

Players should be able to have the powers that are described in the supplements if they aquire them in a logical fashion.

Players should not be able to be total douches and disrupt the game without puishment by using these powers on a scale that makes them disruptive.

Making an Ice Assassin of Zeus so he can win every encounter for you: Bad
Making an Ice Assassin of Zeus because Alter Reality is one handy SDA to clean up your mansions kitchen: Good

Does this need suspension of disbelief? Yes
Is that necessarily bad? Not really, we are playing a game with dragons and magical mystery flumpths, after all.

[ShurikVch]

No, not even for a sufficiently high quantity. Wights don't even fly for crissakes.Wight was updated to template
Twice
Select whatever you like
That is - unless you think Pixie (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie) would turn into Medium-sized flightless creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wight.htm)

Also, what does block the planes even mean?Whatever.
Say, throw in Living Dimensional Anchor

That is really not a viable plan, given that you have to be very close to the wizard which has telepathic control over you.Who said about personal attack?
All the slicing will be done by hired githyanki sword stalker
And she even shouldn't be too close - Chord go all the way from body to projection, so may be cut in any point

It's also not a viable plan because crafted contingent revivify is a classic part of any astral projection plan.Yeah, like there are no way to prevent the resurrection - such as thinaun, soul stealing, or Greater Seed of Undead...

You couldn't possibly have pointed out that the control is not total, because the control is total. The text says absolute command. That's what absolute command means. And you can total control the ice assassin beyond even the degree to which you can total control yourself, because it'll follow commands that you'd never follow. Hell, it'd not breathe until it died if such is your demand.Control is not total - because you, no matter what, can't command to don't wish your death

It's not about plans coming simultaneously. It's about the fact that there are only so many counters to a simple command to not attack you, and if you or a DM can think of those counters, then so too can the wizard.Just because something may be done, it doesn't mean it will be done - otherwise, how may party with a wizard suffer from TPK?

while the duplicate in duplicate creature is strictly an adjective applying to creature, meaning that the overall object in question is still a creature.But wax figure is duplicate too - is it creature for you?

"The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original," covers that quite well.Skills (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/skills.htm)
The Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theAbilities)
And memories are just memories, there are no common mechanical effect
Congratulations!
You got yourself an Expert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm) - except with worse BAB and less hp :smallbiggrin:

[LTwerewolf]

Congratulations!
You got yourself an Expert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm) - except with worse BAB and less hp :smallbiggrin:

Please don't try to become the next lord drako. One is too many.

[ShurikVch]

Please don't try to become the next lord drako. One is too many.
I occasionally seen mentions of lord drako, but still have no idea who it is (or was)
Can you (in short and polite terms, please) say what's wrong with lord drako?
You know - for me to don't become <something>, I should know about this <something> more than just name

[eggynack]

Wight was updated to template
Twice
Select whatever you like
That is - unless you think Pixie (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie) would turn into Medium-sized flightless creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wight.htm)
What? Where was wight updated to a template? Also, a pixie wouldn't turn into anything. The create spawn ability only works on humanoids. Also also, this is still only impacting the earth. Not places that are not the earth.


Whatever.
Say, throw in Living Dimensional Anchor
That seems kinda really unreliable, also seems like something that this wizard wouldn't have ready access to, and tertiarily doesn't do anything to impact an already present astral projection.

Who said about personal attack?
All the slicing will be done by hired githyanki sword stalker
That's way less likely to be a meaningful threat.


Yeah, like there are no way to prevent the resurrection - such as thinaun, soul stealing, or Greater Seed of Undead...
I don't know where this soul stealing is, but thinaun definitely doesn't work, cause first, the sword is silver, rather than thinaun, second, the sword can't be touching you when you die, cause it's touching the cord, and third, the sword can't be touching you at all, cause you're on another plane. And greater seed of undeath demands that you target the wizard on his demiplane too.


Control is not total - because you, no matter what, can't command to don't wish your death
Your command is definitely absolute though, and that means that any actions you demand must be followed. Whether you can make demands of the body is irrelevant. Hell, if you really want to go paranoid, you can command the ice assassin to tell you all of its plans for killing you.


But wax figure is duplicate too - is it creature for you?
A wax figure isn't really a duplicate though. A duplicate is, by definition, exactly like the original. Also, again, the text says it's a creature.


The Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theAbilities)
Unfortunately for this claim, you get all the abilities, not just some of them, and that means the language covers these abilities as well as special abilities.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I occasionally seen mentions of lord drako, but still have no idea who it is (or was)
Can you (in short and polite terms, please) say what's wrong with lord drako?
You know - for me to don't become <something>, I should know about this <something> more than just name

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497759-Master-of-Shadows(COUNTERING-FAMOUS-OPTIMIZED-CHARACTERS-BUILDS)/page37

Huzzah some amazing reading material. His first account was banned, then the second was as well. We're on the third coming by now.

Now on a specific note, Drako is known for illogical misreadings of the rules as written and a large part of this comes from English quite clearly not being his first language. Translations lead to errors. What you're currently trying to argue, in very broken English.. is that the community over the last ten years hasn't been able to figure out how Ice Assassin works.. It's quite insulting really, this is all very established by now. D&D 3.X isn't NEW. Short of something incredibly clever you aren't going to discover the wheel here, it's already been invented.

[ShurikVch]

Unfortunately for this claim, you get all the abilities, not just some of them, and that means the language covers these abilities as well as special abilities.Prove it.

Also, since you go "personal demiplane" cheese from the very start, then why not just to say the Wizard solo anybody and everybody regardless of Initiative because of Fast Time trait?
(Red suit with yellow lightnings optional)

[eggynack]

Prove it.
Prove that it says all abilities? "All... abilities." Done.


Also, since you go "personal demiplane" cheese from the very start, then why not just to say the Wizard solo anybody and everybody regardless of Initiative because of Fast Time trait?
(Red suit with yellow lightnings optional)
It doesn't look like the time trait on your demiplane would impact the action rate of the ice assassin that's outside of your demiplane.

[LTwerewolf]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497759-Master-of-Shadows(COUNTERING-FAMOUS-OPTIMIZED-CHARACTERS-BUILDS)/page37

Huzzah some amazing reading material. His first account was banned, then the second was as well. We're on the third coming by now.

Now on a specific note, Drako is known for illogical misreadings of the rules as written and a large part of this comes from English quite clearly not being his first language. Translations lead to errors. What you're currently trying to argue, in very broken English.. is that the community over the last ten years hasn't been able to figure out how Ice Assassin works.. It's quite insulting really, this is all very established by now. D&D 3.X isn't NEW. Short of something incredibly clever you aren't going to discover the wheel here, it's already been invented.

Also in a very insulting manner equipped with smileys. That's an important part.

[ShurikVch]

Prove that it says all abilities? "All... abilities." Done.D&D Glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ability&alpha=):
ability
One of the six basic character qualities: Strength (Str), Dexterity (Dex), Constitution (Con), Intelligence (Int), Wisdom (Wis), and Charisma (Cha).
Source: PHB Player's Handbook, Chapter 1: Abilities
You will argue with it?


What you're currently trying to argue, in very broken English.. is that the community over the last ten years hasn't been able to figure out how Ice Assassin works.. It's quite insulting really, this is all very established by now. D&D 3.X isn't NEW. Short of something incredibly clever you aren't going to discover the wheel here, it's already been invented.Allow me to quote Extra Anchovies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21141110&postcount=71)
In short, Ice Assassin is one of the worst pieces of rules text in the entire game. It's up there with Manipulate Form.Yes, it's this bad!
To "to figure out how Ice Assassin works" properly is impossible, because it's nowhere close to properly working (or even understandable) RAW

[Zanos]

I occasionally seen mentions of lord drako, but still have no idea who it is (or was)
Can you (in short and polite terms, please) say what's wrong with lord drako?
You know - for me to don't become <something>, I should know about this <something> more than just name
Personally, I think the original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414050-Who-is-better-Optimized-Wizard-or-Optimized-Sorcerer-Yes-Sorcerer-is-a-GOD) had the most headscratchers per post.

I'm honestly surprised how fast this thread went south. I'll just throw in that if there's two possibly readings of a spell, one which leads to dysfunctional nonsense, and one which is perfectly fine, why would you chose to read it as dysfunctional nonsense?

[eggynack]

You will argue with it?

Yes. Special abilities are also abilities. Thus, you get them.

[ShurikVch]

Yes. Special abilities are also abilities. Thus, you get them.Special abilities are not abilities.

[eggynack]

Special abilities are not abilities.
Yes, they are. They're abilities that are special. Special abilities.

[ShurikVch]

Yes, they are. They're abilities that are special. Special abilities.
Special Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#specialAttacksAndSpecialQualities) are not Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#attack) (at least, not all of them - for example, see Rage of Badger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/badger.htm) or Wolverine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolverine.htm))
Why should Special Abilities (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_specialability&alpha=) be Abilities (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ability&alpha=)?

[eggynack]

Special Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#specialAttacksAndSpecialQualities) are not Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#attack) (at least, not all of them - for example, see Rage of Badger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/badger.htm) or Wolverine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolverine.htm))
Why should Special Abilities (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_specialability&alpha=) be Abilities (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ability&alpha=)?
Don't see why something granting all attacks without qualifiers wouldn't give special attacks. It's just not a term typically used in that context

[Cosi]

This whole "how does ice assassin really work" debate is almost exactly what I wanted this thread to not turn into. It looks like it died, but if it hasn't, please move it to another thread.


I'm honestly surprised how fast this thread went south. I'll just throw in that if there's two possibly readings of a spell, one which leads to dysfunctional nonsense, and one which is perfectly fine, why would you chose to read it as dysfunctional nonsense?

Well, because the other way is broken nonsense. Some people on this board have a tendency to say things that are completely insane in an effort to argue that RAW isn't broken. Including such gems as "planar binding can't ever do anything because keeping someone captive makes every possible service unreasonable" and "ice assassins ignore your orders because of their overriding compulsion to kill the original". I don't know why people do it, but you should not be surprised that people do it.

Anyway, in an effort to get the thread back on topic, I'm going to ask a couple of questions about the relation between DM power and PC abilities:

1. How much influence should the DM have over what abilities PCs are allowed to have? Suppose the DM wants to run a low powered, LotR-esque game with few strategic abilities (i.e. planar binding, teleport) available to PCs, while the PCs want to play an epic plane-hopping game in the style of The Chronicles of Amber. Who should win?

2. Once the game has started, how much influence should the DM have over how PC abilities work? If, for example, the party Wizard is about to use scrying to solve his perfectly crafted murder mystery, should he be allowed to unilaterally declare that the Wizard can't do so?

Finally, if there are any points I missed from during the ice assassin debate, I apologize. Please point me to the original post, or repost them and I will happily respond.

[DarkSoul]

1. How much influence should the DM have over what abilities PCs are allowed to have? Suppose the DM wants to run a low powered, LotR-esque game with few strategic abilities (i.e. planar binding, teleport) available to PCs, while the PCs want to play an epic plane-hopping game in the style of The Chronicles of Amber. Who should win?

This is something that should be established before the game even begins. Once the game has started, both sides of the discussion will have to make compromises, because neither is going to get exactly the style of game they wanted. If a middle ground can't be reached, one side or the other needs to give in or it's very likely there will be no game at all.


2. Once the game has started, how much influence should the DM have over how PC abilities work? If, for example, the party Wizard is about to use scrying to solve his perfectly crafted murder mystery, should he be allowed to unilaterally declare that the Wizard can't do so?

This one falls on the DM. Give the PC their moment of glory and remember scrying for the next time they want to do a mystery. It's completely up to the DM what abilities the players have inside the framework of their game. It's also a lot easier to not let the PC's have an ability in the first place than it is to take one away they've already gained and used.

[Aegis013]

1. How much influence should the DM have over what abilities PCs are allowed to have? Suppose the DM wants to run a low powered, LotR-esque game with few strategic abilities (i.e. planar binding, teleport) available to PCs, while the PCs want to play an epic plane-hopping game in the style of The Chronicles of Amber. Who should win?

2. Once the game has started, how much influence should the DM have over how PC abilities work? If, for example, the party Wizard is about to use scrying to solve his perfectly crafted murder mystery, should he be allowed to unilaterally declare that the Wizard can't do so?

1. The group has to work out the differences. Neither group can or should "win" that's not how cooperative social gaming events work. The group either comes to a compromise, or they don't play and part on amiable terms, or decide to play a different game. If the groups have a need to win, perhaps a competitive board game, like Risk or Settler's of Catan.

2. Once PCs have the abilities they should work. The DM should only be able to shut them down using in-game justification/methods that can be discovered, unraveled, and likely employed by the PCs themselves. Otherwise, verisimilitude breaks down. Unilaterally saying "your spell doesn't work" without any justification or recourse leads to players feeling they can't meaningfully interact with the world or influence the story/game - at which point, a cooperative video game will do everything you're getting here better.

[LTwerewolf]

This whole "how does ice assassin really work" debate is almost exactly what I wanted this thread to not turn into. It looks like it died, but if it hasn't, please move it to another thread.



Well, because the other way is broken nonsense. Some people on this board have a tendency to say things that are completely insane in an effort to argue that RAW isn't broken. Including such gems as "planar binding can't ever do anything because keeping someone captive makes every possible service unreasonable" and "ice assassins ignore your orders because of their overriding compulsion to kill the original". I don't know why people do it, but you should not be surprised that people do it.

Not surprising that people do it. But people always will. It's why I changed my sig to flickerdart's quote. People think they're smarter than over a decade of people looking at it because they're a special flower and of course they're right and everyone else is wrong.


Anyway, in an effort to get the thread back on topic, I'm going to ask a couple of questions about the relation between DM power and PC abilities:

1. How much influence should the DM have over what abilities PCs are allowed to have? Suppose the DM wants to run a low powered, LotR-esque game with few strategic abilities (i.e. planar binding, teleport) available to PCs, while the PCs want to play an epic plane-hopping game in the style of The Chronicles of Amber. Who should win?

Like I said in another thread with an op that was hyper sensitive: the game you want to run is not necessarily the game they want to play. Both the players and the dm need to come to an agreement before anything ever starts, or no one is going to have fun. I've never seen or heard about games that turn into Players vs DM instead of Players vs Environment end well.


2. Once the game has started, how much influence should the DM have over how PC abilities work? If, for example, the party Wizard is about to use scrying to solve his perfectly crafted murder mystery, should he be allowed to unilaterally declare that the Wizard can't do so?

I feel communication is key here. If a dm just suddenly decides (as happened to me once) that my abilities suddenly didn't work, I'd be unhappy. If a dm told me "look, I can't really deal with ability X, we need to work something out" I would be much more ok with it (unless it was something ridiculous like bless). Sometimes players get the better of your plans, and that's ok. I only see it become a problem when a dm starts taking their npcs losing as them losing. Once it's taken personally, things just go downhill. It's the us vs them mentality that really causes the most problems.

[Psyren]

D&D Glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ability&alpha=):Player's Handbook, Chapter 1: Abilities
You will argue with it?

Allow me to quote Extra Anchovies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21141110&postcount=71)Yes, it's this bad!
To "to figure out how Ice Assassin works" properly is impossible, because it's nowhere close to properly working (or even understandable) RAW

I don't like Ice Assassin either but this line of attack is a bit nutty. MM pg. 6:


Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities.

Thus per the MM, special attacks and special qualities are subsets of "abilities." These may be unusual abilities, but are still abilities. It also happens to be the primary source for how monsters work, so in this case it trumps the PHB glossary's narrower definition of ability to mean just the 6 scores.

The purpose of the spell is for a BBEG to kill/mess with the party Volrath-style. At that function, it actually does what it's supposed to. Things only get kooky once we try to drag it into the realm of TO to clone gods and the like.

[ShurikVch]

Thus per the MM, special attacks and special qualities are subsets of "abilities."Special Abilities
Completely different beast
Note: Player's Handbook have mention of Special Abilities too - in the chapter about magic; but they weren't called "subsets of "abilities.""

These may be unusual abilities, but are still abilities.No, there can be only six abilities: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha

It also happens to be the primary source for how monsters work, so in this case it trumps the PHB glossary's narrower definition of ability to mean just the 6 scores.How monsters work?
Trumps?
Please, re-check stat block of any random monster - it have line
Abilities:
.

The purpose of the spell is for a BBEG to kill/mess with the party Volrath-style. At that function, it actually does what it's supposed to. Things only get kooky once we try to drag it into the realm of TO to clone gods and the like.Yeah, RAI there is pretty obvious
But no - it gets kooky from the get-go:
for example, ice statue which you use to cast it, is a material component, and material components are destroyed at cast; but then what's the body which appears as a spell's effect?
or, it says about creating a "living, breathing creature"; but what if original had No Breath (Ex)?
And so on, and on, and on...

[martixy]

I am with Shurich in that absolute control is never actually as absolute as it seems.

Also, earlier the 3 laws of robotics were brought into this argument.
You must realize Asimov wrote most of his books around the idea of showing just how silly these were in the first place.

However I do tend to agree with the refutations of most of his other points.
Yes, Ice assassin by interpretation is either broken or dysfunctional. That much, I think, we can all agree on.

However it does give you a nice out, if you want to fix it.

1. I'm ambivalent on the "living, breathing creature" vs targeting creatures that don't fit that description, but I like my spells consistent.
2. An ice assassin of yourself by necessity leads a contradictory existence. This could have any number of implication, both on you and on it - for example, it could force a Will save on your part to maintain control, or it could suffer degradation, making it useless at some point in the future.
3. It could expire once it has accomplished its task.

I think these self-consistently fix its most glaring problems, no?


Now onto other topics:

I think this discussion should be reframed somewhat.
It's not about what abilities players should have, but instead what game option should exist in the game.

For example - Fly.
The stipulation being that more options should exist for dealing with flight(especially non-magical options).

The idea of flying creatures being shut down by archery is an intriguing one.
I'm gonna assume the counter-spell mentioned is Wind Wall. A slight tweak that could mitigate that is placing magic arrows/bolts in the 30% miss category.

[eggynack]

Special Abilities
Completely different beast
Note: Player's Handbook have mention of Special Abilities too - in the chapter about magic; but they weren't called "subsets of "abilities.""
No, there can be only six abilities: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha
How monsters work?
Trumps?
Please, re-check stat block of any random monster - it have line
.
Yeah, RAI there is pretty obvious
But no - it gets kooky from the get-go:
for example, ice statue which you use to cast it, is a material component, and material components are destroyed at cast; but then what's the body which appears as a spell's effect?
or, it says about creating a "living, breathing creature"; but what if original had No Breath (Ex)?
And so on, and on, and on...
I don't think that special abilities are somehow subsets of abilities. It's just that they're both abilities. Abilities are abilities, and special abilities are abilities, and we know special abilities are abilities because it's right there in the name. You've provided zero evidence that special abilities aren't abilities, and that they're called abilities seems sufficient evidence in the other direction. And I already argued against the no breath thing. If you want to actually argue that point, respond to the claims I made.

Edit: Or, rather, they're not a subset of those kindsa abilities. They are a subset of the broader concept of abilities.

[tsj]

I most certainly think that some abilities /feats etc does not belong in PC hands and I believe that a DM has total control to do whatever he wants... including altering PC abilities.

However, I feel that 3.5 needs an additional forked system like pathfinder... except this system should be based around every class having similar ranked opportunities at each level...

I think that such a system could be created by looking at and combining home brew from this forum.

Such a system should seriously consider what spells that should be allowed to exist and which ones that shouldn't. .. also some feat chains should likely be compressed to a single feat giving level depending benefits (ie. Cleave and greater cleave et.al)


I also believe that the sorcerer and wizard classes have too much power simply because they have access to way too many schools. ...

Classes like beguiler and dread necromancer are more what I think of when I think of a fantasy themed wizard

Instead of wizard or sorcerer we need T3/Tier 3 wizard inspired classes that each focus on a single school
.. advanced learning is fine but classic wizards are normally just masters in a single school. ..

Like necromancer, illusionist, summoner, etc..

The school specific wizards could then exist in a prepared and spontaneous version

PC access to fly, teleport, wish, Scrying etc should be limited
... as a dm I do not enjoy when a pc uses an ability to get me to spoil the whole plot

[Psyren]

Note: Player's Handbook have mention of Special Abilities too - in the chapter about magic; but they weren't called "subsets of "abilities.""

Your PHB cite doesn't matter because my cite is from MM. It is the primary source for creatures and thus trumps.

You yourself are referring to "monster stat blocks" to support your argument, so you obviously agree.

[Cosi]

Could y'all please move the ice assassin debate to another thread?


1. The group has to work out the differences. Neither group can or should "win" that's not how cooperative social gaming events work. The group either comes to a compromise, or they don't play and part on amiable terms, or decide to play a different game. If the groups have a need to win, perhaps a competitive board game, like Risk or Settler's of Catan.

That's basically my view. The issue is reconciling that with the historic notion that it's the DM's prerogative to decide how the game works.


Unilaterally saying "your spell doesn't work" without any justification or recourse leads to players feeling they can't meaningfully interact with the world or influence the story/game - at which point, a cooperative video game will do everything you're getting here better.

This is a position I feel needs to be highlighted. If the DM is allowed to unilaterally modify people's abilities, the game rapidly descends into a combination of "Mother May I" and "Guess What Number". Those are not fun games. That sort of unilateral change is on very deep level inimical to roleplaying. If my character's abilities don't have consistent effects, I can't know what my character can do. If I can't know what my character can do, I can't know what my character would do in any particular situation.


It's the us vs them mentality that really causes the most problems.

This is true. It's also something that tends to make problems worse. If you want everyone to try to play the same game, you need to get everyone on board with what the game is supposed to look like. Otherwise you get arms races and hurt feelings.


For example - Fly.
The stipulation being that more options should exist for dealing with flight(especially non-magical options).

I don't find it important to have non-magic counters to magic. It's my view that "magic" in a fantasy setting is like "technology" in a modern setting. There are tasks you can accomplish without technology in the modern world. For example, you can do (pretty complex) mathematics by hand, or hunt your own food with primitive tools. But for certain tasks, you need a technological solution. You can't defeat a modern army without guns and grenades and various other tools. You can't send messages across the globe in seconds without radio or internet or phones. It's fine if tings work that way in fantasy.


I most certainly think that some abilities /feats etc does not belong in PC hands and I believe that a DM has total control to do whatever he wants... including altering PC abilities.

How do you reconcile that with the player's need to be able to make and implement plans? If the DM can have scrying fail because he didn't think of it, or block teleport because it skipped an encounter he liked, how am I as a player supposed to formulate a coherent strategy? If anything can change at any time, planning is all but impossible.


Classes like beguiler and dread necromancer are more what I think of when I think of a fantasy themed wizard

The Dread Necromancer and Beguiler are definitely improvements over the Wizard, but it has basically nothing to do with power level. planar binding and dominate person are able to wreck a campaign every bit as easily as simularcum or teleport. Those classes are better because saying "I'm a Beguiler" conveys more information than saying "I'm a Wizard".


... as a dm I do not enjoy when a pc uses an ability to get me to spoil the whole plot

Isn't that a sign you should write more resilient plots? Or play with lower level PCs? Or acknowledge that it's not just about you having fun, and players might enjoy that feeling of knot-cutting?

[Kelb_Panthera]

... as a dm I do not enjoy when a pc uses an ability to get me to spoil the whole plot

This line always makes me cringe. It bothers me that so many blame the spell(s) when it's their own failure to understand the flow and control of information both in the game and in the metagame that's at fault in these things, almost without fail.

How did they know where to teleport to? Who to scry? What questions to ask the power they accessed? Does -no one- dig into the tactics of espionage at all anymore?

I'm gonna make a new thread. I want to spend a bit of time weakening this myth by squashing examples. Link to follow. The myth of game-breaking abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?498751-The-myth-of-game-breaking-abilities)

[Quertus]

In explaining my opinion, I'm going to say a lot of things that will sound contradictory. I'll try to be clearer than rules text, but if there's 2 ways to read something I wrote, and one way seems to contradict everything else I've written... well, I'm me, so that might actually be what I meant

So, there's several ways D&D can be played. No, that's not quite right... there's several ways that the type of play at various levels can be viewed.

One way, that has already been mentioned in this thread, to look at the abilities one gets at various levels is that different level ranges represent different types of stories, with different types of threats / answers.

(BTW, I'd expand the current list to say it has mundane tier, cross-train tier, unreliable/costly demigod tier, and actual demigod tier. More on this later.)

This is a good way to look at things. It looks at claims like, "teleporting breaks my LotR overland travel game" and laughs, saying that, obviously, overland travel is intended for a different level. One you've reached teleport, you've obviously graduated past such stories.

But it is also a bad way to look at things. If you simply assume that past level x, the party will have teleport, what do you do when they don't? Because teleport isn't actually guaranteed at level x, even if the party has a wizard.

So, if you look at the game this way, you may have to remove build choices from the game. You may need to ensure that all wizards - and, in fact, all characters - get teleport by level x. Otherwise, the game could fail to meet your expectations.

----

Another way to look at increased abilities as you level is training. Not training of the character - old-school Gygaxian training of the player.

This is a good way to look at things, because it means that new players will not be overwhelmed by having to choose between millions of options. It looks at complaints of lengthy turns and decision paralysis, and laughs, saying if new players started at level 1, where everything was homogenous and easy, you wouldn't have this problem.

But it is also a bad way to look at things. It is very metagamy, and encourages metagaming. It guarantees low-level play will be boring to certain types of players, while high-level play will likely be a huge turnoff for others.

So, if you look at the game this way, you limit the variety of players who can enjoy playing together.

-----

Another way to look at it is accomplishment. Remember those orcs that used to give you so much trouble? Now you can fireball them.

This is a good way to look at things, because it lets the characters feel like they have unlocked new abilities, opened up new options for affecting the flow of the game. It looks at issues with scaling DC and laughs, saying that, obviously, you want characters to encounter some of the exact same challenges again at higher level, so that they can tell that they have moved past them.

But it is also a bad way to look at things, because you have to rehash old problems instead of presenting new material with your precious, limited game time. And what if the character didn't improve, or the player doesn't realize how to use their new options effectively, and instead just relives an earlier hardship?

-----
-----

However, this paints an incomplete picture. I think play style factors into it heavily.

What do I mean by play style? Here are a few examples:

You could play by having a plan, like an overland adventure. How do you implement that?

You could rely on the system, and create the adventure for a certain level range, trusting the system to allow your concept at that level.

You could rely on unexplained limitations, taking the nerf bat up front to everything that you think would break your game. And this is smart, because I'm sure you understand the exact implication of each of the billion+ possible combinations of abilities.

You could rely on the players, and explain the concept to them, and have them bring characters appropriate to your vision.

Or you could rely on yourself, using liberal DM fiat to keep the train on the tracks.

-----

Another approach is to look at the characters, and let their abilities tell you what kind of story they are interested in. They have teleport? If that's the case, they probably aren't interested in extensive overland travel. They don't have water breathing? Then they probably aren't interested in adventuring under the sea, even if you've got a hot crustacean band. Etc etc.

-----

Another approach is to present a concept, and see how they take it. Get from point A to point B. One party may spend years of game time tracking through the wilderness, while a second might just teleport.

-----
-----

So, what do I think is the right answer? Depends on your group. Even in this thread, some people have stated preferences where my response is, "my preferences look just like that, but the exact opposite".


I've never seen a coherent explanation for why you should separate ability access by level of optimization rather than character level. As far as I can tell, the Snowbluff Axiom is just someone failing to understand the point of the level system.

Hopefully, I addressed this somewhat above. Suppose I want to play a level x game, which includes a new to the game 7-year-old, and a crazy engineer who enjoys sifting through millions of options to build crazy things no-one has ever seen before? Would you not want a game that both allows simplicity and rewards complexity?

Similarly, spell research is a thing. And, apparently, it's a thing that approximately nobody but me uses. So, if you want to run a world where teleport is unstable, you need only say that the forefathers of magic on that world only invented unstable teleport. Done.


Largely reasonable, but there are some monster abilities PCs shouldn't have. For example, Troll regeneration where you can't be killed except by Fire or Acid. On a troll, that's cool. You have to reconfigure your tactics to beat it. On a PC, that sucks. If enemies don't have Fire or Acid, you can't lose and the game is boring. If enemies do have Fire or Acid, your ability doesn't do anything. Neither of those is a good thing. But yes, PCs should generally be allowed monster abilities.

I'd say, if anything, "regenerate like a troll" is something all PCs should have. Because "sit out unconscious until the end of the battle" is so much better than "dead, so sit out for the next 5 hours while you build a new character", is it not?

Of course, I personally prefer, "one character is out, but I'm still playing, because I'm running multiple characters". YMMV.



IMO it's a combination of both. Casters can solve problems too easily, mundanes not at all. Mundanes are further below the "perfect line" than casters are above (obviously this is an opinion) though.

Being able to solve problems easily is a feature, not a bug. It means that you don't need to play the same game the same way you always have. Levels actually mean something - they're literally game changers!


The reason I like tier one as the standard is that it literally means there's no possible problem that can't be solved when so much as one person gets a good enough idea. Now if the enemy is also tier one and it's only one person having a good idea, that idea has to be preeeeetty good, but the possibility for victory due to insane burst of rain man inspiration still exists.

This is a great way of explaining one (or more) of the draws of the game for me.


A line has to be drawn, which due to the way human minds work would have to be entirely subjective, as to what constitutes a major problem.

Indeed. This subjective nature is likely what the OP was interested in; unfortunately, I can only say that, since it will vary from group to group, from subjective mind to subjective mind, your best bet is to give them as many balanced options as possible, the broadest possible toolkit, and let them do with it as they will.


That is actually a good point for polymorph. How does a character know what abilities a creature has? And how exactly does a pc know a creature even exists? knowledge checks are trivial at polymorph level. And would book lore even be enough?

Because the competent, 2000-year-old, NI level wizard that I apprenticed under showed me live specimens of everything I'd ever want to polymorph into. Because he's not stupid.


Other than that I'd say just a general non-invulnerability clause. Stuff like time control magic abuse varies by game, but any character who can't actually be threatened needs to go.

Sorry, I'm an old-school grognard. Almost any of my characters that could be threatened... is dead. Therefore, most any character I have that's still alive... can't be threatened. And saying, "be able to be harmed" translates to me as, "be dead, don't play".

Also, someone building a character who is not able to be threatened should probably tell you something about the kind of game they'd like to play. If only there were some way to guess what that is... maybe one where their character being threatened isn't the point of the game?


Do note that it is not just the basic conceptual abilities like teleporting, travelling to other planes, flying, or scrying, but how those abilities--as described by the 3rd edition rules--effect the game.

Since you brought it up, let's take flight as an example. Flight, as a conceptual ability, is cool. You would frankly be upset if your swords and sorcery game specifically didn't have flight as an ability. But putting it where it is, and it being as effective as it is at circumventing so many challenges is a gaming decision that could have been altered.

Flying comes online for spellcasters at level 5 or 6. That leaves 4-5 levels of play where the rogue's skill points spent on balance really will save the day walking across the narrow ledge to hit the lever that opens the next level of the dungeon (or other example challenge that flight makes irrelevant). It's only two levels above spider climb, which makes a very small window for spiderman-esque wall battles or escapades.

Likewise, flying is an awfully good defensive position for squishy mages because of other game rule decisions, like those which make archery such a poor (and completely negated with one spell) combat tactic. In another game, flying mages would be sitting ducks (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28).

I think Kelb_Panthera was trying to say that flight was easily negated, but his examples just showed how few ways it can be. Grabs, lassos, and nets (all of which effect non-flyers too) do work, but they require someone up near the flyer when they start flying. Plus they are in-combat counters, and it is the overcoming obstacle part of flying that truly shifts the game. Wind is in fact a good counter, but it's one of those how-many-times-can-I-as-the-DM-use-this kind of things.

Does that mean that I dislike the fly spell? Of course not. However, I would say that it is significantly more game-changing than I think the designers gave it credit.

Teleportation is another one. It doesn't have to be game-changing (some would say breaking), it is because of the specific rules it has that make it so. Teleport could very easily be less abusable.

For instance, what if instead of having a few % chance of not working, instead it worked every time, but had a 1% variability in destination? Now, to scrye-and-die the BBEG, you have to get within 500' of him (if you want to teleport within 5' of them for full attack or surprise-round grapple attempt).

Addressing circumventing long-distance travel (the other problem with teleports), teleporting could move you a specific distance in a specific direction, and you had better have your information correct if you want to get to a specific place. Imagine having your wizard have to say, "alright party, we're in fantasy London. According to my poorly made medieval map, fantasy Paris is 412 miles South-East-East of here*. I'll teleport us all there 100' in the air, so we don't intersect any unknown landmass or tall trees, everyone have their featherfall rings ready. we'll undoubtedly appear in a non-descript valley, hopefully near a landmark. Ranger, you'll be on point to help us find our way to a road. Hopefully we'll meet someone who can tell us which direction leads to Paris instead of away from it." That would make teleporting still able to allow travel between cities, but because of the specifics of the rules, it certainly keeps said travel from being trivial.

*(It's actually 214 miles South-South-East)



I agree with the conceptual model, but not the specific numbers (those might be where they ought to be, but I do not feel that is where they are). In particular, look at level 9 and 5th-level spells--you have teleport (with or without scrying), plane shift, lesser planar bonding, and raise dead. That's almost all of the game-changing abilities. All the spell levels after that just allow you to do them better, more accurately, or with less of a penalty. Therefore, the division I think is most accurate is:

Levels 1-4: pseudo-realism. Most abilities are just cinematically convenient versions of things people can really do (sure, spider climb lets you climb walls quicker and more assuredly, but you are still just climbing walls). Things that really inhibited actions in medieval settings inhibit your characters (a stone keep with a barred front gate, a maze full of pit-traps, a well-built locked treasure chest, and a group of soldiers in a pike-hedge will all stymie an adventuring party and provide a challenge). The minimal mechanical effect on the world mentioned is very much in play.

Levels 5-8: Starting arbitrarily with the fly spell (along with gaseous form, stone shape, non-detection, wind wall, and moving up through dimension door, freedom of movement, death ward, and scry), this level starts hitting where the players can start using magic to do what is impossible to do with skill or natural abilities, and or to completely circumvent basic obstacles of access, knowledge, or vulnerability. There is definitely a lot more player "control." Now unless you play 15-minute workday, you won't always have all the spells you want or need available when you need them, but it is having the right spells available that starts to become the largest indicator of party success (again, starts to become).

Levels 9+: Infinite player level. The PCs don't play within boundaries, they play with boundaries. There's very little difference between 9th level and 20th level, except in more, bigger, and longer lasting. As you said, it is hard to portray within the mechanics, and the game becomes one of pulling off the correct web of defenses as eggynack puts it. There's certainly value to this level of play, but I don't understand why it should cover 12 of 20 levels, while the other two take 4 apiece.

Ok, I said I'd get back to this. Love your breakdown, gonna expand it slightly.

Level 1-4: pseudo-realism.

Level 5-8: extraordinary tools, gap coverage.

Yes, there are idiots who start obsoleting other classes - and, more importantly, other PCs at the table - at this level. That's not only rude, it's a waste of the caster's previous resources.

What you should be using them for is to cover gaps in your lineup. This is the level where clerics should get all-day buffs that let them fight on the front lines, where wizards should get spells to let them fly over pits.

But it's also the level where fighters & monks & rogues should get... what? What did the tier 1s have before now? Sure, Paladin could get healing (some serious healing, maybe) at this level range. Maybe barbarian could get AoEs in the form of mass intimidation. Monks can meditate and read minds. Etc etc.

IMO, this is the level range where you aim to make parties of limited size work. If you want to tell the story of the few who could, you tell it at 5-8.

Level 9-12: wannabe demigods. At this level range, you get all the useless / unreliable / costly super powers. Teleport that is always off by X%. Costly reincarnation into random forms. Etc etc.

If you want to tell stories of characters with great power, but only kinda, this is the level for you.

Level 13-16: demigods. This is where characters get reliable, game-changing powers.

Level 17-20: adaptable demigods. Much like at levels 5-8, at this point, characters can do truly amazing things outside their expected area of specialization. Fighters can raise the dead with CPR; clerics can "hide" inside a binding nimbus of holy light; rogues can use surgery to "polymorph" their target, etc etc.


Players should be able to have the powers that are described in the supplements if they aquire them in a logical fashion.

Players should not be able to be total douches and disrupt the game without puishment by using these powers on a scale that makes them disruptive.

Making an Ice Assassin of Zeus so he can win every encounter for you: Bad
Making an Ice Assassin of Zeus because Alter Reality is one handy SDA to clean up your mansions kitchen: Good

Does this need suspension of disbelief? Yes
Is that necessarily bad? Not really, we are playing a game with dragons and magical mystery flumpths, after all.

Phenomenal cosmic power, used for trivial things? You and my signature character would get along nicely.


Anyway, in an effort to get the thread back on topic, I'm going to ask a couple of questions about the relation between DM power and PC abilities:

1. How much influence should the DM have over what abilities PCs are allowed to have? Suppose the DM wants to run a low powered, LotR-esque game with few strategic abilities (i.e. planar binding, teleport) available to PCs, while the PCs want to play an epic plane-hopping game in the style of The Chronicles of Amber. Who should win?

2. Once the game has started, how much influence should the DM have over how PC abilities work? If, for example, the party Wizard is about to use scrying to solve his perfectly crafted murder mystery, should he be allowed to unilaterally declare that the Wizard can't do so?

Of course, it depends on your group... but, for me,

1) the DM shouldn't "want" anything. That way leads to fear, anger, and the dark side. But, if they have to go that route, they should practice talking to the players and setting up expectations in a series of one shots, until the group is in sync. Even then, they should probably run the actual intended party through a throwaway one shot, to make sure the party meets their expectations, before letting them touch anything they actually care about.

2) the DM should just present a murder. Let the PCs solve (or ignore) it however they want to / can.

[martixy]

I don't find it important to have non-magic counters to magic. It's my view that "magic" in a fantasy setting is like "technology" in a modern setting. There are tasks you can accomplish without technology in the modern world. For example, you can do (pretty complex) mathematics by hand, or hunt your own food with primitive tools. But for certain tasks, you need a technological solution. You can't defeat a modern army without guns and grenades and various other tools. You can't send messages across the globe in seconds without radio or internet or phones. It's fine if tings work that way in fantasy.
Right-o. Non-spell options for non-spellcaster classes.

I've been WIP on an archery martial discipline and shutting down floating spellslinging skeet from afar sounds like the perfect niche it could fill.

But I have a somewhat unorthodox view of what abilities should be had.
Again it stems from me subscribing to the Snowbluff axiom.

The point is - complete, complete balance is highly overrated. You can create fun situation on all ends of the spectrum.
It's the ability to make meaningful decisions that makes a character fun to play. So as long as the character has such options, the player will have fun. Note that this doesn't automatically imply that if Joe can do something, I must be able to as well to have fun. The raw power scale might vary wildly, yet still present all actors with meaningful choices.
And of course asymmetric gameplay is often more fun in general.

[tsj]

@cosi: true that players should be allowed to plan ahead and
a DM should be really careful about messing with player abilities but it is still the right of the DM to do anything (messing with abilities can always be covered up as some effect in the area or whatever)

However. .a DM should plan his adventure around the players and the classes/races/abilities he allows the players to have

@kelb: well I still think some classes gets stuff they shouldn't have but I guess that most PC abilities can be handled if the DM knows how to plan around those particular PC abilities. .. however it could still hinder the DMs options for creativity if all players are all powerfull tier1+ wizards with all kinds of scary options

[Kelb_Panthera]

@kelb: well I still think some classes gets stuff they shouldn't have but I guess that most PC abilities can be handled if the DM knows how to plan around those particular PC abilities. .. however it could still hinder the DMs options for creativity if all players are all powerfull tier1+ wizards with all kinds of scary options

Are you kidding? :smallamused: When the PC's have all those options and know how to use them it opens the board all the way up to do all kinds of crazy shenanigans that mid-op and low-op games couldn't even begin to handle.

At the other end, low and lower-mid op -does- leave a lot of room for the players to come up with creative solutions to problems and for falling back on secondary abilities and basic mechanics.

It seems to me, at least, that the worst spot for creativity is right smack in the middle, where all the best known and easiest to grasp tricks lay. When you know -exactly- what they're going to do, because they can't do much else, and all of the thngs that they can't or won't do, it gets really difficult to nudge them out of their comfort zones more than once in a great while without getting cursed at for being "unfair."

[Cosi]

But it is also a bad way to look at things. If you simply assume that past level x, the party will have teleport, what do you do when they don't? Because teleport isn't actually guaranteed at level x, even if the party has a wizard.

This is a fairly easy problem to solve. Use something like 4e's rituals to ensure that the "must have" abilities are there when you need them.


Another way to look at increased abilities as you level is training. Not training of the character - old-school Gygaxian training of the player.

You want some of this. By the time people have reached 14th level, they've invested in the game somewhat and they have enough practice with their abilities to effectively step up the complexity. There's also an emergent property where high level plots like "multi-planar conquest" and "political intrigue" are inherently more complicated than low level ones like "caravan escort" and "tomb raiders". But you don't want too much of it, and you want ways to decide how involved you are. So the kingdom management game should have different levels of engagement, ranging from "micromanaging the crops your individual peasants grow" to "periodically saying 'invade those guys'". And more engagement shouldn't be linearly better. Maybe a hands-off approach generates less unrest and more overall production, even if hands-on can get specific things done easier.


This is a good way to look at things, because it lets the characters feel like they have unlocked new abilities, opened up new options for affecting the flow of the game. It looks at issues with scaling DC and laughs, saying that, obviously, you want characters to encounter some of the exact same challenges again at higher level, so that they can tell that they have moved past them.

But it is also a bad way to look at things, because you have to rehash old problems instead of presenting new material with your precious, limited game time. And what if the character didn't improve, or the player doesn't realize how to use their new options effectively, and instead just relives an earlier hardship?

The key is a mix. You want some problems where people can let loose with their new abilities and feel powerful, and some encounters where they need their new abilities and feel challenged. Sometimes they get to blow away dozens of Orcs with ease, sometimes they have to take down a Dragon with skill and preparation. Sometimes speak with dead reveals the identity and plan of the culprit, sometimes it gives enough cryptic hints to start a puzzle that lasts a couple of sessions. It's a difficult needle to thread, and getting it right is sometimes even harder than writing challenging adventures.


You could rely on the players, and explain the concept to them, and have them bring characters appropriate to your vision.

You don't even have to rely on player restraint. teleport doesn't complete an overland trek. It skips it. If you can get people to be genuinely interested in your overland journey adventure, you can get them to complete it even if they don't need to. Maybe they're searching for something they don't know the location of. Maybe they have to clear a passage for people without teleport. Actually, this is a pretty fundamental thing about teleport. It's not about skipping encounters. It's about skipping encounters you don't care about. If you want your 9th level party to fight a miniboss, don't put him in a dead magic zone so they have to. Make him interesting enough they want to.


Hopefully, I addressed this somewhat above. Suppose I want to play a level x game, which includes a new to the game 7-year-old, and a crazy engineer who enjoys sifting through millions of options to build crazy things no-one has ever seen before? Would you not want a game that both allows simplicity and rewards complexity?

I mentioned that (although I think not in this thread). What you do is you have three basic types of class:

1. Simple to build, simple to play. These are the classes for "noobs", or other people who want to be able to play the game with a minimal focus on the crunchy bits. Examples include the Barbarian, the Fighter, and the Warmage.
2. Simple to build, complex to play. These are the classes for people who enjoy tactically interesting characters, but hate dumpster diving. Examples include the Beguiler, the Dread Necromancer, and the Binder.
3. Complex to build, complex to play. These are the classes for the stereotypical optimizer who uses ten books to make a first level character. Examples include the Wizard, the Sorcerer, and the Druid.

That accesses everything the Snowbluff Axiom talks about, but it removes the need for the game to be unbalanced. If someone wants to plug and play, point them at the Barbarian. If someone wants to spend a week figuring out the perfect build, point them at the Wizard. There are failure states, of course. You could end up with big power gaps between 1 and 3, or you could put all the classes for a given archetype into one category. 3e did both of those things to one degree or another. But those are failures, whereas massive imbalance is a success if you accept Snowbluff.


I'd say, if anything, "regenerate like a troll" is something all PCs should have. Because "sit out unconscious until the end of the battle" is so much better than "dead, so sit out for the next 5 hours while you build a new character", is it not?

That's a different issue. I very much agree that "defeat = death" is a bad paradigm, but within that paradigm, making death impossible removes meaningful risk.


Of course, I personally prefer, "one character is out, but I'm still playing, because I'm running multiple characters". YMMV.

I like that, but I think that's better suited to a OSR type game where lethality is high and character creation is simple. Something closer to X-Com, while 3e occupies a space closer to Mass Effect.


Being able to solve problems easily is a feature, not a bug. It means that you don't need to play the same game the same way you always have. Levels actually mean something - they're literally game changers!

This is a good summation of my view.


Yes, there are idiots who start obsoleting other classes - and, more importantly, other PCs at the table - at this level. That's not only rude, it's a waste of the caster's previous resources.

I don't quite agree with this, because I think it puts too much blame on the Wizard. Let's talk about my favorite example of spells obviating characters: knock. When you first get it, knock versus Open Lock is a trade-off. knock is faster and guaranteed, but it's sharply use limited and it costs a spell slot that could go to web or glitterdust. That's a good paradigm, because it means that Wizards and a Rogues have fundamentally different responses to a locked door. The issue is that as level increases, the cost of knock decreases and the Rogue doesn't get anything that competes with new options like dimension door or scrying. I see it as a lack of advancement for non-casters breaking a functional paradigm. If the Rogue got the ability to walk through walls or something, you could just have a locked door be a minor problem and have the debate be "do we dimension door quickly, or have the Rogue sneak in through the walls" much as it once was "do we knock quickly, or have the Rogue pick the lock".


It seems to me, at least, that the worst spot for creativity is right smack in the middle, where all the best known and easiest to grasp tricks lay. When you know -exactly- what they're going to do, because they can't do much else, and all of the thngs that they can't or won't do, it gets really difficult to nudge them out of their comfort zones more than once in a great while without getting cursed at for being "unfair."

I feel like this is too vague to be of much use. What is "mid op"? Is it a Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order who mostly relies on BFC and buffs, but has enough game knowledge to pull out the occasional silver bullet? Is it a Wizard who plays like a Warmage, with the exception of the most obvious utility spells (i.e. teleport)? Is it something in between? Higher? Lower?

[ShurikVch]

I don't think that special abilities are somehow subsets of abilities. It's just that they're both abilities.Maybe - just not in game terms

Abilities are abilities, and special abilities are abilities, and we know special abilities are abilities because it's right there in the name. You've provided zero evidence that special abilities aren't abilities, and that they're called abilities seems sufficient evidence in the other direction.Perfect Wight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClasses/perfectWight.htm) isn't Undead
Vampire Bat wouldn't be destroyed by sunlight
Ant Lion isn't related to lions
Hot dog isn't a dog breed

Just because XY have Y in it's name, it doesn't mean XY is related to Y in any way (and same is for X name part)

At least, names of Abilities and Special Abilities are separated by extra word; game have number of things which names are matching to the letter, but have little (or even no at all) other in common

Edit: Or, rather, they're not a subset of those kindsa abilities. They are a subset of the broader concept of abilities.Except this broader concept isn't codified anywhere in the RAW, thus doesn't matter
.

Your PHB cite doesn't matter because my cite is from MM. It is the primary source for creatures and thus trumps.

You yourself are referring to "monster stat blocks" to support your argument, so you obviously agree.OK!
You want MM - I will give you MM:
Abilities
This line lists the creature's ability scores, in the customary order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Except where noted otherwise, each creature is assumed to have the standard array of ability scores before racial adjustments (all 11s and 10s). To determine any creature's racial ability adjustments, subtract 10 from any even-numbered ability score and subtract 11 from any odd-numbered score. (Exceptions are noted in the Combat section of a creature's descriptive text.) Humanoid warriors are generally built using the nonelite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. Advanced creatures (such as the hound archon hero) are built using the elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Most abilities work as described in Chapter 1 of the Player's Handbook, with exceptions given below.
Strength: As noted on page 162 of the Player's Handbook, quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than bipeds can. Any creature with four or more motive limbs can carry a load as a quadruped, even if it does not necessarily use all the limbs at once. For example, dragons carry loads as quadrupeds.
Intelligence: A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).
Nonabilities: Some creatures lack certain ability scores. These creatures do not have an ability score of 0 - they lack the ability altogether. The modifier for a nonability is +0. Other effects of nonabilities are detailed in the Glossary.How is it?

[Calthropstu]

This has to be the stupidest psuedo-intellectual argument I have ever seen.

[Beheld]

This has to be the stupidest psuedo-intellectual argument I have ever seen.

In a thread where the OP has asked in literally every post, including the first one, to not have this argument.

[Calthropstu]

In a thread where the OP has asked in literally every post, including the first one, to not have this argument.

To be fair, I do like some of the op's statements. His pointing out the paradigm of knock, for example, is a good analogy.
Yes, there should be better options for sneak rogues available. Personally, I had strongly considered capping base classes at one point and requiring prestige classes to advance beyond tenth level. I may just experiment with this.

[Beheld]

To be fair, I do like some of the op's statements. His pointing out the paradigm of knock, for example, is a good analogy.
Yes, there should be better options for sneak rogues available. Personally, I had strongly considered capping base classes at one point and requiring prestige classes to advance beyond tenth level. I may just experiment with this.

While that is almost certainly a better design point it only works if you have pre-req less PrCs that are actually good. I'd rather take Rogue levels than any PrC in 3.5 on a Rogue.

[Psyren]

@Shurik


OK!
You want MM - I will give you MM:How is it?

Your cite is still not exclusive - in other words, the things you point to are abilities, but that does not invalidate the things I pointed too. Ice Assassin explicitly says "all abilities." Not "only the abilities on page 7, but not the ones on page 6" - all of them. Thus, point stands.

[Calthropstu]

While that is almost certainly a better design point it only works if you have pre-req less PrCs that are actually good. I'd rather take Rogue levels than any PrC in 3.5 on a Rogue.

Hmmm. A fair point. GM fiat away some of the prereq's might help. For example, droppine the arcane caster req for arcane trickster or arcane archer... any prestige class that doesn't give actual casting class bonuses.
Might open some things up that are otherwise unused.

[illyahr]

All the class abilities from the Dungeon Delver PrC should be available to Rogues as Rogue Talents, if not automatic class abilities. For a dungeon-crawling rogue, these are abilities that are almost necessary. Blindsense x/day for minutes at a time, Passwall, Find the Path, Phase Door? It should have been part of the base class.

[Sayt]

I don't think that the line "abilities, skills and memories" is talking about either of the rules constructs, ability scores nor special abilities. I think is referring to abilities in the gemerit sense of "things it can do", skills as "how well it does various things" and memories, which isn't a game construct (the closest game cinstruct probably being XP).

[Willie the Duck]

Aside: Guys, hiding it in spoiler tags or not, you are still feeding this bad behavior.


Hmmm. A fair point. GM fiat away some of the prereq's might help. For example, droppine the arcane caster req for arcane trickster or arcane archer... any prestige class that doesn't give actual casting class bonuses.
Might open some things up that are otherwise unused.

I think it would be more along the line (and I'm theory crafting here, we get to re-write history or change basic rules) of saying "rogues lose much of their value when spider climb and knock are third-tier spells for a full caster, so level 7. Let's design a 10-14 level PrC (that a reasonably built rogue 6 or 7 could qualify for) that gives that PC something to contribute to the party at the later levels without changing out characters."

The Ur Priest superficially looks like something along those lines (ignoring the crazy 9th-level spells at 14th level BS which is what everyone knows it for). It says, in effect, "okay, you can spend your first 5 levels gallivanting around having fun, and then you can get on board the cleric train when that stops being effective." Unfortunately, the Prereqs are such that what leads into the class isn't those builds which you want to play from levels 1-5 like fighter or rogue (actually, I have no idea what WotC intended the lead-into build for Ur priest to be). Divine Crusader actually does succeed in this regard--no more than 2 cross-class ranks and a weak-but-not-unreasonable feat (weapon focus) prereqs-- It's the perfect PrC for a fighter 7 (or paladin of slaughter 4/hexblade 3, as I have done in the past for Cha synergy) to head into when hitting things over the head stops being interesting. Perfect, except that it's massively underwhelming (3/4 bab for absolutely no reason, and a single domain just really isn't enough to make it a viable strategy).

[Quertus]

This is a fairly easy problem to solve. Use something like 4e's rituals to ensure that the "must have" abilities are there when you need them.

You'd probably be amazed at the number of things that have have such easy solutions that have stumped DMs I've played with.

And 3e has this concept, too.


That's a different issue. I very much agree that "defeat = death" is a bad paradigm, but within that paradigm, making death impossible removes meaningful risk.

It changes what you are risking. It changes the fundamental paradigm. And that is the power I want to see in the players' hands.

Because, yes, you could talk as a group about what everyone wants out of a game, but let's face it - human beings are terrible communicators. These game changing powers are the easy mode of communication.

Picking teleport fairly clearly communicates that you probably don't want a two-year overland hike. Picking water breathing pretty well communicates that you are up for going under the sea. Picking regeneration pretty well communicates that you probably don't want the "meaningful risk" to be the death if your character.

This idea of abilities communicating play style isn't my idea, it's one I read on these forums, but I really liked it, so now I advocate it.

Of course, I say all this as someone who believes in DMs presenting scenarios, and players reacting however they choose.

That, and my signature wizard is perfectly willing to take capable of taking an overland hike - especially if he doesn't know the destination well enough to just teleport there.

So take this advise with a grain of salt, but if you're hung up on a particular concept, make sure your concept and the characters' abilities are in sync.


I like that, but I think that's better suited to a OSR type game where lethality is high and character creation is simple. Something closer to X-Com, while 3e occupies a space closer to Mass Effect.

If character creation is simple, you lose your character, build a new one in 5 minutes, and rejoin the game - sometimes in time to avenge your old character.

I intended this for high-lethality D&D. Lose one of your characters, come back with a replacement next session. How is this a bad match?

Of course, in practice, I used it most often in "high recovery" D&D - where you would get over being paralyzed, KO'd, stoned, or, in some cases, even get over being dead... but you would get to keep playing your other characters in the mean time.


I don't quite agree with this, because I think it puts too much blame on the Wizard. Let's talk about my favorite example of spells obviating characters: knock. When you first get it, knock versus Open Lock is a trade-off. knock is faster and guaranteed, but it's sharply use limited and it costs a spell slot that could go to web or glitterdust. That's a good paradigm, because it means that Wizards and a Rogues have fundamentally different responses to a locked door. The issue is that as level increases, the cost of knock decreases and the Rogue doesn't get anything that competes with new options like dimension door or scrying. I see it as a lack of advancement for non-casters breaking a functional paradigm. If the Rogue got the ability to walk through walls or something, you could just have a locked door be a minor problem and have the debate be "do we dimension door quickly, or have the Rogue sneak in through the walls" much as it once was "do we knock quickly, or have the Rogue pick the lock".

Well, you've stated the problem right there: that wizards get answers / toys, and rogues do not.

If this is true, it means that the wizard isn't replacing the rogue, because the rogue simply can't perform task x. It means that, in D&D, task x isn't the rogue's pervue, it's the wizard's.

Now, this can be is own problem, but it isn't the same problem as knock vs pick locks.

But, as I hopefully strongly hinted at by saying that high level fighters should be able to resurrect people with CPR, I don't believe in limiting abilities behind strict gates. I believe in spreading the love, and letting any class be (at least somewhat) capable of filling any role.

[Cosi]

Yes, there should be better options for sneak rogues available. Personally, I had strongly considered capping base classes at one point and requiring prestige classes to advance beyond tenth level. I may just experiment with this.

While that is almost certainly a better design point it only works if you have pre-req less PrCs that are actually good. I'd rather take Rogue levels than any PrC in 3.5 on a Rogue.

Hmmm. A fair point. GM fiat away some of the prereq's might help. For example, droppine the arcane caster req for arcane trickster or arcane archer... any prestige class that doesn't give actual casting class bonuses.

Prereqs definitely need to go. It makes building characters more complex for no reason, creates power now for power later trade-offs, and means you have to write a new PrC every time you want to support the same PrC concept for a different base class. If I was designing it, PrCs would work like Wizard PrCs. You get some random abilities around a theme like "turning into a construct" or "buffing your allies" or "shadows", and your core competencies continue advancing.


I think it would be more along the line (and I'm theory crafting here, we get to re-write history or change basic rules) of saying "rogues lose much of their value when spider climb and knock are third-tier spells for a full caster, so level 7. Let's design a 10-14 level PrC (that a reasonably built rogue 6 or 7 could qualify for) that gives that PC something to contribute to the party at the later levels without changing out characters."

While PrCs are definitely a good solution, they are not the only solution. You could also make skills better, or give the actual Rogue class better class abilities, or whatever. You just need to ensure that the Rogue gets abilities that are worth mentioning when the Wizard has teleport.


The Ur Priest superficially looks like something along those lines (ignoring the crazy 9th-level spells at 14th level BS which is what everyone knows it for). It says, in effect, "okay, you can spend your first 5 levels gallivanting around having fun, and then you can get on board the cleric train when that stops being effective."

I agree that forcing people onto the caster train is a reasonable solution. That said, I don't think Ur-Priest is the way to do it, because Cleric casting has almost nothing to do with the Rogue. If I was doing it (and I kind of am, when I can convince myself to work on it), I would pick some level between fifth and tenth, and give every non-caster level appropriate casting from a thematically appropriate casting class. So at 10th level, the Ranger gets Druid casting, the Rogue gets Beguiler casting, and the Paladin gets Cleric casting. Then they can just go into a casting PrC like Mage of the Arcane Order or whatever.


It changes what you are risking. It changes the fundamental paradigm. And that is the power I want to see in the players' hands.

I generally agree with that, but the specific case of reducing death to a non-problem has the same problem as planar binding spam. It makes something challenging for one character, but not others.


I intended this for high-lethality D&D. Lose one of your characters, come back with a replacement next session. How is this a bad match?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "playing multiple characters". Multiple characters at once in D&D is the same logistical nightmare as planar binding or simulacrum. Having a stable of characters works, but it's a lot more effort (you have to maintain multiple level appropriate characters) and it reduces the level of investment you have in any particular character, which is something D&D tries to cultivate.


If this is true, it means that the wizard isn't replacing the rogue, because the rogue simply can't perform task x. It means that, in D&D, task x isn't the rogue's pervue, it's the wizard's.

This feels like (a little bit of) Is/Ought. Most people probably agree that stealth ought to be a strength of the Rogue, even if the Wizard is actually better at it. So if we were to change things to make the Rogue the go-to stealth option at high level, that would (for most people) qualify as "fixing a problem" rather than "changing a paradigm". On the other hand, if we made the Fighter the go-to stealth option at any level, that would qualify as "changing a paradigm".

[tsj]

Cosi: that is an interesting solution...
I kinda like the concept of rogues with beguiler casting, paladins with cleric casting and rangers with druid casting

I would consider doing the following. ..

Add all paladin specific spells to the cleric list
Add all ranger specific spells to the druid list

Give all clerics and paladins cleric casting
Give all druids and rangers druid casting &
Give all rogues and beguiler beguiler casting
Give all wizards and warmages wizard casting
Give all evil paladins and dread necros dread necro casting

Etc..

[Quertus]

Prereqs definitely need to go. It makes building characters more complex for no reason, creates power now for power later trade-offs,

Agreed.


I generally agree with that, but the specific case of reducing death to a non-problem has the same problem as planar binding spam. It makes something challenging for one character, but not others.

And sneaking past the inattentive guards is a challenge for Mr. Tanky Plate Mail, but not for Sneaky McRogue. What's your point?


I guess it depends on what you mean by "playing multiple characters". Multiple characters at once in D&D is the same logistical nightmare as planar binding or simulacrum. Having a stable of characters works, but it's a lot more effort (you have to maintain multiple level appropriate characters) and it reduces the level of investment you have in any particular character, which is something D&D tries to cultivate.

Multiple characters at once.

Let's break this down.

High lethality games don't lend themselves, IME, to maximum character investment in the first place. So nothing lost by running multiple characters. Except that it increases the chance that (or reduces the average expected time until) a character will live long enough to be worth becoming invested in. So something gained by running multiple characters at once. Plus, one character died, but I'm still invested in the scene. Something else gained by running multiple characters.

And I've never had a problem with 10+ players at the table, each allowed to run multiple characters at once. So no logistic nightmares IME.

But, then, I usually game with people who enjoy playing Battletech, and fielding double digit mechs on each side, so YMMV.


This feels like (a little bit of) Is/Ought. Most people probably agree that stealth ought to be a strength of the Rogue, even if the Wizard is actually better at it. So if we were to change things to make the Rogue the go-to stealth option at high level, that would (for most people) qualify as "fixing a problem" rather than "changing a paradigm". On the other hand, if we made the Fighter the go-to stealth option at any level, that would qualify as "changing a paradigm".

For stealth, Invisibility is like knock: the wizard can do it better a few times, the rogue can do it all day long.

For bypassing walls, however, this looks like a job for Superman the wizard. Since, as you said, the rogue has no ability to match the wizard's teleport.

Which touches on a question I've been meaning to ask: if the fighter's role is to make things dead (and to survive), and the rogue's role is to be stealthy and bypass obstacles... what is the wizard's role?

[EyethatBinds]

Is it odd that I encourage my players to play with the system and break the game? You want to use fabricate to destroy the iron economy? Sure! Let's see how the kingdoms that depend on mining like that. You want to make yourself immune to energy damage several times a day? Great, let's have an adventure in a volcano. Your character can do 25d6 of sneak attack damage once per day? Awesome, assassinate this evil storm giant sorcerer.

The players will want to feel like their abilities matter and have impact on your game. The best thing a skilled GM can do is force them to use their power to advance the story. I sometimes will play the negation game but most of the time it isn't worth the trouble.

Just throw multiple foes at them with competing, odd abilities that require a specific response to avoid grisly death. My favorite low level example is making a 3rd level gnoll cleric, since CR for a gnoll is 1 with two HD, the first two levels of cleric are non-associated, and the elite array makes him a CR 4 with 5hd, and some nasty spells, my favorite to pull out is Balor's Nimbus so he can grapple a player and throw out 6d6 of fire damage per turn, dropping even a high con fighter in two rounds with average rolls.

Then again, lethality is part of my games. So I allow my players to have their fun while it lasts.

[illyahr]

The players will want to feel like their abilities matter and have impact on your game. The best thing a skilled GM can do is force them to use their power to advance the story. I sometimes will play the negation game but most of the time it isn't worth the trouble.

I do this, also. The plot is the characters' actions. There is a general story that will continue no matter what they do, but it will change depending on the actions of the players. The more the players do, the more people have heard of what they can do. You can do massive amounts of sneak damage? High-profile NPC's hear about it and start wearing Fortification armor. Villages have a habit of burning down when you pass through? Guards are on high alert and you have to disguise yourself if you want to use the local Magic Marts.

I make sure my players are aware that there are other high-level characters around. It's a world where things happen and there are people who have done those things. And I optimize better than my players can.

[Cosi]

And sneaking past the inattentive guards is a challenge for Mr. Tanky Plate Mail, but not for Sneaky McRogue. What's your point?

I guess it depends on how much variance in challenges you is acceptable between players. Clearly, you don't want one player to have an 11th level Wizard and an army of demons while the other has an 11th level
Wizard. Equally clearly, you want scenarios like the aforementioned guards to exist where people have different solutions based on different abilities. It's not a trivial problem, and it's one that has to be solved on a relatively fundamental level.


And I've never had a problem with 10+ players at the table, each allowed to run multiple characters at once. So no logistic nightmares IME.

But, then, I usually game with people who enjoy playing Battletech, and fielding double digit mechs on each side, so YMMV.

I basically agree with your argument (which seems fairly similar to my own, actually), but I think your experience is highly atypical and it's causing you to assume something like you suggest can be done at a higher level of complexity than is realistic.


Which touches on a question I've been meaning to ask: if the fighter's role is to make things dead (and to survive), and the rogue's role is to be stealthy and bypass obstacles... what is the wizard's role?

That's hard to say, because the Wizard has too many abilities for you to talk about a "Wizard's role". Perhaps the most iconic Wizard build is the one that drops walls, clouds, or other AoE hazards to deal with groups of enemies. Does that make the Wizard's role crowd control? Well, you can make a totally serviceable Mailman Wizard that specializes in single target DPS and doesn't do any crowd control. Does that make the Wizard's role DPS? Well, you can make a totally serviceable Buffbot Wizard that specializes in turning your allies into unstoppable murderbots. Does that make the Wizard's role buffs? Well, you get the idea.

IMHO, the best choice for the Wizard's role is the crowd control specialist, but even that isn't perfect. It's a role that treads on a lot of toes (the Necromancer and the Summoner can both lay claim to cloud based crowd control, the War Mage can claim damage based crowd control, and you could easily have some kind of wall-mancer), and there's not any inherent reason for the Wizard to work that way (it's certainly not how Gandalf, or Dumbledore, or Merlin fought). Still, there's no reason for the Wizard to not do crowd control, so you could totally just run with that. Also, the wall-mancer could simply be the Wizard.

Of course, that's just combat role. But non-combat is comparatively easy. You just need to pick a couple of non-combat powers for the Wizard to have. I suggest the various "magic that effects magic" tricks like dispel magic and antimagic field, coupled with some minor tricks from other specialties on the combat side. Plus the ability to pick off the general list, obviously.

[ryu]

The tier one solution to balance and variance is that everyone can do anything in the system with enough effort and knowledge, but there are enough differences between the flavors of tier one that a group of them is incentivized to focus on what they're class does better natively than the others even as they pick up new tricks throughout the game. Anyone can do anything is not the same as their being no likely roles or specialization. Wizards don't heal as well as the others. Druids have the worst suite of travel spells. Clerics... are the hardest to quantify specific weaknesses due to domain selection, but it's still no simple matter to do everything. Artificers have some of the highest versatility in the entire game due to access to every spell list and early access to spells from specialty lists, but require a much greater degree of strategic planning, in-game time, and wealth to function like a tier one. It's not as homogeneous as you think it is.

[Cosi]

The tier one solution to balance and variance is that everyone can do anything in the system with enough effort and knowledge, but there are enough differences between the flavors of tier one that a group of them is incentivized to focus on what they're class does better natively than the others even as they pick up new tricks throughout the game.

If your system is supposed to encourage specialization, why allow everyone to do everything? This sounds like the same logic as the Snowbluff Axiom: "If we flirt with the same failure states as 3e, we'll make something as good as 3e!"

People should absolutely pick up new tricks throughout the game. They should even have the opportunity to pick up new tricks that are totally unrelated to whatever the theme of their class nominally is, whether through feats, multi-classing, PrCs, or class features like Advanced Learning. But if you are going to have classes at all, saying "I'm a Summoner" or "I'm a Beastmaster" should be at least as meaningful as the difference between Beguiler and Dread Necromancer.

[ryu]

If your system is supposed to encourage specialization, why allow everyone to do everything? This sounds like the same logic as the Snowbluff Axiom: "If we flirt with the same failure states as 3e, we'll make something as good as 3e!"

People should absolutely pick up new tricks throughout the game. They should even have the opportunity to pick up new tricks that are totally unrelated to whatever the theme of their class nominally is, whether through feats, multi-classing, PrCs, or class features like Advanced Learning. But if you are going to have classes at all, saying "I'm a Summoner" or "I'm a Beastmaster" should be at least as meaningful as the difference between Beguiler and Dread Necromancer.

Why have literally no truly protected niches? If every niche is necessary, and those niches are protected, Problems arise when no one wants to play the niche class in question. It's the rogue/trap finder problem, and it SUCKS. In a group of tier ones with no wizard? We can still get our travel spells, divinations, and other goodies with other tier ones even without access to the wizard list. Perhaps not as well but we still totally can. Now imagine the alternative where no one wants to play a class, its role is necessary to function well, and that class is the only thing that does what it does.

[eggynack]

If your system is supposed to encourage specialization, why allow everyone to do everything?
The question isn't whether you can do everything, but when and how you can do everything, with tier ones. Consider the example of transportation of various kinds to various places, as applies to the core tier ones. Wizards get teleport for strategic fast movement, fly and overland flight for tactical fast movement, and plane shift for travel between planes. Clerics are kinda weak on the first two, with the limited word of recall for strategic, wind walk for tactical, but they're the strongest at the third with plane shift two levels lower. They also, of course, could have a domain. Druids get strategic fast movement between the other two, with somewhat higher level and more limited teleportation like transport via plants and master earth, the best tactical fast movement through wild shape, and the weakest planar travel through probably animate with the spirit for a movanic deva. So, each class has a completely different ordering even in this small area of the game, with wizards placing first, second, and second in the categories respectively, the cleric getting third, third, first, and the druid getting second, first, third. Meaning, in turn, that the wizard is the best in this area overall. I'm not sure if all of that was a perfect assessment, but I think it shows well how these sorts of things can play out.

And, of course, all of this can be applied further to other regions of capability. The overall map of this now shrunken system becomes one where you still have to make tradeoffs, even if they're less complete tradeoffs. Maybe you would want that wizardly fast travel, but dislike the fact that you have to trade off melee capability compared to the other two. Maybe you would have wanted the druid's combination of burliness and ability to move around well, but losing the higher quality minionmancy of the other two classes is too much. These are meaningful distinctions, especially when you consider that you're definitely not allowing everyone access to everything. Yes, a wizard and a druid can both teleport from place to place eventually, but recall that neither of those nor the cleric can do it much at all at 5th level. When you can do stuff is really important, because doing something eventually is in some ways equivalent to not being able to do it at all.

[Quertus]

Why have literally no truly protected niches? If every niche is necessary, and those niches are protected, Problems arise when no one wants to play the niche class in question. It's the rogue/trap finder problem, and it SUCKS. In a group of tier ones with no wizard? We can still get our travel spells, divinations, and other goodies with other tier ones even without access to the wizard list. Perhaps not as well but we still totally can. Now imagine the alternative where no one wants to play a class, its role is necessary to function well, and that class is the only thing that does what it does.

Just like looking at the history of a tree by looking at its rings, you can almost see the history of a wizard by looking at his spell book. "I picked up these spells when I adventured in a party with no rogue; I learned those summon spells when I traveled with a group with no front line fighters" etc.

IMO, what the wizard does is what cannot be done.

[ShurikVch]

@Shurik


Your cite is still not exclusive - in other words, the things you point to are abilities, but that does not invalidate the things I pointed too. Ice Assassin explicitly says "all abilities." Not "only the abilities on page 7, but not the ones on page 6" - all of them. Thus, point stands.


I don't think that the line "abilities, skills and memories" is talking about either of the rules constructs, ability scores nor special abilities. I think is referring to abilities in the gemerit sense of "things it can do", skills as "how well it does various things" and memories, which isn't a game construct (the closest game cinstruct probably being XP). I made a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?499635-True-capabilities-of-Ice-Assassin&p=21175183#post21175183) about it - let's continue that discussion

[dascarletm]

The problem with this standard is that it's very difficult to build a whole game around (or at least, a commercially viable one.) The amount of effort and preparation time it takes for a DM to challenge even one moderately optimized T1 is a huge barrier to entry as it is, let alone a whole party full of them. Sure there exist experienced optimizers who want to DM and who can clear that hurdle, and several of which (I presume you are one of them) can be found on message boards like these. But we're a subset of a minority of one edition of a niche hobby as it is.

A party full of T3s and T4s however - they can take on a much more powerful foe through teamwork and luck without any one person just solving everything, and the GM can run such monsters pretty much out of the box while still having them be tough, yet fair and beatable. This frees them up from needing to burn all their prep time on encounter design and allows them to instead focus on crafting an engaging story and setting. Again, designing T1 encounters isn't tough for a few of us, but I'd wager that the majority of the hobby would find it onerous or burn out quickly attempting to do so.

I know this was said a long while ago, but I wanted to drudge it back up and say that this is probably the best rationale for why one should aim for T3/T4 as a starting point.

I want to also point out that having the variation of tiers is good for the game, it allows the "subset of a minority of one edition of the niche hobby" to enjoy the same game along with others. It would be interesting if the game did this intentionally and stated it explicitly.

[illyahr]

I know this was said a long while ago, but I wanted to drudge it back up and say that this is probably the best rationale for why one should aim for T3/T4 as a starting point.

I want to also point out that having the variation of tiers is good for the game, it allows the "subset of a minority of one edition of the niche hobby" to enjoy the same game along with others. It would be interesting if the game did this intentionally and stated it explicitly.

You are aware of the Snowbluff Axiom, yes?

I agree with you. I, personally, don't like fully optimized T1 classes. The idea of easily solving any problem at any time sounds a bit boring to me, but I wouldn't say someone who enjoys that shouldn't play one. If you enjoy that kind of planning and power-building, you go ahead and have a blast.

[Cosi]

I think people are conflating combat and non-combat focus. Suppose we accept that you should give all classes some tool to solve all non-combat problems. Why does that mean all classes should have some tool to fill all combat niches?


Why have literally no truly protected niches? If every niche is necessary, and those niches are protected, Problems arise when no one wants to play the niche class in question. It's the rogue/trap finder problem, and it SUCKS.

Not necessarily. Suppose you identify five protected non-combat niches (information, logistics, infiltration, healing, and transportation). Then you give each class four of those. Assuming a four person party with no class repeats, you can write fifteen classes and still guarantee that every group has access to every niche. Layer in multi-classing (of a subclass variety), a choice of one of ten Paragon Paths, and a choice of one of ten Epic Destinies and you get more than 20,000 possible characters without getting into specifics like "should I take cloudkill or cone of cold?" or "should I take Greenbound Summoning or Persist Spell?" Add some subclasses/ACFs if you think there should be more choices at character creation.


Now imagine the alternative where no one wants to play a class, its role is necessary to function well, and that class is the only thing that does what it does.

Even very strong niche protection isn't total. There are still solutions to traps if you don't have a Rogue. You can route past the traps, either by mundane means (find a different path, burrow through walls) or magical ones (teleport past the trap). You can find out how to bypass the trap, either by mundane means (capture and interrogate someone who knows how to bypass the trap) or magical ones (divine the correct procedure for getting past the trap). You can overwhelm the traps ability to attack you by various blunt means (spam minions, physically destroy the trap).

@eggynack: You made a bunch of points, but they don't seem to be anything other than a more specific version of what Ryu is saying. If you think I'm missing something critical, please tell me.


I want to also point out that having the variation of tiers is good for the game, it allows the "subset of a minority of one edition of the niche hobby" to enjoy the same game along with others. It would be interesting if the game did this intentionally and stated it explicitly.

That's not what a tier system does. That's what a level system does. What the tier system does is allow you to build characters that are better than other characters of the same level. Is there a reason for that to be able to happen? Why should I accept "Wizards > Fighters" as a design goal when it is so obviously a failure state?

[ryu]

The making tiers explicit and intended is also an allowable solution. That way rather than designing everything for a specific tier and applying strict criteria to narrow the focus of design into that you get the ability to throw random design at a wall followed by actually good playtesting and tier classification afterwards. That way you've a game that can be played to any level of power desired. The worst flaw with 3.5 wasn't the power disparity. It was that it lied to people saying there was no disparity. This game can satisfy anyone if it gets explicit. People who want a tier one game? That exists. People who want to play commoners for some reason completely alien to my understanding of what fun is? Go nuts. The commoners don't make the system as a whole worse for existing. They're harmless and cater to someone somewhere. The reason I advocated a tier one system is that I literally have no interest in playing at a lower tier. Lots of games have that. Games with cheaper to access materials and better production values. Tier one is why I play tabletop.

For that matter I don't see a meaningful distinction beyond combat niche and non-combat niche. There's things you can do and things you can't do with specific questions like how reading out likely effectiveness in a given situation and availability of resources.

[Bakkan]

That's not what a tier system does. That's what a level system does. What the tier system does is allow you to build characters that are better than other characters of the same level. Is there a reason for that to be able to happen? Why should I accept "Wizards > Fighters" as a design goal when it is so obviously a failure state?

I see a couple difficulties one would have to address is making levels work as you describe. Let's suppose that we had such a system, where a level 1 character has the approximate power and abilities of a (current) level 1 sword-and-board fighter, or whatever you think the weakest character available in your system ought to be. On the other hand, a level 20 character has the capabilities of an optimized wizard 20 in the current system. One issue that becomes apparent quickly is one of advancement. Suppose I like playing Conan (level 2-3 in the new system). I want to advance, because I want to feel that I'm getting stronger, but I'd like to maintain a reasonably low level of power. Under the new system, I can level from 1 to *maybe* 6 before the abilities I'm getting stop feeling like Conan and start feeling like something else.

This problem has a few possible resolutions.

You could simply stop gaining experience after a certain point. This has the advantage of keeping you right where you like, but gives no sense of advancement or growth, which for me is one of the best parts of the game.
You could advance in a different direction. This is essentially what E6 does: after you hit level 6, you never gain additional levels, but you keep gaining feats. Since additional feats have diminishing returns, you still get a sense of advancement which keeping the overall power level low. This is kind of a cop-out, though, as it basically abandons the level system entirely after a point.
You could narrow the gap between the lowest level power and the highest level power (e.g., level 1 has the power of a Rogue, level 20 has the power of a beguiler). This keeps the game genre similar throughout all the levels but dramatically decreases the number of stories that can be told. If we used my example, then such a system could tell neither the story of plane-hopping archmages who reshape reality on a whim nor that of the humble city guard who has to struggle just to take down a couple of muggers.
You could increase the number of levels in a "standard" progression. The optimized wizard is level 100 instead of level 20. This allows for more progression (levels) within a given power level, but has the disadvantage of making creating high-powered characters even more complicated and time-consuming than it is now, and not in an interesting way. This amount of levels also likely wouldn't play nicely with a class-based system.
You could have a system where power level is a function not only of level, but of build, system mastery brought to bear, and choices made either to exploit or not exploit opportunities in the system. This is what D&D 3.5 is.
Some other option I haven't thought of.


Looking at these options, I know that I prefer option 5, though option 4 could be a possibility if character creation were streamlined or if we were in a classless system (so that "purchasing" the ability to cast level 9 spells would, by itself, use up 25 levels or something).

Have I missed a potential solution? How would you all solve this problem?

[Cosi]

For that matter I don't see a meaningful distinction beyond combat niche and non-combat niche. There's things you can do and things you can't do with specific questions like how reading out likely effectiveness in a given situation and availability of resources.

Uh, what? I'm going to be charitable in trying to parse what you're saying (because the non-charitable solution is insane). The difference between combat and non-combat problems is basically that the "Rogue Problem" doesn't exist in combat problems. There are no combats you can't win if you don't have a Glass Cannon. So your entire argument about role protection collapses when you start talking about combat problems (with the exception of puzzle monsters, but those are a whole different can of worms).


One issue that becomes apparent quickly is one of advancement. Suppose I like playing Conan (level 2-3 in the new system). I want to advance, because I want to feel that I'm getting stronger, but I'd like to maintain a reasonably low level of power. Under the new system, I can level from 1 to *maybe* 6 before the abilities I'm getting stop feeling like Conan and start feeling like something else.

Yes, but look at it from the other side. If I want to make a first level character that is a world-shattering archmage, I can't do that either. Because we've both chosen to play a system that caters to concepts other than the one we consider ideal. If you wanted to advance through the whole system while still being Conan, you should have played the Conan RPG. If I wanted to start as a world-shattering archmage, I should have played Exalted. If you don't want to go from zero to hero, why are you playing a system that takes you from zero to hero?


You could simply stop gaining experience after a certain point. This has the advantage of keeping you right where you like, but gives no sense of advancement or growth, which for me is one of the best
parts of the game.

The desire to keep advancing indefinitely is incompatible with the desire to keep playing a character that is "basically Conan". Because there is a most powerful Conan. You can certainly advance as Conan. Conan goes from being a wandering barbarian who mocks civilization to a non-wandering king who rules civilization. You could do that, and at no point could someone reasonably say your character was not Conan. But at some point you reach the maximum amount of power Conan the most powerful Conan has. At that point, something has to give. Either you stop advancing or you stop being Conan.


You could advance in a different direction. This is essentially what E6 does: after you hit level 6, you never gain additional levels, but you keep gaining feats. Since additional feats have diminishing returns, you still get a sense of advancement which keeping the overall power level low. This is kind of a cop-out, though, as it basically abandons the level system entirely after a point.

We already have things that work outside the level system, but count as character advancement. I don't think anyone would say that getting a new magic sword, or conquering a new kingdom isn't advancement, but those are clearly things that happen at times other than level-up. You could easily have optional rules to extend that to other aspects of the game from people who want to play in a given power range but not at the exact power that occurs at any given level.

At some point though, you just have to accept that you should be using a different system. If all you want to do is Sword and Sorcery adventures, play with a Sword and Sorcery system. That will deliver better results than trying to hack a Zero to Hero system into a Sword and Sorcery system.


Have I missed a potential solution? How would you all solve this problem?

The problem you're having isn't a system problem. It's an expectations problem. No system can allow you to indefinitely accumulate abilities while remaining within a fixed power band. It's like asking for a way to add natural numbers to five without ever exceeding eight (I understand that modular arithmetic exists, but that's besides the point). It's not a problem you can solve. It's not a problem I can solve. It's not a problem anyone can solve, because it's not solvable.

[ryu]

The only reason we have any sort of distinction between combat and non-combat niches that matters at all is that classes that were given so few tools they could only solve combat problems exist. In a tier one system, such classes don't exist. Therefore there is no distinction between combat related niches and non-combat niches that isn't so much arbitrary set dressing. It also levels my original point. Given enough levels, resources, system mastery, or some combination of the three any tier one can be built to do anything. They can also do anything they're actually natively good at without meaningfully expending resources. A team of tier ones makes best use of each other's specialties not out of strict necessity, but because it's more efficient to not spend resources on problems that are already solved. It's a much more freeing experience.

[Cosi]

The only reason we have any sort of distinction between combat and non-combat niches that matters at all is that classes that were given so few tools they could only solve combat problems exist.

No, we have that distinction because sometimes we want to talk about how classes behave in combat. Just like we have the distinction between the non-combat niche of transportation and the non-combat niche of information gathering.

You could also make a case that we elevate the combat/non-combat distinction because combat has an outsized role in the types of narratives we expect D&D to supply (how could it not, when fully 1/3 of core is dedicated to things to fight?), but that is (to some degree) vulnerable to your criticism that such focus is a contingent result of the lack of non-combat abilities on some classes.


In a tier one system, such classes don't exist. Therefore there is no distinction between combat related niches and non-combat niches that isn't so much arbitrary set dressing.

Again, not coherent. Do you mean "the differences between combat and non-combat niches are no more meaningful than the differences between the non-combat niche of transportation and the non-combat niche of information gathering"? Because that's coherent, but not terribly relevant to anything. But I'm seriously reaching to assign meanings to what you're saying, because it is quite difficult to imagine two things more different than "kill a troll" and "solve a riddle".

[Bakkan]

Yes, but look at it from the other side. If I want to make a first level character that is a world-shattering archmage, I can't do that either. Because we've both chosen to play a system that caters to concepts other than the one we consider ideal. If you wanted to advance through the whole system while still being Conan, you should have played the Conan RPG. If I wanted to start as a world-shattering archmage, I should have played Exalted. If you don't want to go from zero to hero, why are you playing a system that takes you from zero to hero?

The desire to keep advancing indefinitely is incompatible with the desire to keep playing a character that is "basically Conan". Because there is a most powerful Conan. You can certainly advance as Conan. Conan goes from being a wandering barbarian who mocks civilization to a non-wandering king who rules civilization. You could do that, and at no point could someone reasonably say your character was not Conan. But at some point you reach the maximum amount of power Conan the most powerful Conan has. At that point, something has to give. Either you stop advancing or you stop being Conan.

It is indeed quite possible to continue advancing as Conan. Barbarian X feels like Conan (to me at least) for any positive integer X. As X gets bigger Conan hits things harder and more reliably, and he is able to channel his anger more effectively, but his role is still "get mad and hit things". No matter how large X is, Conan will never have the ability to teleport, speak directly with gods, or conjure a heavenly badger. His abilities are based around what he can do by being the strongest, toughest son-of-a-gun you've even seen. And he continues to advance just fine.

On the other hand, it's quite possible to be the archmage type even at very low levels. Not world-shattering until mid levels, maybe, but a level 1 wizard can still teleport (abrupt jaunt), divine the future (true strike), and conjure allies (summon monster I).



We already have things that work outside the level system, but count as character advancement. I don't think anyone would say that getting a new magic sword, or conquering a new kingdom isn't advancement, but those are clearly things that happen at times other than level-up. You could easily have optional rules to extend that to other aspects of the game from people who want to play in a given power range but not at the exact power that occurs at any given level.

Isn't this essentially what I called option 5, having things other than the level of a character determine their power?



At some point though, you just have to accept that you should be using a different system. If all you want to do is Sword and Sorcery adventures, play with a Sword and Sorcery system. That will deliver better results than trying to hack a Zero to Hero system into a Sword and Sorcery system.

I disagree, since in my experience D&D 3.5 works just fine for both types of games.



The problem you're having isn't a system problem. It's an expectations problem. No system can allow you to indefinitely accumulate abilities while remaining within a fixed power band. It's like asking for a way to add natural numbers to five without ever exceeding eight (I understand that modular arithmetic exists, but that's besides the point). It's not a problem you can solve. It's not a problem I can solve. It's not a problem anyone can solve, because it's not solvable.
The analogy is imperfect because not every class can overcome every other class with enough power. Consider a hypothetical Barbarian ∞ (or Barbarian Aleph0 if you prefer to be precise). He has (countably) infinite attack bonus, hit points, damage bonus, feats, etc. However, assuming that he hasn't used his feats to pick up any magic (he's still supposed to be the ultimate Conan-type), he still loses to a Wizard Y, where Y is some number below 20. The various genres that can be played in the game are different in more ways than just quantitatively. There are qualitative differences that can't, I believe, be accounted for by levels alone.

[ryu]

No, we have that distinction because sometimes we want to talk about how classes behave in combat. Just like we have the distinction between the non-combat niche of transportation and the non-combat niche of information gathering.

You could also make a case that we elevate the combat/non-combat distinction because combat has an outsized role in the types of narratives we expect D&D to supply (how could it not, when fully 1/3 of core is dedicated to things to fight?), but that is (to some degree) vulnerable to your criticism that such focus is a contingent result of the lack of non-combat abilities on some classes.



Again, not coherent. Do you mean "the differences between combat and non-combat niches are no more meaningful than the differences between the non-combat niche of transportation and the non-combat niche of information gathering"? Because that's coherent, but not terribly relevant to anything. But I'm seriously reaching to assign meanings to what you're saying, because it is quite difficult to imagine two things more different than "kill a troll" and "solve a riddle".

No I mean the distinction actually holds no meaning. I can and have solved any number of supposedly non-combat problems with combat abilities, and solved plenty of combats without ever even harming the opponent. You can still totally have ''niches'' where a given method of solving is more efficient than others. They don't exist in any form in tier one though.

[Cosi]

It is indeed quite possible to continue advancing as Conan. Barbarian X feels like Conan (to me at least) for any positive integer X.

So Conan would still be Conan if he was totally immune to weapons?


On the other hand, it's quite possible to be the archmage type even at very low levels. Not world-shattering until mid levels, maybe, but a level 1 wizard can still teleport (abrupt jaunt), divine the future (true strike), and conjure allies (summon monster I).

So it is not in fact possible to be a world-shattering archmage at first level. Cool.


Isn't this essentially what I called option 5, having things other than the level of a character determine their power?

No, because the variance here is advancement rather than optimization. Characters of equal advancement should be of (nominally) equal power.


I disagree, since in my experience D&D 3.5 works just fine for both types of games.

Sure. E6 works fine for Sword and Sorcery, and uncapped 3e works fine for Zero to Hero. Isn't that basically my point? Also, "works fine" is not a rebuttal to "a specialized system works better".


There are qualitative differences that can't, I believe, be accounted for by levels alone.

Yes, if you don't give the Barbarian level appropriate abilities he won't be level appropriate. But there is not any reason to do that.


No I mean the distinction actually holds no meaning. I can and have solved any number of supposedly non-combat problems with combat abilities, and solved plenty of combats without ever even harming the opponent.

Yes, you can use abilities creatively. That doesn't make the combat minigame not a thing. Honestly, the longer I talk to you about this the less convinced I am that you have any use for the D&D engine. Why are you not playing Amber Diceless or something?

[ryu]

So Conan would still be Conan if he was totally immune to weapons?



So it is not in fact possible to be a world-shattering archmage at first level. Cool.



No, because the variance here is advancement rather than optimization. Characters of equal advancement should be of (nominally) equal power.



Sure. E6 works fine for Sword and Sorcery, and uncapped 3e works fine for Zero to Hero. Isn't that basically my point? Also, "works fine" is not a rebuttal to "a specialized system works better".



Yes, if you don't give the Barbarian level appropriate abilities he won't be level appropriate. But there is not any reason to do that.



Yes, you can use abilities creatively. That doesn't make the combat minigame not a thing. Honestly, the longer I talk to you about this the less convinced I am that you have any use for the D&D engine. Why are you not playing Amber Diceless or something?

Because I learned tier 1 D&D as the first tier 1 system and have no interest whatsoever in learning another tier 1 system even if such exists? Do you have any concept of just how much time such learning usually takes? How many years it can take to play a wizard the way I play wizards?

[Cosi]

Because I learned tier 1 D&D as the first tier 1 system and have no interest whatsoever in learning another tier 1 system even if such exists? Do you have any concept of just how much time such learning usually takes? How many years it can take to play a wizard the way I play wizards?

Why do you want such a rules-heavy system to do what amounts to MTP? I genuinely don't understand the point of using a rules-heavy system for something that close to free-form. Consider the 10^90 ice assassins you've proposed in the ice assassin thread. That's not getting resolved using the rules engine to adjudicate every action (because there are ten to the ninetieth of them), so it's not at all clear what having a robust rules engine does for gameplay at that point.

[ryu]

Why do you want such a rules-heavy system to do what amounts to MTP? I genuinely don't understand the point of using a rules-heavy system for something that close to free-form. Consider the 10^90 ice assassins you've proposed in the ice assassin thread. That's not getting resolved using the rules engine to adjudicate every action (because there are ten to the ninetieth of them), so it's not at all clear what having a robust rules engine does for gameplay at that point.

It's actually very simple to resolve in the D&D system. Does anyone with a desire to stop this have any method whatsoever of interfering with actions on that scale and across multiversal space? Assuming they do do they also have a way of even finding a reasonable percentage of them? If the answer to either of the questions is no the plan enacts. High tier 1 D&D with experienced players is a very different game than most any other form of the game. Even tier 1 D&D played by inexperienced people who still intend to become as powerful as they can won't look the same. That game is also pretty severely different from tier 2 D&D. They all have their own patterns, strategies, and rules. In mechanics they only even look similar in a superficial sense.

[illyahr]

So back on topic: I think some of the skill checks DC's should be dropped a bit or the skills themselves to have more utility (except Diplomacy). If I have a +30 Jump modifier, I expect to be leaping small buildings. If I have a +30 Climb check, I want to be going up walls Spider-Man style.

[Cosi]

So back on topic: I think some of the skill checks DC's should be dropped a bit or the skills themselves to have more utility (except Diplomacy). If I have a +30 Jump modifier, I expect to be leaping small buildings. If I have a +30 Climb check, I want to be going up walls Spider-Man style.

If you are going to do that, you need to substantially revamp how skills work. Otherwise you run into one of the many problems with the Truenamer. 3e skill checks change really slowly with respect to level, but really quickly with respect to optimization. The difference between someone who pumps up their checks with bonus items and Item Familar and someone who doesn't can be more than the entire RNG, while each level is a 5% shift.

The simple solution is to gate things not behind results but behind ranks. You get spider climb with 6 ranks in Climb, not with a +20 bonus.

[illyahr]

If you are going to do that, you need to substantially revamp how skills work. Otherwise you run into one of the many problems with the Truenamer. 3e skill checks change really slowly with respect to level, but really quickly with respect to optimization. The difference between someone who pumps up their checks with bonus items and Item Familar and someone who doesn't can be more than the entire RNG, while each level is a 5% shift.

The simple solution is to gate things not behind results but behind ranks. You get spider climb with 6 ranks in Climb, not with a +20 bonus.

That's exactly what I mean, though. If I put forth the effort to get a +40 modifier in one of my skills, I expect to be able to do something awesome with it. Epic skill checks should start coming online way before they actually do. You can balance on a cloud with a Balance check DC 120. It should be half that, considering what any other character of 20th level can do at that level.

[Bakkan]

So Conan would still be Conan if he was totally immune to weapons?

He would still be Conan-type. He'd be doing the same thing Conan does, only better. He'd still be playing the genre of game where physical combat is capable of solving problems.



So it is not in fact possible to be a world-shattering archmage at first level. Cool.

On the contrary, it is possible, though I realize that I didn't communicate that as I should have. My point was more that it is possible to play in the same genre of game as the archmage, with powers that simply bypass obstacles and allow lateral solutions to problems.



No, because the variance here is advancement rather than optimization. Characters of equal advancement should be of (nominally) equal power.

Do you consider system mastery not to be advancement?



Sure. E6 works fine for Sword and Sorcery, and uncapped 3e works fine for Zero to Hero. Isn't that basically my point? Also, "works fine" is not a rebuttal to "a specialized system works better".

I intended to disagree with the first part of the line I quoted, that I "just have to accept that you should be using a different system". This system works, has the advantage of familiarity, and has a huge source material. Incidentally, I think Sword and Sorcery can be realised in uncapped 3e as well, so long as all the players and the DM are on the same page about what genre of game they would like to play.



Yes, if you don't give the Barbarian level appropriate abilities he won't be level appropriate. But there is not any reason to do that.

The problem there is that if someone decides "everyone should have X, Y, and Z by level A" and you want to play a genre in which ability Y is inappropriate, then you either can't use the system or can't advance to level A.


I think there's something about how I and some others in this thread play that may not have been addressed yet. One reason (perhaps the primary reason) that I enjoy playing in the 3.5 system is because I like finding new tricks and combos. If I could achieve phenomenal cosmic power simply by advancing to level P, that would be boring. At least half of my enjoyment of this game comes long before my character ever reaches the table, as I pore through various splatbooks trying to find the best way to realise my character concept. Sometimes this means a highly optimised wizard, sometimes this means a martial character without per-day limits that can lock down as many creatures as possible in combat, sometimes this means something else.

For this reason, rules-light or freeform games are either frustrating (if you've got a GM that won't tell you why what you're suggesting won't work and what your alternatives are) or unfulfilling (if you've got a GM who says yes to everything without you putting in the work to convince him). A rules-heavy system lets me put in effort and get out a character that elegantly and effectively does what I want it to do. A rules-heavy system challenges me to understand it deeply and then rewards me when I do.

[Extra Anchovies]

He would still be Conan-type. He'd be doing the same thing Conan does, only better. He'd still be playing the genre of game where physical combat is capable of solving problems.

Now I want a Pokémon-esque game in which "Conan" is a type.


The problem there is that if someone decides "everyone should have X, Y, and Z by level A" and you want to play a genre in which ability Y is inappropriate, then you either can't use the system or can't advance to level A.

Indeed. The best solution, I think, is to have a system that assumes "everyone should have some of A through H at level X", and provide each character type access to some but not all of A through I by level X. Thieves get two of ABCD, Fighters get two of CDEF, Clerics get two of EFGH, and Magic-Users get two of GHAB. This allows for varied parties; you could have Thief AD, Fighter CE, Cleric FG, and Magic-User HB, with all eight assumed abilities present without overlap. Or you could have a party in which there is some overlap and one or more holes, with the GM recognizing that and replacing all of the uncovered threats with more of the multiple-coverage threats. The difficulty lies in figuring out which abilities should be restricted to which character types, and implementing the restrictions.

[dascarletm]

I'm late to the party and this has been partially addressed but I'll say it anyway.


That's not what a tier system does. That's what a level system does.
A level system is a mechanic to give the feeling of advancement for a character. You can do this without levels, and some RPGs give a feeling of advancement without a character level structure. Variation in character power can be derived from levels or it can not be. What DnD tries to do is say you start characters at X. That is level one. You advance your character to Y, when you hit level 20.

What the tier system does is allow you to build characters that are better than other characters of the same level. Is there a reason for that to be able to happen?
Yes. The reason would be setting derived.

Why should I accept "Wizards > Fighters" as a design goal when it is so obviously a failure state?

I don't think you should accept the current wizard > fighter as a design goal. I was theorizing (since this thread is about "should") that a design goal of four classes: Fighter guy 1 and wizard guy 1 alongside but separate to fighter guy 2 and wizard guy 2. 1 and 1 would be on par with one another, as would 2 and 2. 1 and 2 would have different levels of abilities that they could accomplish. The scope of that power would be designed for a different type of game. Each would have the benefit of advancing over 20 levels.

If you want me to explain this to you better PM me and we can chat. I feel that a vocal conversation would convey my point better.:smallbiggrin:

Let me ask you, what would be wrong with a game system like that? What is beneficial to setting the bar to 1 power progression that all characters follow?

[Beheld]

Let me ask you, what would be wrong with a game system like that? What is beneficial to setting the bar to 1 power progression that all characters follow?

How about: You can balance anything at all at any point? CR is literally meaningless if a level 5 Wizard is of different power than a level 5 anything else.

I mean, the only way you could get around that is if you specifically defined "Wizard always counts as 3 levels higher for the purpose of CR" which... so what? If you define Wizard as three levels higher, then a Wizard 5 isn't really level 5, it's really level 8.

[dascarletm]

How about: You can balance anything at all at any point? CR is literally meaningless if a level 5 Wizard is of different power than a level 5 anything else.

I mean, the only way you could get around that is if you specifically defined "Wizard always counts as 3 levels higher for the purpose of CR" which... so what? If you define Wizard as three levels higher, then a Wizard 5 isn't really level 5, it's really level 8.
:smallconfused:
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I'm talking about a hypothetical system in which you have multiple classes in different "tiers." Each class in a particular tier (don't misunderstand these for the commonly used tier system) would be balanced with one another. In such a system CR would have to be designed with that in mind.

Were you perhaps trying to quote someone else?

[Beheld]

:smallconfused:
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I'm talking about a hypothetical system in which you have multiple classes in different "tiers." Each class in a particular tier (don't misunderstand these for the commonly used tier system) would be balanced with one another. In such a system CR would have to be designed with that in mind.

Were you perhaps trying to quote someone else?

No, I was definitely quoting you, because that is exactly what I'm talking about.

If all classes are the same tier, then a Hill giant is an appropriate challenge for a part of four level 7 PCs, regardless of what those PCs are.

If you make up a hypothetical new system were you have different tracks, and people in some classes (Wizard) are just flat out better than people in some other classes (Bard) then the inevitable result is either:

1) A Hill Giant is not a consistent threat that can be measured at all, so the entire CR system is destroyed and all opposition is balanced on the principle of "Good ****ing Luck, you are going to present weak challenges that bore your PCs then TPK them randomly over and over." or
2) A Hill Giant is a consistent threat, and you have some rule somewhere that says "Treat Wizards like they are three levels higher than Bards for the purpose of monsters you use and rewards for that monster." In which case, you don't actually have different Tiers, you just have agreed that a Wizard 10 is really a level 13 character.

[dascarletm]

No, I was definitely quoting you, because that is exactly what I'm talking about.

If all classes are the same tier, then a Hill giant is an appropriate challenge for a part of four level 7 PCs, regardless of what those PCs are.

If you make up a hypothetical new system were you have different tracks, and people in some classes (Wizard) are just flat out better than people in some other classes (Bard) then the inevitable result is either:

1) A Hill Giant is not a consistent threat that can be measured at all, so the entire CR system is destroyed and all opposition is balanced on the principle of "Good ****ing Luck, you are going to present weak challenges that bore your PCs then TPK them randomly over and over." or
2) A Hill Giant is a consistent threat, and you have some rule somewhere that says "Treat Wizards like they are three levels higher than Bards for the purpose of monsters you use and rewards for that monster." In which case, you don't actually have different Tiers, you just have agreed that a Wizard 10 is really a level 13 character.
:smallsigh:
Why would you assume the CR system would stay the same in such a hypothetical change?

here is another option:

3) A Hill Giant has 3 archetypes. Archetype A is apropriate for T1 classes, Archetype B is for T2 classes, and Archetype C is for T3 classes.

I didn't expect this to be such a radical idea. If you want to discuss the intricacies of such a theory PM me and we can talk.

EDIT: Not grammaring well while in my lab.

[ryu]

:smallsigh:
Why would you assume the CR system would stay the same in such a hypothetical change?

here is another option:

3) A Hill Giant has 3 archetypes. Archetype A is apropriate for T1 classes, Archetype B is for T2 classes, and Archetype C is for T3 classes.

I didn't expect this to be such a radical idea. If you want to discuss the theory intricacies of such a theory PM me and we can talk.

Or if you've no need to conserve names some groups just don't certain types of monster that are above or below them in huge obvious ways. That way you can just design monsters by throwing whatever abilities sound interesting on a cool looking chassis and give a ranking for CR and tier after.

[dascarletm]

Or if you've no need to conserve names some groups just don't certain types of monster that are above or below them in huge obvious ways. That way you can just design monsters by throwing whatever abilities sound interesting on a cool looking chassis and give a ranking for CR and tier after.

True option 4 would be monsters come in these tiers as well.

the biggest negative to such a system is the size it would need to be.

[Cosi]

That's exactly what I mean, though. If I put forth the effort to get a +40 modifier in one of my skills, I expect to be able to do something awesome with it.

But what about the guy who just started playing and wants to do whatever awesome thing we've gated behind a +40 bonus? If you can have it at some level, it's clearly not broken to have then, but if it requires intense optimization he won't have it.

Anything that requires system mastery to do is something new players can't do, and is a barrier to entry for any player who wants to play a character with that concept.


He would still be Conan-type. He'd be doing the same thing Conan does, only better. He'd still be playing the genre of game where physical combat is capable of solving problems.

But he's immune to weapons. The challenges that threaten Conan, be they angry guards, vicious wolves, or frost giants no longer threaten him. How is that not a failure state for "is Conan"?


On the contrary, it is possible, though I realize that I didn't communicate that as I should have. My point was more that it is possible to play in the same genre of game as the archmage, with powers that simply bypass obstacles and allow lateral solutions to problems.

Everyone has powers that do that all the time. A lateral solution to a problem is just one that wasn't considered in the formulation of the problem space (or one that was explicitly permitted, but is novel with respect to expected solutions). Conan has novel solutions, he just has less of them. For example, a Conan equipped with an indestructible sword could cut his way through the walls of a maze rather than solve it.


Do you consider system mastery not to be advancement?

I guess I'm using "advancement" as a term of art that means roughly "possession of greater resources within the system". To apply the term to 3e, leveling up would be advancement, as would getting a pile of treasure. Something like E6's bonus feats would also be advancement. Realizing you can use shapechange to voltron together "immunity to bludgeoning weapons" and "immunity to non-bludgeoning weapons" would not be advancement because you haven't actually gained any resources. You're just using the ones you have more efficiently.


Incidentally, I think Sword and Sorcery can be realised in uncapped 3e as well, so long as all the players and the DM are on the same page about what genre of game they would like to play.

Consider for a moment a game where you declare actions, and then those actions happen. That game can trivially reproduce any game of D&D. After all, any possible D&D game is a series of actions. But most people would not say that this game realizes the same narratives D&D does. Why? Because to realize the narratives available in D&D, the players have to restrain themselves. They can't simply declare every attack to be a success, even though the system allows them to do so.

I think the notion of realizing Sword and Sorcery in uncapped 3e runs into essentially the same problem, to an admittedly smaller degree. If you have to explicitly and intentionally avoid using parts of a system to tell the story you want, the system doesn't really tell the story you want. After all, you could just not have rules and only declare those actions that are part of the story you want.


The problem there is that if someone decides "everyone should have X, Y, and Z by level A" and you want to play a genre in which ability Y is inappropriate, then you either can't use the system or can't advance to level A.

But you get an analogous problem with a tier based solution too! If everyone in Tier One should have abilities X, Y, and Z, and you want to play a genre in which ability Y is inappropriate, then you either can't use the system or can't play a character from Tier One. Why is the level solution worse than the tier solution? Remember, the level system comes with the benefit of having a system with twice as much stuff and the tier system comes with the benefit of getting to write bigger numbers on your character sheet.


One reason (perhaps the primary reason) that I enjoy playing in the 3.5 system is because I like finding new tricks and combos. If I could achieve phenomenal cosmic power simply by advancing to level P, that would be boring. At least half of my enjoyment of this game comes long before my character ever reaches the table, as I pore through various splatbooks trying to find the best way to realise my character concept.

But why should that give you real ultimate power? Surely there are people who want real ultimate power, but don't enjoy the minutiae of character construction that are required to attain it in 3e. Doesn't a solution with character classes of approximately equal power (say a target variance no greater than the difference between a Beguiler and a mid-PO Wizard) but differing levels of complexity allow you to have your minutiae-based fun and them to have their power-based fun?


Indeed. The best solution, I think, is to have a system that assumes "everyone should have some of A through H at level X", and provide each character type access to some but not all of A through I by level X. Thieves get two of ABCD, Fighters get two of CDEF, Clerics get two of EFGH, and Magic-Users get two of GHAB.

That's a good solution, but I don't think it's really responsive to what Bakkan is saying. He's talking about abilities that aren't genre appropriate, not ones that aren't appropriate to his character concept. If teleport doesn't let you have the game you want to have, it doesn't really matter if the Wizard has it or the Cleric has it. Either way, your game doesn't work.


Yes. The reason would be setting derived.

Could you maybe give an example of such a reason?


I don't think you should accept the current wizard > fighter as a design goal. I was theorizing (since this thread is about "should") that a design goal of four classes: Fighter guy 1 and wizard guy 1 alongside but separate to fighter guy 2 and wizard guy 2. 1 and 1 would be on par with one another, as would 2 and 2. 1 and 2 would have different levels of abilities that they could accomplish. The scope of that power would be designed for a different type of game. Each would have the benefit of advancing over 20 levels.

Why would I want to design two separate Wizards and two separate Fighters when I could just design one Wizard and one Fighter and have a level offset for the power gap you're talking about? And then I can have a Sorcerer and a Barbarian, and be the same length as your system with twice as many character classes.


True option 4 would be monsters come in these tiers as well.

the biggest negative to such a system is the size it would need to be.

Yeah, and you have to do twice as much work to figure out how good anything is. If power is a function of level, you look at level and you can approximate power. If it's a function of level and tier, you look at level and tier and you approximate power. Oh and the system becomes pointless if two tiers ever represent the same power (even at different levels), because you could just stitch them together. And you have yet to explain what we're supposed to get out of this.

[Beheld]

:smallsigh:
Why would you assume the CR system would stay the same in such a hypothetical change?

here is another option:

3) A Hill Giant has 3 archetypes. Archetype A is apropriate for T1 classes, Archetype B is for T2 classes, and Archetype C is for T3 classes.

I didn't expect this to be such a radical idea. If you want to discuss the intricacies of such a theory PM me and we can talk.

EDIT: Not grammaring well while in my lab.

So you know that 3.5 already has exactly what you are describing right?

The have an Ogre, a Hill Giant, and a Cloud Giant as the three archetypes of monster, and they have Wizard 3, Wizard 7, and Wizard 12 as the three different classes.

That's the point, you are advocating designing literally three different games that never interact with each other in any way shape or form, and saying that this is somehow better than designing one game with the ability to choose what level you play in that game, and thus accomplish literally the same things.

Except that in the one game system, Wizard 7 and Wizard 12 are allowed to interact with Ogres ever at all in any way, because they are part of the same game, where as in your version, Ogres literally don't exist for 2/3rds of the games.

[dascarletm]

Could you maybe give an example of such a reason?

If you can't conceive on one yourself sure.
Game A wants to play in a setting like Avatar the Last Airbender
Game B wants to play in a setting like Dragonball Z.

Both have different power levels at start and end.


Why would I want to design two separate Wizards and two separate Fighters when I could just design one Wizard and one Fighter and have a level offset for the power gap you're talking about? And then I can have a Sorcerer and a Barbarian, and be the same length as your system with twice as many character classes.

Are you designing anything? If so my thoughts on game design would be different.


Yeah, and you have to do twice as much work to figure out how good anything is. If power is a function of level, you look at level and you can approximate power. If it's a function of level and tier, you look at level and tier and you approximate power. Oh and the system becomes pointless if two tiers ever represent the same power (even at different levels), because you could just stitch them together. And you have yet to explain what we're supposed to get out of this.

This depends on what your design goals are for a system really. My goal is a game system that accommodates for different setting power ranges. If that isn't your goal, then don't design for it.


So you know that 3.5 already has exactly what you are describing right?

The have an Ogre, a Hill Giant, and a Cloud Giant as the three archetypes of monster, and they have Wizard 3, Wizard 7, and Wizard 12 as the three different classes.

That's the point, you are advocating designing literally three different games that never interact with each other in any way shape or form, and saying that this is somehow better than designing one game with the ability to choose what level you play in that game, and thus accomplish literally the same things.

Except that in the one game system, Wizard 7 and Wizard 12 are allowed to interact with Ogres ever at all in any way, because they are part of the same game, where as in your version, Ogres literally don't exist for 2/3rds of the games.
Oh silly me, I never thought of that.

[Cosi]

If you can't conceive on one yourself sure.
Game A wants to play in a setting like Avatar the Last Airbender
Game B wants to play in a setting like Dragonball Z.

Both have different power levels at start and end.

So you have a setting that has four levels of power (plus a bunch of intermediate ones). Start of Avatar (call that A), end of Avatar (B), start of Dragonball (C), and end of Dragonball (D). Suppose those power levels can be related as A < B < C < D.

With me so far?

Now, my reading of your idea is that it works something like this:

Some classes are Avatar classes, which go from A at 1st level to B at 20th. Some classes are Dragonball classes, which go from C at 1st level to D at 20th level.

Why is that better than having one set of classes that go from A at 1st to B at 5th to C at 10th to D at 15th?


Are you designing anything? If so my thoughts on game design would be different.

What? What possible debate could "What Abilities Should Players Have?" be meaningful in (particularly as formulated in the OP) other than one about game design?


This depends on what your design goals are for a system really. My goal is a game system that accommodates for different setting power ranges. If that isn't your goal, then don't design for it.

But nothing about the tiered system is required to achieve that! The tiered system does two things in comparison to the leveled system. It gives more granularity within any given power range and it allows you to write 20 on your character sheet at some point during advancement in each power range. Why are those things more important than having more content, having a more accurate threat assessment rubric, and allowing people to put any four classes in a party?

[dascarletm]

So you have a setting that has four levels of power (plus a bunch of intermediate ones). Start of Avatar (call that A), end of Avatar (B), start of Dragonball (C), and end of Dragonball (D). Suppose those power levels can be related as A < B < C < D.

With me so far?

Now, my reading of your idea is that it works something like this:

Some classes are Avatar classes, which go from A at 1st level to B at 20th. Some classes are Dragonball classes, which go from C at 1st level to D at 20th level.

Why is that better than having one set of classes that go from A at 1st to B at 5th to C at 10th to D at 15th?



What? What possible debate could "What Abilities Should Players Have?" be meaningful in (particularly as formulated in the OP) other than one about game design?



But nothing about the tiered system is required to achieve that! The tiered system does two things in comparison to the leveled system. It gives more granularity within any given power range and it allows you to write 20 on your character sheet at some point during advancement in each power range. Why are those things more important than having more content, having a more accurate threat assessment rubric, and allowing people to put any four classes in a party?

Can't break down the quote on my phone easily, so bear with me.

To the first question, it would allow people to play an avatar game with characters that have more than 5 levels of progression. If I want to play in avatar I would find that lacking. I understand your point and there is t anything wrong with saying, if you want to play in this power level, stop progressing at level X.

To your second, I was asking if you are doing this actually or if this is more of a thought exercise. Both are posibilities of this post, I didn't see you saying either way in your op.

To your third, yes those are the trade offs. You lose that versatility for having more depth over a power range. If you are actually designing a game you would decide which is more important to you.

[illyahr]

But what about the guy who just started playing and wants to do whatever awesome thing we've gated behind a +40 bonus? If you can have it at some level, it's clearly not broken to have then, but if it requires intense optimization he won't have it.

Anything that requires system mastery to do is something new players can't do, and is a barrier to entry for any player who wants to play a character with that concept.

Why list Tiers if only those with a good level of system mastery can make the best use of them?

A better question is: Why list DC 120 as the level to balance on clouds when it is nearly impossible for anyone to get a check up that high? The only ones that can get a check up that high are Tier 1 casters and they hardly need to balance on clouds when they can fly.

[Quertus]

I seem to have lost my quotes, but it might be better this way.

Let's take a fairly low-level threat: a skeleton.

If I have the power, "turn undead", I win.

But... that threat can be dealt with in so many, many different ways. Off the top of my head,

If I have "Rebuke Undead", I win more. :smallcool:
I can smash it with a Blunt Weapon.
I can smash it with massive damage (from power attack, from extreme strength, from crazy weapons).
I can defeat it through shear number of attacks (difficult at low level, granted).
I can defeat it through superior range.
I can defeat it by being immune to its attacks (DR).
I can defeat it by being faster (race, run feat, having a mount), and running away.
I can defeat it by flying (race, mount).
I can defeat it by being stealthy, and bypassing it without it ever seeing me.

This is part of why the 2e Swiss Army Fighter was actually useful - because he had lots of tools, and got to choose which to apply to a given situation.

And before you say that other characters could have the same tools, a) when those tools were weapons, the fighter had more proficiencies; b) whatever the tool, the fighter generally had more strength, and therefore could carry more tools.

3e killed that in favor of Magic Item Shops, expected Wealth By Level, and strongly favoring one-trick pony optimization.

So, to try to turn this conversation on its head - and maybe shed some light on some of the current threads - if I had to choose, I think I would prefer a system that gave all characters lots of different options.

Further, I think I would prefer a system where, to fill out gaps in the party lineup, all characters could conceivably get access to most if not all abilities (see my "fighter resurrecting fallen allies via CPR" concept).

Yes, as some have said, "cross-class" abilities should come online later, or be costlier to acquire, or function at a lower level, or be costly to use, or be unreliable, or whatever... but those options should exist.

Making War Mage better at blasting is good. Making Planar Shepherd the only class with access to Plane Shift... probably not so good.