Why the hate for "win buttons"? [Archive] - Page 5

Cosi

2017-09-18, 11:28 PM

You keep referring to anyone who doesn't have "casting spells" in their resume as mundane as an attempt to enforce this ideology. "Mundane" is for commoners and Experts. If you're a PC, you are by very definition are not mundane.

You and I are not the only people in this thread. There are people who specifically want "mundane" -- in the sense of "doing things action heroes do and not defying the laws of physics" -- to be a viable character choice at all levels. That's why I use "martial" sometimes. "Mundane" means "constrained by real-world physics". "Martial" means "some kind of sword type character".

I actually agree with this one, though I can't help but note that this is yet another "When I design D&D, it'll be different" tirade that will never be followed up on.

Understanding why things fail helps avoid bad content. If you don't know what you want, how can you know if something is what you want? Also, the point applies to things aren't aren't D&D design (such as, for example, most design). If you're writing an adventure, it's a lot easier to go to 15th level if you design the arc with that in mind than if you write an arc that goes to 10th and then realize that your group wants to continue when you get there.

We don't want Fighters to be the balance point.

If you are allowed to use "Wizard" as shorthand for "all the full casters I don't like", I think I can reasonably be allowed to use "Fighter" as shorthand for "a balance point under full casters".

We want the type of character that is good at one thing and decent at a lot of others, of or the guy who can do everything, but not as well as the specialists.

You mean like how a Wizard is good at battlefield control and less good at Gishing or how a Beguiler is better at casting illusion spells than a Wizard? None of the things you are identifying are at all impossible for Wizards.

That's why your full-casters who have to hold back from doing everything annoy the crap out of us because they trivialize the struggle, ad the struggle is where the fun is.

Again, a literal dozen adventures that challenge full casters have been proposed in this thread. If you can't address why those don't work, how can you keep making this claim?

But where will you find this material now that 3.5 has finished production? Especially since you "ignore content by Paizo and a good chunk of WotC"?

Do you not ignore content that doesn't do what you want? If Paizo released a book tomorrow that was just all the most broken abilities in 3e, but made officially part of PF, would you feel compelled to use that book? I'm not ignoring it because I don't want new content, I'm ignoring it because that new content doesn't do what I want.

Because then it gives room for specialization and thematic differences. To answer your question with a question, why is magic divided into divine and arcane, and why bother dividing it further into the eight schools?

I think the arcane/divine distinction is dumb, especially when you consider the fact that armored arcane casters exist. As far as I can tell, it's not any more meaningful than simply putting some spells on the Cleric list and others on the Wizard list. The schools are good, but you don't really think sword vs axe is as meaningful as death magic vs mind magic, do you?

A) Perhaps, but seeing as it goes out of its way to try and stop chain-gating and the like, at least it's trying,

I don't see how it does that unless there's some modification to the rules for SLA costs (and unless that is a SoP change, it's still not SoP fixing things). You only ever pay the costs for the first planar binding.

b)it's meant to take all the possible game-and-setting breaker powers separate. YMMV on its usefulness, but again, at least it's trying.

Sure, but you can't seriously claim that doing so is fundamental to Spheres of Power, can you? If DSP could identify all the broken powers and put them on a list, couldn't they have compiled that list for Vancian Magic? And before you talk about new spells, explain why writing new Spheres of Power talents doesn't encounter the same issues. If it does, SoP doesn't get you anywhere. If it doesn't, can whatever lesson prevents that be applied to new Vancian Spells?

c) Is there a mechanical explanation as to what "a reasonable request" is?

The standard argument is that the Efreet can only use its wishes at the behest of a mortal, so you effectively have the other two wishes as leverage. Even using one to continue the chain, that's still a one-to-one trade which seems fair. Maybe it's pissed at you for screwing it over, but you can always let it pick who you screw over next. That said, this line of argument seems largely irrelevant to the question of SoP vs Vancian, because the text of the spell is the same in either system.

No one has denied that. The problem here is that you think that's a good thing.

I don't think the imbalance is a good thing. I think the abilities you have identified as leading to the imbalance (prepared spellcasting, utility magic) are good things, and the imbalance should be addressed in a way that preserves those things to the greatest degree possible. I'm no more in favor of the Wizard being better than the Fighter than you are.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-18, 11:42 PM

If you are allowed to use "Wizard" as shorthand for "all the full casters I don't like", I think I can reasonably be allowed to use "Fighter" as shorthand for "a balance point under full casters".

Well if thats the way your seeing it, then your just being spiteful. How am I ever supposed to think you can be reasonable on this if your going say something like this? Your not having a conversation, your just trying to shut us down, without ever understanding what we want. Even if 3.5 never gets fixed and the wizard stays like this forever, surely you understand the value of understanding our viewpoint and figuring out a way to make a fix for it?

Drakevarg

2017-09-19, 01:08 AM

No one has denied that. The problem here is that you think that's a good thing.

To be fair, that part was actually my line (in response to below), he just put the quote boxes around the wrong spot.

I know that you don't think saying "but other T1s" matters, but I think it does. There are abilities you can have and matter in a party with a Wizard.

digiman619

2017-09-19, 01:43 AM

You and I are not the only people in this thread. There are people who specifically want "mundane" -- in the sense of "doing things action heroes do and not defying the laws of physics" -- to be a viable character choice at all levels. That's why I use "martial" sometimes. "Mundane" means "constrained by real-world physics". "Martial" means "some kind of sword type character".
Okay, I will have to re-read this thread, because I can't recall anyone saying that they want "I move and attack/I full attack/I charge" as the only options for their fighter.

Understanding why things fail helps avoid bad content. If you don't know what you want, how can you know if something is what you want? Also, the point applies to things aren't aren't D&D design (such as, for example, most design). If you're writing an adventure, it's a lot easier to go to 15th level if you design the arc with that in mind than if you write an arc that goes to 10th and then realize that your group wants to continue when you get there.
As I said, I agree with the philosophy. I just don't think that gives you reason to complain that new stuff doesn't do that when the old stuff did it even worse.

If you are allowed to use "Wizard" as shorthand for "all the full casters I don't like", I think I can reasonably be allowed to use "Fighter" as shorthand for "a balance point under full casters".
First things first, we use wizard because it's shorter than "prepared casters with level 9 spells" (the Healer notwithstanding). It's also used because the wizard is the poster boy for the T1 problem, seeing as it gets the deepest list with the most variety of spells. So using wizard as shorthand for T1s is relatively reasonable.

Using Fighter as "balance point below wizard", on the other hand, isn't because "lower that the Wizard" is most of the classes. I mean, if we're being petty about it, than "Fighter" apparently means "anywhere from Psion to Complete Warrior Samurai" That is inherantly unhelpful about figuring out where the balance should be and is incredibly dismissive and disengenuous.

You mean like how a Wizard is good at battlefield control and less good at Gishing or how a Beguiler is better at casting illusion spells than a Wizard? None of the things you are identifying are at all impossible for Wizards.
If "battlefield control" was the Wizard's schtick, then yes. The problem is that they also can be buffer/debuffers, dominators, mobility experts, sages, and can the play less specific curiosity and game changer roles amazingly well and be pretty good melee damagers, ranged damgers, party faces, scouts, theives, and summoners too. A rather thorough analysis of this concept can be seen in Person_Man's niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System).
So no, that doesn't count.

Again, a literal dozen adventures that challenge full casters have been proposed in this thread. If you can't address why those don't work, how can you keep making this claim?
And not one that didn't put the spellcaster square in the spotlight. Give me some high level adventures that are a challenge to a Tier 3 character that aren't instantly invalidated by a Tier 1 caster and then we'll talk.

Do you not ignore content that doesn't do what you want? If Paizo released a book tomorrow that was just all the most broken abilities in 3e, but made officially part of PF, would you feel compelled to use that book? I'm not ignoring it because I don't want new content, I'm ignoring it because that new content doesn't do what I want.
With respect, that's hard to tell since I don't see you expressing positive feedback for anything that came out after 3.X ended. And before you tell me about the Tomes, I remind you that you didn't break that out until after 5 pages of arguments, so it's not much of a glowing endorsement and rather comes off as "See, I like some random guy online i've never met's homebrew, so that means I'm reasonable!".

I think the arcane/divine distinction is dumb, especially when you consider the fact that armored arcane casters exist. As far as I can tell, it's not any more meaningful than simply putting some spells on the Cleric list and others on the Wizard list. The schools are good, but you don't really think sword vs axe is as meaningful as death magic vs mind magic, do you?
Ths is why I claim you don't argue with good faith; you know for a fact that both axes and swords are one-handed martial weapons. That's like me saying there's no difference between illusion and evocation because shadow evocation exists. I'm talking about kuhkris vs spears, or flails vs shuriken.

~about the planar binding spell/summoning advanced talent~"
For what it's worth, I'm not going to continue this argument. You're right in that the various ways they could be exploited aren't nessicarily fixed in SoP. However, I personally feel that the vast amjority of effects like that are legacy problems it inherited from Vancian magic. Seeing as SoP billed itself as an alternate magic system, it had to do all the basic stuff Vancian did, and if they didn't have some sort of planr binding-type effect, they would be reneging on thier promise.

I don't think the imbalance is a good thing. I think the abilities you have identified as leading to the imbalance (prepared spellcasting, utility magic) are good things, and the imbalance should be addressed in a way that preserves those things to the greatest degree possible. I'm no more in favor of the Wizard being better than the Fighter than you are.
Okay, deep question: why do you hold divine full-casters (who, outside of the favored soul, all prepare their spells as well) in higher regard than the fixed-list casters? Each of them can use any spell on their list on any given day. What about prepared casting makes you feel that it's what we should balance the game around?

Kallimakus

2017-09-19, 02:49 AM

Wrong framing. Not same effort, same benefit. It's an abstraction designed to promote game balance. It might take as much training to master slam poetry and swordplay, but if the game is primarily about combat those things are not equal (conversely, if the game is about being a tortured artist, things aren't equal in the exact opposite direction).

Not quite and exactly. The point I was making is that classes that don't advance skills relevant to the game being played should not be PC classes. Like an expert shopkeeper. Or in a game about shopkeepers, a Barbarian or whatever.

Anything you expect the game to support should be baked in from the word go. Otherwise you get 3e Epic and that is dumb and bad. Then once you accept that you are designing the game to model those things, it doesn't really matter where you put the level lines.

This is why I like Spheres of Power. Your character starts with their key ability at level 1. They keep expanding their options and getting better at everything they do.

Not sure what this means. (related to polymorph effects)

If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: burrow 60 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 120 feet (good maneuverability), swim 120 feet, blindsense 60 feet, darkvision 90 feet, low-light vision, scent, tremorsense 60 feet, breath weapon, constrict, ferocity, grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, rend, roar, spikes, trample, trip, and web. If the creature has immunity or resistance to any elements, you gain resistance 20 to those elements. If the creature has vulnerability to an element, you gain that vulnerability.

It means that you don't get 'any' ability of any form, just those listed. You also merely enhance your own stats, rather than replacing them.

Is two levels worth of this really a distinction worth making? I can see making teleport worse if you also make it lower level.

It allows the game to progress to a nice round number (10) before the paradigm changes. It gives those people that don't like Teleport 2 extra levels and more challenges to level at players. It also allows for a 'soft capstone' ability to be placed at level 10.

Where is this promise people keep appealing to? You could say that game balance is implicit in the equal cost of class levels (broadly, I agree), but where is the notion that that balance point should be the Fighter rather than the Wizard. Setting aside whether you personally like it or not, wouldn't a game where things were balanced around the Wizard still be balanced?

It is in the fact that Fighter and Wizard are presented as equally valid options at all levels of play.

You really think someone sat down and wrote teleport, fabricate, and major creation accidentally? Did Skip William go on a bender one day and woke up the next morning with raise dead, plane shift, and awaken written out? The abilities exist intentionally. The rules around them are weak, but that should be fixed by better rules, not by removing the abilities.

That's because you think the debate is "wizards, specifically, are overpowered," whereas the position I've been debating from the entire time is "there is a massive power gap between full casters and not-full-casters."

I base my opinion on the ability to trivialize encounters, which a wizard typically has and a fighter typically lack. Granted, one can argue that Fighter's lack of ability invalidates encounters too, so they're not the best point either.

Again, a literal dozen adventures that challenge full casters have been proposed in this thread. If you can't address why those don't work, how can you keep making this claim?

My issue is that they are only possible for full casters, and highlight the disparity. They are alright high level adventures though, so they could make a paradigm for potential fixes for underpowered classes, and a good aim for toning down casters so they don't trivialize them at all.

Do you not ignore content that doesn't do what you want? If Paizo released a book tomorrow that was just all the most broken abilities in 3e, but made officially part of PF, would you feel compelled to use that book? I'm not ignoring it because I don't want new content, I'm ignoring it because that new content doesn't do what I want.

This is a fair point, and I don't universally allow everything ever published. Like everything in the game (assuming I'm GM, it only exists if I approve of it. I might say that abilities X and Y are both allowed, but X+Y combo is broken and thus not allowed. Whether those be spells, Feats or class features.

I think the arcane/divine distinction is dumb, especially when you consider the fact that armored arcane casters exist. As far as I can tell, it's not any more meaningful than simply putting some spells on the Cleric list and others on the Wizard list. The schools are good, but you don't really think sword vs axe is as meaningful as death magic vs mind magic, do you?

Not at the current levels of abstraction.

The standard argument is that the Efreet can only use its wishes at the behest of a mortal, so you effectively have the other two wishes as leverage. Even using one to continue the chain, that's still a one-to-one trade which seems fair. Maybe it's pissed at you for screwing it over, but you can always let it pick who you screw over next. That said, this line of argument seems largely irrelevant to the question of SoP vs Vancian, because the text of the spell is the same in either system.

Well, starting from a simple game balance perspective, swapping spell slots "up" (Planar binding to Wish) is clearly against intent of the game. Secondly, I'm entirely free to rule that 'granting wishes' is not a reasonable service for a bound creature. The game gives these tools to the GM.

Satinavian

2017-09-19, 02:50 AM

First things first, we use wizard because it's shorter than "prepared casters with level 9 spells" (the Healer notwithstanding). It's also used because the wizard is the poster boy for the T1 problem, seeing as it gets the deepest list with the most variety of spells. So using wizard as shorthand for T1s is relatively reasonable.

Using Fighter as "balance point below wizard", on the other hand, isn't because "lower that the Wizard" is most of the classes. I mean, if we're being petty about it, than "Fighter" apparently means "anywhere from Psion to Complete Warrior Samurai" That is inherantly unhelpful about figuring out where the balance should be and is incredibly dismissive and disengenuous.
To be fair, Fither also is the poster child for "class which can't do anything meaningfull beside whacking enemies with weapons and taking some punishment and gets even irrelevant in the combat niche enentually while being hurt by the complete lack of any utility from the start". It is actually a pretty good example. It is a core class and its utter lack of options already annoys people in tier 3 games if those revolve around anything beyond straithforward combat. For someone who thinks all classes below tier 2 are too weak it is the perfect example instead of something that is borderline OK and might work in a low OP T2 group.

Florian

2017-09-19, 03:22 AM

Cosi

2017-09-19, 08:28 AM

Using Fighter as "balance point below wizard", on the other hand, isn't because "lower that the Wizard" is most of the classes. I mean, if we're being petty about it, than "Fighter" apparently means "anywhere from Psion to Complete Warrior Samurai" That is inherantly unhelpful about figuring out where the balance should be and is incredibly dismissive and disengenuous.

It's not incumbent on me to figure out where you want the balance point to be. When I say "Fighter" I don't mean something specific, I mean "whatever balance point people are presenting as an alternative." Also, your side is also being disingenuous with their use of the word "Wizard", most notably by using the single class reference to obscure the variety of options that do exist there, but also by trying to tie TO Wizards to PO Wizards.

So no, that doesn't count.

The Wizard is comparatively more competent at non-primary niches, but that's not the same as being equal to a specialist. Yes, Wizard-level characters are generally more competent, that doesn't negate the fact that they do have specialties.

And not one that didn't put the spellcaster square in the spotlight. Give me some high level adventures that are a challenge to a Tier 3 character that aren't instantly invalidated by a Tier 1 caster and then we'll talk.

Stop missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the game is balanced right now. No one is. I'm suggesting that, contrary to your assertions, you can challenge Wizard-level characters. That doesn't imply that those adventures will also be appropriate for Fighter-level characters (again, not specifically the Fighter, just whatever level it is you want). It can both be true that you can write adventures that meaningfully challenge Wizard-level characters and that Wizard-level characters overshadow Fighter-level ones.

With respect, that's hard to tell since I don't see you expressing positive feedback for anything that came out after 3.X ended. And before you tell me about the Tomes, I remind you that you didn't break that out until after 5 pages of arguments, so it's not much of a glowing endorsement and rather comes off as "See, I like some random guy online i've never met's homebrew, so that means I'm reasonable!".

If you look back through my post history (which is admittedly annoying to do here), I have mentioned the Tomes before. The reason that I don't bring them out immediately when discussing the merits of other systems is because I don't by into the notion that I have to ritually affirm something before I can critique other things. If my arguments about SoP are correct, they are correct regardless of whether or not the Tomes exist. If my arguments about SoP are incorrect, they are incorrect regardless of whether or not the Tomes exist.

Ths is why I claim you don't argue with good faith; you know for a fact that both axes and swords are one-handed martial weapons. That's like me saying there's no difference between illusion and evocation because shadow evocation exists. I'm talking about kuhkris vs spears, or flails vs shuriken.

That... doesn't seem better. Is "reach versus good crit" really something that should define a 10th level character's combat style? Is that a distinction on par with cloudkill versus wall of stone?

However, I personally feel that the vast amjority of effects like that are legacy problems it inherited from Vancian magic.

Sure, but if those problems still exist using SoP, clearly they aren't a result of Vancian magic and are instead a result of specific spells being unreasonably effective.

What about prepared casting makes you feel that it's what we should balance the game around?

It depends what you mean.

In the abstract, I don't think you should balance the game around prepared spellcasters any more than you should balance it around having a pool of spell points (Psion, SoP), selecting themed lists of abilities (Binder), having abilities you recharge by not using those abilities (Warblade), or having a randomly selected set of available abilities (Crusader). But it should be a thing the game supports, and I think it's possible to have a game that supports it and also other forms of resource management.

What I want is a variety of classes that cover a variety of concepts at a consistent power level and with access to a fairly broad base of utility options. That means that some people will get to prepare spells, some people will get big spells that inflict status conditions on use, and some people with get some third thing (and some fourth thing and some fifth thing and so on). It also means that people will get abilities like fabricate and raise dead and gate, and those abilities will be distributed in a way that ensures both that people have something to contribute and that it's difficult to make a party that doesn't have responses to level appropriate challenges throughout the game.

The problem is that in 3e, there aren't classes that fulfill that whole deal. Full casters have a variety of abilities that allow them to solve the problems that I think are appropriate for high level characters, but they all have either "prepare from a list of spells" or "cast spontaneously from a list of spells" as their resource management system, which is not ideal. Conversely, there are classes with a variety of resource management systems (like the Binder, or the Magic of Incarnum classes), but those largely don't have the kinds of utility abilities I want people to have. Tome of Battle has three different classes with three different resource management systems, but none of them can solve problems like "travel to another plane" or "bring back the dead" under their own power. So you have to choose one option or the other.

This is why I like Spheres of Power. Your character starts with their key ability at level 1. They keep expanding their options and getting better at everything they do.

This is a noble goal, but I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable. Some abilities don't scale all the way from 1st to 20th in any obvious fashion. Opening locks is a reasonable thing to do at 1st level, but once the party Barbarian can smash doors to rubble or the party Wizard can turn ethereal, the ability is obsolete regardless of how good you are at it. There are things that fulfill similar niches, but they don't obviously seem to follow from Open Lock.

It is in the fact that Fighter and Wizard are presented as equally valid options at all levels of play.

I agree, and I mentioned that I agree that the claim that Wizard and Fighter should be balanced is something you could reasonably deduce from the rules. But that's not the issue. I'm asking why you think the rules contain a promise that classes should be balanced at a point closer to the Fighter. Not why you like it more, not why you think it is easier, where you think the rules are making that promise.

Well, starting from a simple game balance perspective, swapping spell slots "up" (Planar binding to Wish) is clearly against intent of the game.

The designers printed planar binding and didn't provide any guidance that indicates it shouldn't let you swap up. The fact that it does implies that either it was intended, or the designers were too incompetent to ask "what happens if you want wishes from a genie".

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-19, 08:51 AM

@Cosi:

The "promise" is that this is supposed to be a balanced game with anything in it being more or less of equal value, so you basically can´t make a wrong choice. This is expressed by all classes following the same basic design pattern, all levels needing the same XP, all skills having the same skill point value and all feats costing one feat slot, everyone having the same number of actions per turn, with every turn taking 6 seconds, and so on. This is accentuated by having a section of "NPC classes" separate from this, clearly announcing that any and all classes in the PHB/CRB should be viable for play and that from 1-20.

I've already voiced the opinion in an earlier discussion, but I still think the main offender is the combination of having the magic system directly attached to certain classes instead of making it universal, and expressive everything supernatural as spells.

This would certainly seem to be a promise that the game is making. IMO, the class-based system both accentuates this promise and contributes to the failure to deliver on the promise, in a bit of irony.

A related broken promise is that the system is well-suited for a sort of standard fantasy setting and tone; it can do that if the players (GM included) keep constant pressure on the steering wheel, but will immediately start drifting off into something else if the wheel is just left in a neutral position. This ties back to the magic system, and the class/level system as well.

This is why I joke that said system was the original fantasy heartbreaker.

comk59

2017-09-19, 08:58 AM

The designers printed planar binding and didn't provide any guidance that indicates it shouldn't let you swap up. The fact that it does implies that either it was intended, or the designers were too incompetent to ask "what happens if you want wishes from a genie".

Well, I assume that it was unintentional, since trading planar binding for wishes is clearly an absurd abuse of power.

When it comes to game design, I always assume incompetence over maliciousness.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-19, 09:06 AM

This would certainly seem to be a promise that the game is making. IMO, the class-based system both accentuates this promise and contributes to the failure to deliver on the promise, in a bit of irony.

A related broken promise is that the system is well-suited for a sort of standard fantasy setting and tone; it can do that if the players (GM included) keep constant pressure on the steering wheel, but will immediately start drifting off into something else if the wheel is just left in a neutral position. This ties back to the magic system, and the class/level system as well.

I'm not sure I understand. As I see it, all open-ended systems require policing. Since the rules can't be self enforcing, and any enforcement requires judgement, isn't that "pressure on the steering wheel?" Closed systems like crpgs or board games can be self policing by disallowing out of scope actions as a blanket policy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Of course, this is separate from cases (like 3.5) where the pressure needed is extreme and the chance for accidental breakage is high.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-19, 09:16 AM

I'm not sure I understand. As I see it, all open-ended systems require policing. Since the rules can't be self enforcing, and any enforcement requires judgement, isn't that "pressure on the steering wheel?" Closed systems like crpgs or board games can be self policing by disallowing out of scope actions as a blanket policy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Of course, this is separate from cases (like 3.5) where the pressure needed is extreme and the chance for accidental breakage is high.

It's the difference between having to move the wheel a little when the road presents a bump or camber... versus having to hold the wheel to one side to avoid a constant pull off course.

Now, if a group WANTS zero to superhero with fantasy trappings, and casters-uber-alles... then 3.5e gets a "steady as she goes and full steam ahead".

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-19, 09:32 AM

It's the difference between having to move the wheel a little when the road presents a bump or camber... versus having to hold the wheel to one side to avoid a constant pull off course.

Now, if a group WANTS zero to superhero with fantasy trappings, and casters-uber-alles... then 3.5e gets a "steady as she goes and full steam ahead".

I can accept that, but I think you're underestimating how much care and attention other systems need to stay on track. They just don't have the same failure states. FATE (from what I've been reading) requires a specific setup and buy-in to the constructed world and the tone--the instructions are full of "doing X is not a FATE game" and X is something that might come up pretty commonly. I've never played it, but that's my impression from reading it. Any system will collapse (but in different ways) if there are unchecked munchkins or those who are aiming for a different style. And I'm OK with that. If DMing were that easy (because the system was restrictive enough to prevent munchkinry), a computer could do it. And I can play CRPGs for that style. They have better graphics.

I'm not OK with systems that are easy to break even if everyone is trying to play along. All it takes in 3.5 is for one T1-type caster to find one of the obvious "tricks" and break things wide open. Or for someone to choose one of the many many trap options (or not think of the whole build from step 1 and create a broken-bad build). Both of those failure states are too easy to reach by accident and the consequences in loss of fun are too severe for me.

Thinking about it, I think we basically agree on this point.

georgie_leech

2017-09-19, 10:23 AM

Well, I assume that it was unintentional, since trading planar binding for wishes is clearly an absurd abuse of power.

When it comes to game design, I always assume incompetence over maliciousness.

This is the company that semi-infamously had a playtest druid that never wildshaped, and attcked with a scimitar for some reason.

Kallimakus

2017-09-19, 10:35 AM

The Wizard is comparatively more competent at non-primary niches, but that's not the same as being equal to a specialist. Yes, Wizard-level characters are generally more competent, that doesn't negate the fact that they do have specialties.

So what is the difference between a wizard specialized in X vs a wizard not specialized in thing X, vs another (noncasting) class specialized in X?

This is a noble goal, but I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable. Some abilities don't scale all the way from 1st to 20th in any obvious fashion. Opening locks is a reasonable thing to do at 1st level, but once the party Barbarian can smash doors to rubble or the party Wizard can turn ethereal, the ability is obsolete regardless of how good you are at it. There are things that fulfill similar niches, but they don't obviously seem to follow from Open Lock.

I am fully in agreement that Open is among the weakest abilities to be found in Spheres, and could stand to be merged with Close (=Arcane Lock), and even then it is a niche ability (much like Knock tbh). But it is handy at the level where it might come up and you don't, for whatever reason, have another solution. Seeing as Spheres of Power also gives Teleport (well, Close ranged teleportation to a visible location) as an ability from level 1, it is a matter of taste.

The designers printed planar binding and didn't provide any guidance that indicates it shouldn't let you swap up. The fact that it does implies that either it was intended, or the designers were too incompetent to ask "what happens if you want wishes from a genie".

I base 'shouldn't swap up' on the premise that no other ability to do so exists. It doesn't provide any guidance one way or the other, so it is entirely up to the permissiveness of the GM. It is open ended because someone might see it as a feature rather than a bug, and leaves appropriate tools (GM arbitration) explicitly present.

Florian

2017-09-19, 11:21 AM

"doing X is not a FATE game"

Ah, well, people socialized to RPGs with more traditional systems have a certain problem with narrative system like Fate. Thing is, the "skills" are not there to resolve actions but to determine narrative impact of actions. That´s a fundamental difference there. For that to work, all participants must be on the same page what the overall "power level" is and work towards keeping the fluff of their actions on that level (on a related note, that also governs when using a skill is appropriate or not).

Edit: For example, that makes playing The Avengers possible with Black Widow having the same screen time and impact as The Hulk, but doesn´t really work with the classic dungeon crawl and typical roadblocks like traps.

digiman619

2017-09-19, 11:56 AM

It's not incumbent on me to figure out where you want the balance point to be. When I say "Fighter" I don't mean something specific, I mean "whatever balance point people are presenting as an alternative." Also, your side is also being disingenuous with their use of the word "Wizard", most notably by using the single class reference to obscure the variety of options that do exist there, but also by trying to tie TO Wizards to PO Wizards.
I should argue that "wizard" is 1/6th of what it's 'abbreviating', and "fighter" 1/38th, but I get what you mean. For the rest of this thread (and with later conversations with you if I remember), I will say "tier 1 casters" rather than wizard unless I need specificity (i.e., talking about something unique to the wizard class).

The Wizard is comparatively more competent at non-primary niches, but that's not the same as being equal to a specialist. Yes, Wizard-level characters are generally more competent, that doesn't negate the fact that they do have specialties.
Except that since T1 casters have all the spells on their spell list (or can learn them in the archivist, s2p erudite, and wizard's case), they can swap out daily, and when they reach high enough level, can have multiple "specialties" active at the same time!

Stop missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the game is balanced right now. No one is. I'm suggesting that, contrary to your assertions, you can challenge Wizard-level characters. That doesn't imply that those adventures will also be appropriate for Fighter-level characters (again, not specifically the Fighter, just whatever level it is you want). It can both be true that you can write adventures that meaningfully challenge Wizard-level characters and that Wizard-level characters overshadow Fighter-level ones.
Perhaps, but the problem is that high-level t1's don't just overshadow the "mundanes" as you call them, they also overshadow include other 9th level casters, Any spontaneous character can only match a T1 caster if the problem they face is within its personal specialty (blaster sorcerers, beguilers and enchantment spells, etc). Once they have to deal with anything else, they have to sit in the back of the car with everyone else.

If you look back through my post history (which is admittedly annoying to do here), I have mentioned the Tomes before. The reason that I don't bring them out immediately when discussing the merits of other systems is because I don't by into the notion that I have to ritually affirm something before I can critique other things. If my arguments about SoP are correct, they are correct regardless of whether or not the Tomes exist. If my arguments about SoP are incorrect, they are incorrect regardless of whether or not the Tomes exist.
Umm, I suppose I could look at your profile and your 'recent posts" only all the way back to as far as they go, but that seems stalker-y. Let me say that you may have said them elsewhere, but I'd never heard of them until this thread. Though you are correct that the existence of the tomes is independent of SoP, so your feelings on one ought not affect the other.

That... doesn't seem better. Is "reach versus good crit" really something that should define a 10th level character's combat style? Is that a distinction on par with cloudkill versus wall of stone?
Yeah, in the system that exists now it would have little difference, but if you get to make vague assertions on how you'd like things to work, so can I.

Sure, but if those problems still exist using SoP, clearly they aren't a result of Vancian magic and are instead a result of specific spells being unreasonably effective.
I know what you mean and you're right. Nothing about spell slots vs any other way to do a magic system is at fault here, and if we ever hit the non-broken Vancian you want, this will resolve itself when wish ceases to be/gets a balanced version, as every wish-granting monster will be errata'd.

Remember a bit ago when I said we'd need to redesign monsters if we wanted "separate but equal" room to shine for weapon types? I said that high-level monsters fell into three types "tons of SLAs", "casters themselves" and "magic countermeasures" The last one is the easiest to resolve, as getting past SR just calls for an MSB check, and most others are easy enough to figure out. The second is easy too. Solars get 12 talents to spend wherever they want, (the number of talents a 20th level Sphere Cleric gets without the additional ones from domains and such, which solars explicitly do not get) though it would be recommended that they stick to the Destruction, Life, Light, and War spheres.

The problem is SLAs. An SLA lacks a lot of the restrictions that served to be a balance point to spells. SLAs ignore the costly material components and XP costs that were there to keep you from abusing them. Many monsters got SLAs before an equal level T1 caster would (efreet being a prime example). None of this is SoP's fault, but unless they rewrite every monster with an SLA, they're stuck with what the base system has.

In other words, this is the fault of the Vancian system we have, not the Vancian system we deserve. Granted, if that ideally balanced Vancian magic system ever shows up, a good chunk of the reason for SoP goes away too, but until it actually does come into being, we're stuck with the one we've got, and because the 3rd edition designers decided that everything of note had to be magic in one form or another, we're stuck living with the remnants of that mistake.

It depends what you mean.

In the abstract, I don't think you should balance the game around prepared spellcasters any more than you should balance it around having a pool of spell points (Psion, SoP), selecting themed lists of abilities (Binder), having abilities you recharge by not using those abilities (Warblade), or having a randomly selected set of available abilities (Crusader). But it should be a thing the game supports, and I think it's possible to have a game that supports it and also other forms of resource management.

What I want is a variety of classes that cover a variety of concepts at a consistent power level and with access to a fairly broad base of utility options. That means that some people will get to prepare spells, some people will get big spells that inflict status conditions on use, and some people with get some third thing (and some fourth thing and some fifth thing and so on). It also means that people will get abilities like fabricate and raise dead and gate, and those abilities will be distributed in a way that ensures both that people have something to contribute and that it's difficult to make a party that doesn't have responses to level appropriate challenges throughout the game.

The problem is that in 3e, there aren't classes that fulfill that whole deal. Full casters have a variety of abilities that allow them to solve the problems that I think are appropriate for high level characters, but they all have either "prepare from a list of spells" or "cast spontaneously from a list of spells" as their resource management system, which is not ideal. Conversely, there are classes with a variety of resource management systems (like the Binder, or the Magic of Incarnum classes), but those largely don't have the kinds of utility abilities I want people to have. Tome of Battle has three different classes with three different resource management systems, but none of them can solve problems like "travel to another plane" or "bring back the dead" under their own power. So you have to choose one option or the other.
That's very well thought out, and I agree with the sentiment. And now that I know that's your position, I respect why you look forward to a Vancian system that doesn't have those flaws. And we have anecdotal evidence that it's the spell list rather than the preparation method in the Healer.

The problem is that even ignoring all spells and judging on just the way the spells would be used, it's clear that they aren't equal. If they all had the same number of slots and the same list, spontaneous casters that can cast anything on their list ("beguiler type") clearly reign supreme, folowed by prepared and knowing all spells on your list ("cleric type"), prepared with no automatic knowledge of spells ("wizard-type") and finally spontaneous casting of a limited number of spells known ("sorcerer type"). Other than the obvious things that they already did (beguiler types having smaller spell lists, sorcerer types having more spell slots), what would you do to make these casters on par with each other?

This is a noble goal, but I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable. Some abilities don't scale all the way from 1st to 20th in any obvious fashion. Opening locks is a reasonable thing to do at 1st level, but once the party Barbarian can smash doors to rubble or the party Wizard can turn ethereal, the ability is obsolete regardless of how good you are at it. There are things that fulfill similar niches, but they don't obviously seem to follow from Open Lock.
There's truth with that. Contrariwise, there's a lot of things that Vancian limits to high level that don't need to be. Teleporting leaps to mind. While I'm not saying that teleport should be a 1st level spell, being able to bamf to the other side of a crevice isn't a game-breaking thing any more than a barbarian breaking down a door.

I agree, and I mentioned that I agree that the claim that Wizard and Fighter should be balanced is something you could reasonably deduce from the rules. But that's not the issue. I'm asking why you think the rules contain a promise that classes should be balanced at a point closer to the Fighter. Not why you like it more, not why you think it is easier, where you think the rules are making that promise.
Because T1 casters can obviate other PC classes. Why bother having a Barbarian when you can have a hydra zombie or celestial lion, or any other number of minionmancy techniques? Why have a rogue when you already have the magical infiltration techniques(alter self, invisibility, passwall, etc.)? Tier 3 is also the tier that lends itself to teamwork the most by having specialists and generalists who can do more, but not as well as them (beguiler vs factotum, for example).

The designers printed planar binding and didn't provide any guidance that indicates it shouldn't let you swap up. The fact that it does implies that either it was intended, or the designers were too incompetent to ask "what happens if you want wishes from a genie".
Yes. They got lazy. The problem is that their laziness infected so much of the design that we still feel the echoes of it to this day. Using that as an excuse that SoP doesn't meet its "alternate magic system" goal or otherwise fails to fix the problem is incredibly unfair seeing as no other system tries what it tried. Other magic systems were always designed to be in addition to Vancian. SoP is the only one I know what was explicitly designed to replace it from the ground up. So until another magic system tries to replace Vancian and does it better, or they come out with a Vancian system that meets your standards, back off. It's doing a better job than what we've got and there isn't anything I've seen that that does it better.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-19, 12:04 PM

Ah, well, people socialized to RPGs with more traditional systems have a certain problem with narrative system like Fate. Thing is, the "skills" are not there to resolve actions but to determine narrative impact of actions. That´s a fundamental difference there. For that to work, all participants must be on the same page what the overall "power level" is and work towards keeping the fluff of their actions on that level (on a related note, that also governs when using a skill is appropriate or not).

Edit: For example, that makes playing The Avengers possible with Black Widow having the same screen time and impact as The Hulk, but doesn´t really work with the classic dungeon crawl and typical roadblocks like traps.

So is this like a thing with the FATE community, that people who don't like how FATE does things, or how prefer other ways, are just "socialized" or "trained" to other ways of doing things? Because you're now at least the third "FATE person" I've seen make that argument. "Oh you'd like how this game does things if you just got used to it and comfortable with it."

Almost as if one can just be "trained" to like FATE, or narrative assumptions in general.

And really... it's kinda insulting.

The emphasized/bolded part above... some people actually don't like that, and have real reasons to prefer resolution of actions as the basis of a system.

Florian

2017-09-19, 12:53 PM

So is this like a thing with the FATE community, that people who don't like how FATE does things, or how prefer other ways, are just "socialized" or "trained" to other ways of doing things? Because you're now at least the third "FATE person" I've seen make that argument. "Oh you'd like how this game does things if you just got used to it and comfortable with it."

Almost as if one can just be "trained" to like FATE, or narrative assumptions in general.

And really... it's kinda insulting.

The emphasized/bolded part above... some people actually don't like that, and have real reasons to prefer resolution of actions as the basis of a system.

Don´t overreact. All I´m saying is that "fun" at role-playing is an acquired taste and our personal expectations for what a system should deliver is heavily based on our experience.
I´m not a "Fate person", just pointing out that this system uses a very different approach to achieve "balance", something we talk about at great length when discussing the overall d20 system and how that achieves this.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-19, 12:59 PM

Don´t overreact. All I´m saying is that "fun" at role-playing is an acquired taste and our personal expectations for what a system should deliver is heavily based on our experience.
I´m not a "Fate person", just pointing out that this system uses a very different approach to achieve "balance", something we talk about at great length when discussing the overall d20 system and how that achieves this.

That's what I took from it. I only used FATE as an example because I was reading through it yesterday, and it's quite different from D&D (of any edition). I don't know of any self-enforcing RPG rule systems, and it seems to me that creating one would require significantly locking down the possibilities (exclusive move sets with anything else disallowed, pre-set settings and modules, etc).

I imagine (based on a cursory reading) that I would not particularly like FATE off the bat, but could learn to like it over time with the right group.

Cosi

2017-09-19, 01:08 PM

Except that since T1 casters have all the spells on their spell list (or can learn them in the archivist, s2p erudite, and wizard's case), they can swap out daily, and when they reach high enough level, can have multiple "specialties" active at the same time!

But that spell list isn't all-inclusive -- there are abilities the Druid doesn't have (like teleport) and niches the Cleric is better at (like self-buffing) -- and there are non-spell abilities the classes have (or have access to), like DMM or Planar Shepherd (some not-fast time plane), which add other options.

Perhaps, but the problem is that high-level t1's don't just overshadow the "mudanes" as you call them, they also overshadow include other 9th level casters, Any spontaneous character can only match a T1 caster if the problem they face is within its personal specialty (blaster sorcerers, beguilers and enchantment spells, etc). Once they have to deal with anything else, they have to sit in the back of the car with everyone else.

This is to some degree a problem, but the specific ways fixed list casters work make it much less of a problem than it could be otherwise.

First, several existing fixed list casters have specialties that are fairly broad. Both Necromancy and Illusion/Enchantment are applicable both inside and outside combat. This means that the areas where a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler can't contribute are fairly minimal. They also benefit from having planar binding and charm monster available, though obviously there are issues with the dramatic swing in potential power of those spells.

Second, due to quirks in the particular implementation of fixed list casters in 3.5 in the context of spell list expanding abilities like Prestige Domains, it's very easy for them to expand their relatively limited base lists. By the time imbalance is starting to emerge at mid levels, it's possible to have two or three Prestige Domains. That is less than the number of spells available to a Wizard or Cleric, but having those spells spontaneously is quite valuable, particularly for niche spells (this is true for spells on the base list as well -- you would probably never prepare or even learn rouse, but the Beguiler has it if she needs it which will sometimes save the party).

So yes, Warmages and Healers kind of suck (relative to Wizards and Clerics). Their specialties are small and bad. But Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are pretty good. Sorcerers are a weird case, in that they are clearly worse than Wizards, but probably not worse enough to be truly overshadowed.

That said, there are houserules that I would employ which narrow the gap even more. Most obviously, I would put everyone on the Wizard spell level progression, which is a moderate but not meaningless buff to spontaneous casters. They also get a lot of incidental help from making casting PrCs full casting, because that makes things like Prestige Bard or Sand Shaper more powerful, which helps fixed list casters more because of the value they get from having spells on their list. I would also consider things like buffing Advanced Learning or adding non-core spells to their list, but overall I'm pretty confident in their viability with relatively few changes aimed at explicitly making them more powerful.

Yeah, in the system that exists now it would have little difference, but if you get to make vague assertions on how you'd like things to work, so can I.

Sure, I just have difficultly seeing how that scales. I'm not convinced you can make meaningfully spear-y powers at high levels. What does the spear-wielder power for someone in a party where the Wizard is throwing down wail of the banshee look like? How is it different from the axe wielder or the crossbow wielder? I can see something like Tome of Battle where each set of powers has associated weapons, but it sounds like you want to go the other direction and that doesn't seem like it would work very well.

Also, it has the problem of making loot less exciting for martials (because sword guy's powers won't work with a looted axe or spear), and potentially requiring an even greater degree of magic item christmas tree syndrome (the party martial doesn't just need a magic weapon, she specifically needs a magic hammer).

The problem is that even ignoring all spells and judging on just the way the spells would be used, it's clear that they aren't equal ... Other than the obvious things that they already did (beguiler types having samller spell lists, sorcerer types having more spell slots), what would you to to make these casters on par with each other?

The answer is that you can't just abstract away all the details. What resource management system a class uses effects what abilities it can have, in terms of both kind and power. If you use something like Winds of Fate (where the availability of any particular ability is random) or Drain (where using abilities inflicts status conditions on you), you can have more powerful abilities than if you use Spell Slots or Spell Points. On a character using Spell Slots, a 1-round stun could be balanced even without a save -- it's comparable to snake's swiftness, with some defensive utility and a weakness against groups. On the other hand, giving a no-save stun to a character with At-Will abilities means it automatically beats any solo enemy who isn't immune to stunning. Characters who prepare spells can afford to have more niche abilities than characters who don't have that filter. There are a lot of considerations like that.

And yes, that is a lot of work, but we are essentially talking about writing a new system (at minimum, it's a new PHB).

There's truth with that. Contrariwise, there's a lot of things that Vancian limits to high level that don't need to be. Teleporting leaps to mind. While I'm not saying that teleport should be a 1st level spell, being able to bamf to the other side of a crevice isn't a game-breaking thing any more than a barbarian breaking down a door.

Sure, though there are low-level Vancian solutions dimension hop is a 2nd level ability, and there might be a 1st level thing out there.

Because T1 casters can obviate other PC classes.

I'm not convinced this logic is compelling. Doesn't a Warblade obsolete a CWar Samurai in much the same way a Wizard obsoletes a Warblade? I don't understand why eliminating based on this logic stops at Wizard-level classes.

I suppose you could make some argument about volume of options, but I that's hard to quantify, and I suspect that you already have as many options as you could reasonably use at Wizard-level. You might say that you want some specific option, but at that point I don't think you have a counter-argument to people who specifically want something unique to the Wizard.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-19, 01:37 PM

Don´t overreact. All I´m saying is that "fun" at role-playing is an acquired taste and our personal expectations for what a system should deliver is heavily based on our experience.

I don't think it's acquired at all. I think most of us have real reasons for our conclusions and preferences.

I´m not a "Fate person", just pointing out that this system uses a very different approach to achieve "balance", something we talk about at great length when discussing the overall d20 system and how that achieves this.

Which makes it all the more puzzling to me that this notion of "you just need to learn it, then you'll like it" keeps coming up specifically in the context of FATE, and not just on these specific forums.

Drakevarg

2017-09-19, 02:50 PM

I suppose you could make some argument about volume of options, but I that's hard to quantify, and I suspect that you already have as many options as you could reasonably use at Wizard-level. You might say that you want some specific option, but at that point I don't think you have a counter-argument to people who specifically want something unique to the Wizard.

What's unique to the Wizard? The entire issue powering this argument is that the wizard don't do this thing or that thing, they do everything. The fact that some of them are 5% better at certain things than others doesn't really change that all of them can do all of it if they feel like it.

Cosi

2017-09-19, 02:54 PM

What's unique to the Wizard? The entire issue powering this argument is that the wizard don't do this thing or that thing, they do everything. The fact that some of them are 5% better at certain things than others doesn't really change that all of them can do all of it if they feel like it.

fabricate is. All the PC classes that can cast fabricate are Tier One casters. If I want a character who casts fabricate, it is incumbent on me to play some kind of Tier One. Or a Magewright.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-19, 04:20 PM

Which makes it all the more puzzling to me that this notion of "you just need to learn it, then you'll like it" keeps coming up specifically in the context of FATE, and not just on these specific forums.

different from the 3.5 optimizers saying the same thing for their system how? aside from the massively larger time investment to learn all the intricate rules interactions that at the end of day basically amount to "Wizards wins or counter spell war"?

Darth Ultron

2017-09-19, 04:30 PM

Edit: For example, that makes playing The Avengers possible with Black Widow having the same screen time and impact as The Hulk, but doesn´t really work with the classic dungeon crawl and typical roadblocks like traps.

You might note this is done by the writing of the plot (even the railroading of the plot). The Black Widow is not in anyway an exact match to the power level of the Hulk (or any of the other Avengers except Hawkeye). But the Marvel Universe (aka the plot) is made around the idea that she has meaningful impact.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-19, 04:46 PM

different from the 3.5 optimizers saying the same thing for their system how? aside from the massively larger time investment to learn all the intricate rules interactions that at the end of day basically amount to "Wizards wins or counter spell war"?

On one hand, maybe it's not that different.

On the other hand, it seems less elitist / "git gud noob" and more "please come join us we really think you'll like it" in intent, which is why it's not as aggravating at least to me.

digiman619

2017-09-19, 04:55 PM

But that spell list isn't all-inclusive -- there are abilities the Druid doesn't have (like teleport) and niches the Cleric is better at (like self-buffing) -- and there are non-spell abilities the classes have (or have access to), like DMM or Planar Shepherd (some not-fast time plane), which add other options.
That's fair. I was focusing on the class and not the non-spell material that supports it. Though I feel it worth mentioning that if we're banning problem spells, we'd also get rid of problem feats, items, and prestige classes, too.

This is to some degree a problem, but the specific ways fixed list casters work make it much less of a problem than it could be otherwise.

First, several existing fixed list casters have specialties that are fairly broad. Both Necromancy and Illusion/Enchantment are applicable both inside and outside combat. This means that the areas where a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler can't contribute are fairly minimal. They also benefit from having planar binding and charm monster available, though obviously there are issues with the dramatic swing in potential power of those spells.

Second, due to quirks in the particular implementation of fixed list casters in 3.5 in the context of spell list expanding abilities like Prestige Domains, it's very easy for them to expand their relatively limited base lists. By the time imbalance is starting to emerge at mid levels, it's possible to have two or three Prestige Domains. That is less than the number of spells available to a Wizard or Cleric, but having those spells spontaneously is quite valuable, particularly for niche spells (this is true for spells on the base list as well -- you would probably never prepare or even learn rouse, but the Beguiler has it if she needs it which will sometimes save the party).

So yes, Warmages and Healers kind of suck (relative to Wizards and Clerics). Their specialties are small and bad. But Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are pretty good. Sorcerers are a weird case, in that they are clearly worse than Wizards, but probably not worse enough to be truly overshadowed.

That said, there are houserules that I would employ which narrow the gap even more. Most obviously, I would put everyone on the Wizard spell level progression, which is a moderate but not meaningless buff to spontaneous casters. They also get a lot of incidental help from making casting PrCs full casting, because that makes things like Prestige Bard or Sand Shaper more powerful, which helps fixed list casters more because of the value they get from having spells on their list. I would also consider things like buffing Advanced Learning or adding non-core spells to their list, but overall I'm pretty confident in their viability with relatively few changes aimed at explicitly making them more powerful.
Fair point. I may have doubts on how well that will be implemented, but it's a good idea.

Sure, I just have difficultly seeing how that scales. I'm not convinced you can make meaningfully spear-y powers at high levels. What does the spear-wielder power for someone in a party where the Wizard is throwing down wail of the banshee look like? How is it different from the axe wielder or the crossbow wielder? I can see something like Tome of Battle where each set of powers has associated weapons, but it sounds like you want to go the other direction and that doesn't seem like it would work very well.

Also, it has the problem of making loot less exciting for martials (because sword guy's powers won't work with a looted axe or spear), and potentially requiring an even greater degree of magic item christmas tree syndrome (the party martial doesn't just need a magic weapon, she specifically needs a magic hammer).
Fair point. I'm just spitballing here.

The answer is that you can't just abstract away all the details. What resource management system a class uses effects what abilities it can have, in terms of both kind and power. If you use something like Winds of Fate (where the availability of any particular ability is random) or Drain (where using abilities inflicts status conditions on you), you can have more powerful abilities than if you use Spell Slots or Spell Points. On a character using Spell Slots, a 1-round stun could be balanced even without a save -- it's comparable to snake's swiftness, with some defensive utility and a weakness against groups. On the other hand, giving a no-save stun to a character with At-Will abilities means it automatically beats any solo enemy who isn't immune to stunning. Characters who prepare spells can afford to have more niche abilities than characters who don't have that filter. There are a lot of considerations like that.

And yes, that is a lot of work, but we are essentially talking about writing a new system (at minimum, it's a new PHB).
That's a valid point. With respect, though, we both know you're not going to that. Also seeing as there isn't a "Winds of Fate" outside of a broad terminology of "you have random/semi-random options to choose from", I'd like you to stop using it as a basis for what should be. Also, the only example of an actual mechanic I've seen is a Crusader's granted maneuvers, so judging off that, all you're doing is introducing a card game to my RPG. If I wanted to play a card game, I'd play Magic.

Sure, though there are low-level Vancian solutions dimension hop is a 2nd level ability, and there might be a 1st level thing out there.
Here's a thought experiment: What does the magic system consider "high level" that doesn't have a scalable, less powerful version? Other than no-save debuffs like syun and whatnot (which I think are a bad thing that should be removed in its entirety), what is "high level" that can't be scaled down?

I'm not convinced this logic is compelling. Doesn't a Warblade obsolete a CWar Samurai in much the same way a Wizard obsoletes a Warblade? I don't understand why eliminating based on this logic stops at Wizard-level classes.

I suppose you could make some argument about volume of options, but I that's hard to quantify, and I suspect that you already have as many options as you could reasonably use at Wizard-level. You might say that you want some specific option, but at that point I don't think you have a counter-argument to people who specifically want something unique to the Wizard.
Because the Warblade was built to be a better Fighter. It was determined that the role of "front line fighter" needed more power than it had, so they made a new class to fit that purpose.

Wizards were not made to be a frontline fighter. It was made to be artillery; controlling the battlefield and powerful blasting. Being able to be a frontline fighter, either through polymorph effects and/or summoning was never intended, but it can do it perfectly well in addition to its own job. It's like complaining that aircraft carrier made ironclad ships obsolete, but not recognizing that since you can turn your jet plane into the (S.H.I.E.L.D.) Helicarrier, it obsoletes them both. Except that the jet-***-halicarrier was discovered by accident.

fabricate is. All the PC classes that can cast fabricate are Tier One casters. If I want a character who casts fabricate, it is incumbent on me to play some kind of Tier One. Or a Magewright.
What about fabricate intrigues you other than "free building supplies"? In fact, most uses of fabricate I've seen are for breaking the economy. Why bother?

NichG

2017-09-19, 08:59 PM

But that doesn't seem like godgame to me (at least if that person who has Teleport through Time can only do that as a godgame function. That's just a regular game with fewer (and simultaneously more) limits on setting. The primary limit is the ability of the DM to decide what will happen--temporal meddling is either a) nonsense (fixed past) or b) oops now you all never existed dangerous. Paradoxes ahoy. Using it for godgame purposes completely relies on kindly DM fiat--the DM has to decide with no rules support what happens in the future timeline. That turns it into a game of "persuade the DM to see it your way."

That's the problem with open-ended power--either the game devolves into a consensus-based free-form roleplay or it stays basically the same as before, just with bigger numbers. Human brains can't even begin to imagine what it means to meddle arbitrarily with the timeline or remove the very concept of something, both of which are at the core of the proposed godgame.

I wouldn't recommend godgames for groups of people who have a hard time trusting each-other to be fair. The thing that makes them fun is just how wide they range - you can, in fact, experiment with the consequences of meddling arbitrarily in the timeline or removing the very concept of something. But to do that, you have to put some trust in the other human brains at the table, and tap everyone's creativity and imagination to see if you can find some new insights or inspirations.

Those aren't really godgames, they're just DM plot tokens (as I call them "plot devices in a can"). Even being able to portal to anywhere you want isn't very powerful unless you a) know where you want to go and b) can handle what you find there. I gave a group basically unlimited access to a portal network at about level 7 (D&D 5e). They have a 1x/day item that lets them cast Teleport Circle to any known portal location. Hasn't significantly disrupted the flow of the game, because known portals are controlled by, you guessed it, me. The other ones are just DM fiat in a can.

Operationally, a party equipped with a wide array of DM plot tokens poses all of the balance and relevance/meaningfulness consequences that any other godgame party poses. It doesn't matter where it came from, it matters what the players can do with it.

Naturally, the degree of effect they have is a function of players' creativity and the self-imposed limits of their will. For example, when I ran this campaign my players opened a portal to 'the place belonging to whomever is watching us right now', 'a place where we can find out what's actually going on', and then later 'A place whose very existence means that our enemies can never truly win'. I had to run with that and figure out what that meant. Getting what they wanted out of the portals wasn't effortless or a complete given, but the portals let them make attempts at cosmic-scale moves even if they had no character ability to just do it intrinsically. There were several portals they could have requested which could have essentially wrecked large swathes of the setting - it would be as simple as 'we want a portal to that which will destroy all things'.

I picture godgames as requiring at least constant access to the ability to make arbitrary changes in reality (subject to constraints from other godgame-type characters). That's possible, but I can't see it working in any system that can simultaneously handle normal games. They're completely disjoint game-spaces. Normal games are all about the limits. Externally imposed challenges. Godgames are all about self-imposed limits.

My mind can't even begin to grasp what that really means--everything I've read about games like Nobilis leads me to believe that they're really just window dressing. They claim to give the freedom to do anything, but in reality they're another system of checks and balances with external forces. The skills may have grand names, but since the counter-pressures are of equal magnitude, it isn't really what it seems. That may just be me though.

The seeds of self-imposed limits exist in games with externally imposed challenges. Any time someone plays a straight-laced character, they're setting up to encounter such a thing in miniature: 'I will not lie', 'I will not harm those who do not deserve it, even if doing so would be convenient', etc. So you have the seeds of the core of godgame play even before then, its just that often the externally imposed challenges are going to be the more relevant thing. Even characters that don't have a very strong internal ethos have things like limits of their imagination and so on - so as you ramp up the potential for power, those limits end up taking over as the dominant factors in determining what will happen.

The place where it is disjoint is with respect to what kinds of externally imposed factors can be used to create tension against internal limits. E.g. someone who has sworn not to lie might say 'if it would save a million lives from the invading army, I will break my oath' and there's some tension in that situation. But if the party has someone who can just destroy the invading army, or raise all the victims from the dead, or rewrite time so that the situation didn't come up, or whatever then there won't be any tension.

At the most extreme scale, characters begin to enter into unavoidable tension with themselves - that is to say, the implications of what the character can do even without thinking become potentially difficult for the character to live with even absent any kind of external system. The competent, immortal time traveler (e.g. the one who can, with precision, change the timeline without any unintended consequences) has to deal with the fact that they could literally fix everything and anything that ever goes wrong in the timeline - not just large-scale disasters, but minor mistakes in the lives of every individual. But if they do so, do those individuals still actually exist as themselves, or are they just puppets in the traveler's show? But if they don't fix things that they know they could fix, is that something they can live with? Etc...

Florian

2017-09-20, 01:26 AM

Darth Ultron

2017-09-20, 07:46 AM

So when the Hulk uses Fight 3 (++) and the "Hulk Smash!" stunt and the Widow uses Stealth 3 (++) and the "Assassin Training" stunt, they will have the same impact on the scene. It´s just important to understand that a scene is not something akin to a combat round, more a complete encounter, small dungeon, whatever.

This might be a point of disconnect for a lot of players.

In one round/minute The Hulk does 1,457 points of damage and kills 87 bad guys. In one round/minute Black Widow does 88 points of damage to three bad guys and knocks each one of them down and stuns them.

Now taking just that round/minute, a lot of players will love the ''Hulk Smash'', but whine and complain about the ''lame widow''. And sure, if your roll playing and counting the numbers, then the Hulk is super awesome and the Black Widow is nothing.

But when you step back and look at a whole encounter or more they can balance out. Where the Black Widow does 25 things to advance the plot/move the game forward/get things done/take all sorts of non-combat actions....while The Hulk just waits to smash something.

georgie_leech

2017-09-20, 08:52 AM

This might be a point of disconnect for a lot of players.

In one round/minute The Hulk does 1,457 points of damage and kills 87 bad guys. In one round/minute Black Widow does 88 points of damage to three bad guys and knocks each one of them down and stuns them.

Now taking just that round/minute, a lot of players will love the ''Hulk Smash'', but whine and complain about the ''lame widow''. And sure, if your roll playing and counting the numbers, then the Hulk is super awesome and the Black Widow is nothing.

But when you step back and look at a whole encounter or more they can balance out. Where the Black Widow does 25 things to advance the plot/move the game forward/get things done/take all sorts of non-combat actions....while The Hulk just waits to smash something.

The game doesn't measure things like that. So yes, it might be a point of disconnect if you play a game with a different ruleset than the one you expected.

Cosi

2017-09-20, 12:17 PM

You might note this is done by the writing of the plot (even the railroading of the plot). The Black Widow is not in anyway an exact match to the power level of the Hulk (or any of the other Avengers except Hawkeye). But the Marvel Universe (aka the plot) is made around the idea that she has meaningful impact.

The producers of a movie make choices that are not appropriate for a TTRPG. This is because they are different mediums, and support different stories. No one has any difficulty with the notion that film is less suited to depicting lengthy internal monologues than print, and it should be no more difficult to discern the problems inherent in telling stories with pronounced imbalance in a TTRPG rather than in print.

Also seeing as there isn't a "Winds of Fate" outside of a broad terminology of "you have random/semi-random options to choose from", I'd like you to stop using it as a basis for what should be.

It's broad, but so are "Spell Slots" or "Spell Points". Psionics, SoP, Factotums, and Magic of Incarnum are all "Spell Points" in the sense that you have a pool of resources with which to activate their abilities, but they all behave differently. Similarly, "draw from a deck", "roll on a table", and "roll above a threshold" are all RNG-based resource management that fall under the broad banner of "Winds of Fate", but they all behave quite differently in practice.

Also, the only example of an actual mechanic I've seen is a Crusader's granted maneuvers, so judging off that, all you're doing is introducing a card game to my RPG. If I wanted to play a card game, I'd play Magic.

You can always just not play the Crusader. I'm skeptical that one class having one resource management mechanic is a deal breaker.

Here's a thought experiment: What does the magic system consider "high level" that doesn't have a scalable, less powerful version? Other than no-save debuffs like syun and whatnot (which I think are a bad thing that should be removed in its entirety), what is "high level" that can't be scaled down?

I think abilities that scale are an exception, not a rule. There are lots of abilities that are related to other abilities, but there are relatively few examples of 1st level spells that are simply smaller versions of 3rd level spells.

Because the Warblade was built to be a better Fighter. It was determined that the role of "front line fighter" needed more power than it had, so they made a new class to fit that purpose.

But the Warblade also develops secondary capabilities -- like Diplomacy. Sure, he's less effective at them then equivalent power specialists, but he's more effective than lower power specialists. Similarly, while the Wizard may melee better than the Fighter, she doesn't melee better than the Cleric, which is the melee specialist (insofar as anyone is a melee specialist at that level) on a comparable power level.

What about fabricate intrigues you other than "free building supplies"? In fact, most uses of fabricate I've seen are for breaking the economy. Why bother?

First, you can't "break the economy". The economy is just the exchange of goods and services. That keeps happening even if you make manufactured goods cheaper. The economy will change, but that change is narratively interesting, and the Industrial Revolution has shown us how medieval economies respond to large drops in costs of manufacturing goods.

But fabricate has other applications. Notably, it doesn't just make manufacturing cheaper, it makes it faster as well. The ability to fabricate shelter, fortifications, or siege engines allows armies to maintain high levels of mobility without sacrificing those options, which is a big shift from traditional paradigms of warfare. This is particularly true in concert with movement powers like teleport.

I wouldn't recommend godgames for groups of people who have a hard time trusting each-other to be fair.

I wouldn't recommend gaming with people you don't trust. I think that holds regardless of what kind of game you plan to play.

Knaight

2017-09-20, 12:37 PM

The game doesn't measure things like that. So yes, it might be a point of disconnect if you play a game with a different ruleset than the one you expected.

It depends on the game - it's not like games where the combat specialist is better than the rest of a party in a fight are rare, and plenty of them work just fine because there's a lot of other stuff going on and other characters shine in those moments. Take a fairly standard set of PCs for a space opera - The Pilot, The Soldier, The Engineer, The Diplomat, and The Psychic. If something mechanical breaks and needs to be fixed, that's almost certainly on the engineer. The soldier might be useful if the thing in question is a weapon system, the pilot might be useful if it's part of a ship, and everyone else can probably pass a wrench over, but that's about it. If there's tricky flying to do it's on the pilot, where the rest might be capable of basic day to day stuff. If there's negotiation to be done it likely falls on the diplomat, particularly if it involves alien languages they're vastly more likely to know, and while the psychic might be a bit of a jack of all trades they could also easily end up an information specialist. This routinely works, and there are routinely measurements for this - they're called skills.

Where this doesn't work is if the distribution of scenes gets too skewed, and that can be on the system. If a simple engineering task is one roll and a simple combat is twenty minutes of interacting with a subsystem, then suddenly everyone having stuff to do in combat and being at least somewhat comparable matters or the game starts suffering. Similarly, if there's an overly elaborate hacking system (Shadowrun) the game can easily suffer while everyone waits for the hacker (decker) to do their thing.

Florian

2017-09-20, 01:10 PM

@knaight:

What´s meant is that things like physical attributes, complexity of tasks and so on don´t have an intrinsic meaning in a narrative game and you don´t resolve tasks on an action by action basis.
Having a certain skill gives you the right to describe certain action and the skill rank governs the scope (aka power level) of your description. In D&D context, having the Aspect "I am the Wizard" and a "Lore" skill rank 5 gives you the ability to narrate anything regarding magic on "god game level", if we agreed what that power level meant. Same would hold true for "I am the Fighter" and a "Fight" skill rank 5 of, that´s the martial god game. Same difference.

@Cosi:

Going by the last paragraph of the post, DU actually seemed to understand how it works when you´re talking about narrative impact.

Knaight

2017-09-20, 01:34 PM

@knaight:

What´s meant is that things like physical attributes, complexity of tasks and so on don´t have an intrinsic meaning in a narrative game and you don´t resolve tasks on an action by action basis.
Having a certain skill gives you the right to describe certain action and the skill rank governs the scope (aka power level) of your description. In D&D context, having the Aspect "I am the Wizard" and a "Lore" skill rank 5 gives you the ability to narrate anything regarding magic on "god game level", if we agreed what that power level meant. Same would hold true for "I am the Fighter" and a "Fight" skill rank 5 of, that´s the martial god game. Same difference.

I'm familiar with narrative games, and I'd argue that Fate barely qualifies. The core mechanic is straightforward skill based task resolution, stunts are an extension of that, and most of the ways Aspects work tie into that as well. Fate also has a pretty easy way of measuring this impact, and it's the skill pyramid - and the game can have similar issues to D&D optimization gaps if you do something like have some characters with a Superb pyramid while others have a Good pyramid.

Florian

2017-09-20, 01:38 PM

I'd argue that Fate barely qualifies

And I readily agree with you. It´s just the easiest example to use as it´s not that far away from more traditional games like, Durance, Lady Blackbird or Nobilis, which I understand you´ve played would be.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-20, 01:46 PM

I wouldn't recommend gaming with people you don't trust. I think that holds regardless of what kind of game you plan to play.

well I do find optimizers and their constant reaching for power through stupid abuses of rules inherently untrustworthy. The rules are supposed to make things fair, people who make sure they aren't are kind of jerks like that. If you cannot be bothered to follow something so basic as the rules without bending them to your advantage, how can I trust in anything?

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-20, 02:38 PM

I'm familiar with narrative games, and I'd argue that Fate barely qualifies. The core mechanic is straightforward skill based task resolution, stunts are an extension of that, and most of the ways Aspects work tie into that as well. Fate also has a pretty easy way of measuring this impact, and it's the skill pyramid - and the game can have similar issues to D&D optimization gaps if you do something like have some characters with a Superb pyramid while others have a Good pyramid.

And I readily agree with you. It´s just the easiest example to use as it´s not that far away from more traditional games like, Durance, Lady Blackbird or Nobilis, which I understand you´ve played would be.

I feel like I keep getting sucked into giving FATE grief it doesn't deserve, because people keep using it as an example of something it isn't.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-20, 02:44 PM

I feel like I keep getting sucked into giving FATE grief it doesn't deserve, because people keep using it as an example of something it isn't.

Personally I like it for being as seemingly equal yet free as you can possibly be character creation wise. Any concept can work. I like it for the other things as well, and I don't really care for the labels people put on it.

ImNotTrevor

2017-09-20, 03:08 PM

FATE Core, imo, is the weaker of the two. It takes tge strongest parts of the game (aspects and stunts) and buries them under a lot of minutia.

FATE Accelerated, however, is a lot closer to the narrative-focused game concept. It's less about WHAT you do and more about HOW. Aspects have much wider impact and come into play much more often, and the narrative has a noticeably larger influence on play.

If I were to hack FATE, I'd probably start with Accelerated and move outward, especially focusing on additional uses for aspects.

But that's neither here nor there. Feel free to ignore me now.

Amphetryon

2017-09-20, 07:39 PM

It depends on the game - it's not like games where the combat specialist is better than the rest of a party in a fight are rare, and plenty of them work just fine because there's a lot of other stuff going on and other characters shine in those moments. Take a fairly standard set of PCs for a space opera - The Pilot, The Soldier, The Engineer, The Diplomat, and The Psychic. If something mechanical breaks and needs to be fixed, that's almost certainly on the engineer. The soldier might be useful if the thing in question is a weapon system, the pilot might be useful if it's part of a ship, and everyone else can probably pass a wrench over, but that's about it. If there's tricky flying to do it's on the pilot, where the rest might be capable of basic day to day stuff. If there's negotiation to be done it likely falls on the diplomat, particularly if it involves alien languages they're vastly more likely to know, and while the psychic might be a bit of a jack of all trades they could also easily end up an information specialist. This routinely works, and there are routinely measurements for this - they're called skills.

Where this doesn't work is if the distribution of scenes gets too skewed, and that can be on the system. If a simple engineering task is one roll and a simple combat is twenty minutes of interacting with a subsystem, then suddenly everyone having stuff to do in combat and being at least somewhat comparable matters or the game starts suffering. Similarly, if there's an overly elaborate hacking system (Shadowrun) the game can easily suffer while everyone waits for the hacker (decker) to do their thing.

The other place this distribution struggles is making (in this scenario) the Engineer relevant without it feeling forced or making her bad at her job.

If the Pilot is good enough to generally avoid collisions & evade enemies, and the Diplomat skilled enough to minimize the number and severity of those enemies, then fixing things is often A) rare, B) the Engineer failing due diligence on maintenance, or C) the GM/Storyteller creating more mishaps than should be happening, statistically. That can leave the Engineer's Player wondering why she didn't just roll up a Companion, as her skills as Engineer are, at best, tangential to the rest of the game.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-20, 08:52 PM

Knaight

2017-09-20, 08:59 PM

If the Pilot is good enough to generally avoid collisions & evade enemies, and the Diplomat skilled enough to minimize the number and severity of those enemies, then fixing things is often A) rare, B) the Engineer failing due diligence on maintenance, or C) the GM/Storyteller creating more mishaps than should be happening, statistically. That can leave the Engineer's Player wondering why she didn't just roll up a Companion, as her skills as Engineer are, at best, tangential to the rest of the game.

It depends. Putting aside how PCs in general tend to have a knack for getting into trouble, there's also things like other people's derelict ships, sabotage, reverse engineering technology (usually in an implausibly short time, because that's how space opera rolls), etc. To use an actual example from one of my games - the PCs were hired by a mining company on a retrieval job, to get back some very valuable and dangerous cargo rigged to explode if captured. They found it in the hands of space pirates, who were trying to get in without getting blown up. The rest of the session involved gaining the pirates trust through going in on their side for a large space battle and coming back as the lone survivor with doctored footage of how the fight went (the pilot and soldier were useful here), "helping" the pirates get the cargo connected to their jump drive so they could take it away for further processing (engineer and diplomat*), then actually getting it hooked into their ship after the pirate ship jumped and abandoned it under the time crunch of their jump drive recharging, plus a quick skirmish with a couple of long range missiles when they came back really pissed off. That group didn't have a psychic (neither did the rest of the setting), but that role could have been useful in a few places.

In short, there's more to the role than just fixing the ship, particularly when a lot of what the party is doing isn't just fighting stuff.

*Inasmuch as there really was one.

digiman619

2017-09-21, 02:44 AM

It's broad, but so are "Spell Slots" or "Spell Points". Psionics, SoP, Factotums, and Magic of Incarnum are all "Spell Points" in the sense that you have a pool of resources with which to activate their abilities, but they all behave differently. Similarly, "draw from a deck", "roll on a table", and "roll above a threshold" are all RNG-based resource management that fall under the broad banner of "Winds of Fate", but they all behave quite differently in practice.
Maybe, but the last two would honestly be better done with custom dice rather than "! rolled a 14, that means I can do A, B, & C". But that's neither here nor there.

You can always just not play the Crusader. I'm skeptical that one class having one resource management mechanic is a deal breaker.
I referred to the Crusader because it was the only actual class that has a "winds of Fate" mechanic I know of, so it was the only basis I had.

I think abilities that scale are an exception, not a rule. There are lots of abilities that are related to other abilities, but there are relatively few examples of 1st level spells that are simply smaller versions of 3rd level spells.
I think that using the word 'scales' was incorrect; I don't mean "does X; +Y per caster level". I meant "X is a 3rd level spell, but it's like Y which is 5th and Z which is 8th" That way we can see if "<effect> is a high-level ability" has merit.

But the Warblade also develops secondary capabilities -- like Diplomacy. Sure, he's less effective at them then equivalent power specialists, but he's more effective than lower power specialists. Similarly, while the Wizard may melee better than the Fighter, she doesn't melee better than the Cleric, which is the melee specialist (insofar as anyone is a melee specialist at that level) on a comparable power level.
Yeah, because "has nothing to do outside of combat" was one of the things that was found lacking in the Fighter, so when they were developing the Fighter 2.0, they kept that in mind. Also, 3/4th base attack bonus is supposed to be middle of the road; frontline fighters are, by default are full BAB classes. Granted, with all the buffs the cleric can do, they totally make up for the lost points of BAB, but it was designed as "buffer/healer/anti-undead".

First, you can't "break the economy". The economy is just the exchange of goods and services. That keeps happening even if you make manufactured goods cheaper. The economy will change, but that change is narratively interesting, and the Industrial Revolution has shown us how medieval economies respond to large drops in costs of manufacturing goods.

But fabricate has other applications. Notably, it doesn't just make manufacturing cheaper, it makes it faster as well. The ability to fabricate shelter, fortifications, or siege engines allows armies to maintain high levels of mobility without sacrificing those options, which is a big shift from traditional paradigms of warfare. This is particularly true in concert with movement powers like teleport.
By "break the economy", I mean "break wealth-by-level". The only reason your character cares about money is to buy better gear. Take that out of the equation, and "the economy" becomes a non-issue. But Wealth-by-level is one of the base assumptions that game is based around. For example, by the time you fight shadows, you are supposed to have enough money to acquire a +1 weapon. If the GM is being stingy with their treasure, you won't be able to hit these intangible a-holes (even though they can hit you just fine) and, unless you have a dedicated blaster, they will end you, Likewise, being too generous can make challenging your players harder because they may have access to abilities they aren't supposed to yet.

With respect, though, "making defenses and arming the army" sounds like stuff that would get abstracted. While I suppose I can appreciate its usefulness in a "we have 7 days before the army arrives" scenario of defense, that seems to be an edge case. Besides, fabricate is a 5th level spell. By the time you have the slots to use it more than once or twice a day, you'd be 11th. Why are you wasting time playing soldier when you should be having "high-level adventures"?

I wouldn't recommend gaming with people you don't trust. I think that holds regardless of what kind of game you plan to play.
On that, we can heartily agree.

Darth Ultron

2017-09-21, 06:39 AM

But if magic is unsafe and unreliable, why would anyone use it?

And they just want too. It's odd to think ''everyone'' would be so practical as to say ''oh that is dangerous or risky so I won't do it.'' There are tons and tons and tons of such things....and people all ways ''take the chance''.

well I do find optimizers and their constant reaching for power through stupid abuses of rules inherently untrustworthy. The rules are supposed to make things fair, people who make sure they aren't are kind of jerks like that. If you cannot be bothered to follow something so basic as the rules without bending them to your advantage, how can I trust in anything?

I think it is a big error to say ''the rules are made to make things fair''....and that really goes for ''all rules''. The rules of a game are to ''play the game'', that is it...there is no ''fairness'' or anything else.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-21, 06:45 AM

The only reason your character cares about money is to buy better gear.

Taken literally, that would be a wildly untrue statement in my experience. Might be more true of some players.

Lacco

2017-09-21, 08:13 AM

The other place this distribution struggles is making (in this scenario) the Engineer relevant without it feeling forced or making her bad at her job.

If the Pilot is good enough to generally avoid collisions & evade enemies, and the Diplomat skilled enough to minimize the number and severity of those enemies, then fixing things is often A) rare, B) the Engineer failing due diligence on maintenance, or C) the GM/Storyteller creating more mishaps than should be happening, statistically. That can leave the Engineer's Player wondering why she didn't just roll up a Companion, as her skills as Engineer are, at best, tangential to the rest of the game.

Au contraire.

If we take into account lifetime and failure rates of standard components used for safety-related functions (e.g. safety systems in aeronautics, railways, etc.) that are used now - which is usually something about 30 years with failure rates around 10-9 and lower, Traveler does indeed have good reason or Engineer to exist and be good at their job.

After all, if you want a ship a starting character can afford to "feed", you need to age it.

And even though the components have lifetime of 30 years, you can easily have rules that say that these need to be replaced after 10 years in operation for the lifetime of the whole system to be 30 years...

...so, let's take a ship that has 40 years (which - from what I know - is nothing unusual in Traveler) or more. Refit several times, repaired innumerous times, duct-taped as far as eyes can see. You need an Engineer to keep it in shape and operable - otherwise the chips start to burn out, the relays weld, mechanical components damage and you end up with heap of nothing.

And if the ship gets into a fight (without shields/with shields) you get either lot of work for the guy to jury-rig the contacts/re-route the coolants/whatever or to keep the shield generators operable without them melting the rest of the ship.

So, talking statistically... if you have only one engineer, you have either a well-made ship that has 2-5 years (=most issues of the new ship were already removed, but it's still "like new"), or exhausted engineer.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-21, 08:37 AM

Au contraire.

If we take into account lifetime and failure rates of standard components used for safety-related functions (e.g. safety systems in aeronautics, railways, etc.) that are used now - which is usually something about 30 years with failure rates around 10-9 and lower, Traveler does indeed have good reason or Engineer to exist and be good at their job.

After all, if you want a ship a starting character can afford to "feed", you need to age it.

And even though the components have lifetime of 30 years, you can easily have rules that say that these need to be replaced after 10 years in operation for the lifetime of the whole system to be 30 years...

...so, let's take a ship that has 40 years (which - from what I know - is nothing unusual in Traveler) or more. Refit several times, repaired innumerous times, duct-taped as far as eyes can see. You need an Engineer to keep it in shape and operable - otherwise the chips start to burn out, the relays weld, mechanical components damage and you end up with heap of nothing.

And if the ship gets into a fight (without shields/with shields) you get either lot of work for the guy to jury-rig the contacts/re-route the coolants/whatever or to keep the shield generators operable without them melting the rest of the ship.

So, talking statistically... if you have only one engineer, you have either a well-made ship that has 2-5 years (=most issues of the new ship were already removed, but it's still "like new"), or exhausted engineer.

That's the other extreme, and has the same effect of making the Engineer into a position that's better for an NPC to fulfill.

Lacco

2017-09-21, 08:58 AM

That's the other extreme, and has the same effect of making the Engineer into a position that's better for an NPC to fulfill.

It depends on the player, the game, the GM...

...and of course, the system.

It can be extrapolated into few rolls + roleplay. And there are people who would love a "engineering" minigame (similar to combat in D&D). Also, all of these also give you opportunities for other players. After all, someone has to negotiate prices for spare parts, protect the engineer from pirate boarders while he re-routes power to the hyperdrive to escape... oh, and you know the one spare part you need for the computer to work at 100% instead of 25%? It's in the pirate sector... :smallbiggrin:

So, why NPC it?

Cosi

2017-09-21, 09:18 AM

well I do find optimizers and their constant reaching for power through stupid abuses of rules inherently untrustworthy. The rules are supposed to make things fair, people who make sure they aren't are kind of jerks like that. If you cannot be bothered to follow something so basic as the rules without bending them to your advantage, how can I trust in anything?

The rules are fair. No optimizer is doing something you cannot yourself do. You may find that the rules lead to an outcome you do not prefer, but it seems unfair to assign blame for that to the people playing the game rather than the people designing it.

Rescue mission, Engineer is crucial in getting into the derelict ship, getting it running again, etc.

Heist arc, Engineer is crucial in defeating the security.

Ship to ship combat, the Engineer runs the sensors and electronic warfare, make sure that stuff matters in your ship-to-ship combat mechanics.

All true. The concern for the niche of the Engineer seems quite overblown to me. Having "uses technology" as a skill is, if anything, too wide a niche in a technologically advanced setting. Looking at other SciFi-ish games, there are plenty of options. In XCOM: Long War Engineers get support options geared towards removing and providing cover, plus some minimal hacking options. In XCOM 2, there's a class (I think maybe Support?) that gets a drone you can fly around for fun and profit. In Mass Effect, Tali is basically an engineer and she gets a drone and some hacking abilities.

If you're willing to mess with the setting a little, you could do something like Star Wars, Warhammer 40k, or Newton's Wake and have the majority of technology in the setting be things people do not actually understand, which makes it possible to have an Engineer who is compete while still having equipment that isn't consistent. If your weapons are actually remnants of the post-human ancients that came before, it's perfectly possible to have a technologist who is competent enough to have a meaningful niche, while still having enough gaps in their knowledge to sometimes have problems to fix.

I referred to the Crusader because it was the only actual class that has a "winds of Fate" mechanic I know of, so it was the only basis I had.

I'm not objecting to using it as an example, I just think isn't reasonable to ask that all the classes work in the exact way you want. I don't like the Psionic classes, but I'm not calling for them to be booted from the game, because I acknowledge that other people can legitimately feel differently, and I can always just not play one or ban them.

I think that using the word 'scales' was incorrect; I don't mean "does X; +Y per caster level". I meant "X is a 3rd level spell, but it's like Y which is 5th and Z which is 8th" That way we can see if "<effect> is a high-level ability" has merit.

I think this just results in the same conclusions, but with more specificity. Sure, teleport and dimension hop are both teleportation effects, but the limitations of dimension hop (line of sight) are obvious, and the fact that they are qualitative rather than quantitative seems to me to make it clear that teleport is at least different.

Granted, with all the buffs the cleric can do, they totally make up for the lost points of BAB, but it was designed as "buffer/healer/anti-undead".

Then why write divine power? That spell has no possible other use than turning you into a frontline combatant. Yes, it's less effective without Persistent Spell, but even in core there's Quicken Spell.

By "break the economy", I mean "break wealth-by-level". The only reason your character cares about money is to buy better gear. Take that out of the equation, and "the economy" becomes a non-issue.

I agree that this is a concern, but I don't think it applies to all characters. Certainly, if your character is a murderhobo stereotype, he might not care about anything other than his personal ability to kill monsters and take their stuff. On the other hand, there's nothing stopping your character from caring about something like "creating a powerful trading company" or "protecting a kingdom", either as a means to an end or an end unto itself.

But Wealth-by-level is one of the base assumptions that game is based around. For example, by the time you fight shadows, you are supposed to have enough money to acquire a +1 weapon. If the GM is being stingy with their treasure, you won't be able to hit these intangible a-holes (even though they can hit you just fine) and, unless you have a dedicated blaster, they will end you, Likewise, being too generous can make challenging your players harder because they may have access to abilities they aren't supposed to yet.

I agree that's how the game works, but I think it's a bad paradigm and the game should be changed. It means that you can't have set-pieces like "a city of gold" or "a castle made of diamond" or "a mountain of black onyx", because then after the adventure the players can strip them for enough wealth to break the game. Those set-pieces are cool, and it is better if the game can have them. Therefore, we should look for some way to do that without breaking the game.

One answer (the one the Tomes suggest) is to have a separate economies, one for (powerful) magic items and one for non-magic items. Once you pass a certain level range, you enter the "Wish Economy", where you can be assumed to have as much non-magic wealth as you might want, because it can no longer be used to purchase level appropriate gear.

You also probably want to change how "having level appropriate gear" works somewhat, because the current model is unsatisfying, but that's a different topic.

With respect, though, "making defenses and arming the army" sounds like stuff that would get abstracted.

Possibly, but surely the inputs to that abstraction should include whether or not the party has fabricate.

Why are you wasting time playing soldier when you should be having "high-level adventures"?

Commanding an army is a high level adventure (or at least, not a low level one). Commanding an army involves having a bunch of minions who are regular dudes, and that is obviously inappropriate if your character is himself a regular dude.

digiman619

2017-09-21, 10:45 AM

Taken literally, that would be a wildly untrue statement in my experience. Might be more true of some players.
Sure, player greed is always a factor, but the "you need more money to get better gear" treadmill is fueling that and without it, a lot of the greed would be drastically diminished.

The rules are fair. No optimizer is doing something you cannot yourself do. You may find that the rules lead to an outcome you do not prefer, but it seems unfair to assign blame for that to the people playing the game rather than the people designing it.
Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the rules apply to each character and anything that one player builds is legal for anyone else to build; there's no "Only people born before August are allowed to be arcane casters" or such nonsense. But on the other hand, there are a lot of antagonists that have things that an equal level character can't have (a 10 HD monster having a 9th level spell as an SLA leaps to mind). And since there's practically no antagonist force that your players won't be able to get somehow, that breaks things by giving them too early.

I'm not objecting to using it as an example, I just think isn't reasonable to ask that all the classes work in the exact way you want. I don't like the Psionic classes, but I'm not calling for them to be booted from the game, because I acknowledge that other people can legitimately feel differently, and I can always just not play one or ban them.
With respect, "I need to keep track of points left to spend" has a far different feel from the card mechanic a Crusader has; it feels less like "this class has a new mechanic" and more like "my class requires a mini-game to proceed"

I think this just results in the same conclusions, but with more specificity. Sure, teleport and dimension hop are both teleportation effects, but the limitations of dimension hop (line of sight) are obvious, and the fact that they are qualitative rather than quantitative seems to me to make it clear that teleport is at least different.
Never mind, then. It was just a thought experiment.

Then why write divine power? That spell has no possible other use than turning you into a frontline combatant. Yes, it's less effective without Persistent Spell, but even in core there's Quicken Spell.
This ties into a few things I've said before: 1) The creatures of 3.X made mistakes in their design, resulting in some classes being way overpowered in respect to the parity they wished for and some being underpowered. Divine power falls into this design. and 2) the healer, as bad as it was, was designed to do the anti- undead and healing designs of the cleric because the buffing aspect proved to be too powerful.

Or at least, that's what I'm gathering from the data I see. I don't know if the creators ever talked about the design while not under WotC's employ and therefore not talking the company line. I could be wrong.

I agree that this is a concern, but I don't think it applies to all characters. Certainly, if your character is a murderhobo stereotype, he might not care about anything other than his personal ability to kill monsters and take their stuff. On the other hand, there's nothing stopping your character from caring about something like "creating a powerful trading company" or "protecting a kingdom", either as a means to an end or an end unto itself.
True, but the treadmill of "get more gp to get better gear" never goes away. In my experience, most players who have "economic goals" to coin a phrase, are doing it to get more goodies. In other words, they are doing it because the player wants cool stuff rather than the character being an entrepreneur.

I agree that's how the game works, but I think it's a bad paradigm and the game should be changed. It means that you can't have set-pieces like "a city of gold" or "a castle made of diamond" or "a mountain of black onyx", because then after the adventure the players can strip them for enough wealth to break the game. Those set-pieces are cool, and it is better if the game can have them. Therefore, we should look for some way to do that without breaking the game.

One answer (the one the Tomes suggest) is to have a separate economies, one for (powerful) magic items and one for non-magic items. Once you pass a certain level range, you enter the "Wish Economy", where you can be assumed to have as much non-magic wealth as you might want, because it can no longer be used to purchase level appropriate gear.

You also probably want to change how "having level appropriate gear" works somewhat, because the current model is unsatisfying, but that's a different topic.
Well, not to be a Pathfinder fanboy, but have you heard of their Auomatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression)? It removes the need for the "big six" by making you get such bonuses (enhancement bonuses for weapons, armor, natural armor and your ability scores, resistance bonuses to saves, and deflection bonuses to AC) as part of the level up process. This means that the Fighter's prowess isn't as tied to his gear like he was in the current system (I recall reading one thread that, as a thought experiment, pitted a Fighter 10 with level 20 WBL vs a Fighter 20 with level 10 WBL, and the lower-level one won most of the engagements). That way you can leave your magic item slots open to useful items that do cool stuff rather than just than the ones that add numerical bonuses.

Though yeah, "Wish economy" preventing people from starting businesses solely to get money for better gear seems like a good idea.

Possibly, but surely the inputs to that abstraction should include whether or not the party has fabricate.
Perhaps. Though if I'm being honest, having the artisans who actually know how to build things should be more important.

Commanding an army is a high level adventure (or at least, not a low level one). Commanding an army involves having a bunch of minions who are regular dudes, and that is obviously inappropriate if your character is himself a regular dude.
I suppose that depends on how you define "regular dude". Do you mean stat-wise? If he's not going to get into personal combat (or at least not where the PCs can see), then it doesn't matter what his stats are. He could be a Commoner or a Crusader; if he isn't rolling initiative and making attack rolls where the PCs are watching, you can just say "General Wright fought off three attackers with just his sidearm" or "General Wright was sniped by an archer" or whatever other abstraction you want.

Do you mean socially? Sure, that makes sense. There is historical precedent for the military being a way to improve one's social standings, and there is an inherent hierarchy in the military known as the chain of command. However, it only applies to its own command structure, As a general rule, people outside don't have any authority over them (outside of the appropriate head of state and others they have justly authorized). Why would they listen to your characters? I suppose they can be acting under royal writ, but generally speaking PCs would be special operatives rather than assuming command.

I'm assuming that what you mean, however, is that being a general is more "high level" than anyone beneath him. My contention is outside of the plot point of "General Wright casts wish" or uses some other ability high-level ability "on-screen", the level of the general is moot. Other than "it takes a long time to make that rank", there's nothing that implies that a general is a high-level character.

I'm supposing I'm saying that "dealing with mortal armies" feels like it's clearly a mid-level adventure (5th-7th level if I had to quantify it) and not "high-level". Or at least not high enough of a level that fabricate is going to be on the table.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-21, 11:38 AM

Sure, player greed is always a factor, but the "you need more money to get better gear" treadmill is fueling that and without it, a lot of the greed would be drastically diminished.

What about all the games without anything like WBL or the gold-gear-treadmill?

What about actual character motives that have nothing to with upgrading their personal arsenal?

Pex

2017-09-21, 11:45 AM

In a past Pathfinder game my character was given 100 million gold pieces. The circumstances are a long and complicated story, but the point is to have been given that much wealth wasn't out of character, so to speak, of that particular campaign. Everyone in the party was filthy rich already. What we had was what I called NPC wealth. It was roleplaying narrative spent and earned to further the campaign plot. It was and could never be used to improve a PCs normal character development such as magic items. That was handled through normal adventuring treasure collecting.

The tone of that campaign is not for everyone, but it couldn't hurt for an RPG to talk about NPC wealth. It starts small. The party reaches the point where it's no longer necessary to keep track of minutiae spending such as paying for drinks at the tavern, getting rooms at the inn, etc. The party is presumed to have enough treasure to cover it, and they'll be getting more soon anyway so why bother. It's all roleplaying spending. This is where the stereotypical PC starts a business comes in. DMs tend not to want PC businesses to be a huge success because it a player would want to use that wealth to increase his character's power. A distinction needs to made. Let the business succeed and the player can roleplay a wealthy person. That wealth can't be used to improve the character, such as purchasing magic items if allowed. The normal treasure earned through adventuring is the only money that can be used for that, but the player is free to spend some of that money into his NPC wealth roleplaying. Normal treasure is PC wealth.

digiman619

2017-09-21, 12:19 PM

What about all the games without anything like WBL or the gold-gear-treadmill?

What about actual character motives that have nothing to with upgrading their personal arsenal?

To be fair, me and Cosi were discussing 3.X and Pathfinder, which do have those conceits. There are plenty of games that such a thing wouldn't matter. Mutants & Masterminds leaps to mind. You could totally play an M&M game that was a dungeon crawling adventure. Start at PL 5 or so and work your way up to PL 30. I recall seeing someone's port of D&D to M&M in their signature.

In a past Pathfinder game my character was given 100 million gold pieces. The circumstances are a long and complicated story, but the point is to have been given that much wealth wasn't out of character, so to speak, of that particular campaign. Everyone in the party was filthy rich already. What we had was what I called NPC wealth. It was roleplaying narrative spent and earned to further the campaign plot. It was and could never be used to improve a PCs normal character development such as magic items. That was handled through normal adventuring treasure collecting.

The tone of that campaign is not for everyone, but it couldn't hurt for an RPG to talk about NPC wealth. It starts small. The party reaches the point where it's no longer necessary to keep track of minutiae spending such as paying for drinks at the tavern, getting rooms at the inn, etc. The party is presumed to have enough treasure to cover it, and they'll be getting more soon anyway so why bother. It's all roleplaying spending. This is where the stereotypical PC starts a business comes in. DMs tend not to want PC businesses to be a huge success because it a player would want to use that wealth to increase his character's power. A distinction needs to made. Let the business succeed and the player can roleplay a wealthy person. That wealth can't be used to improve the character, such as purchasing magic items if allowed. The normal treasure earned through adventuring is the only money that can be used for that, but the player is free to spend some of that money into his NPC wealth roleplaying. Normal treasure is PC wealth.
That's probably the best way to handle it. It's kinda like one member of the party being a nobleman. When the adventure has them rub up against the aristocracy, they can get some spotlight and do roleplaying stuff, but when it isn't needed, it's just a background aspect. As long as the wealth of a character remains a fluff aspect, they can be ultrabillionaires if they want to be.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-21, 12:44 PM

I think it is a big error to say ''the rules are made to make things fair''....and that really goes for ''all rules''. The rules of a game are to ''play the game'', that is it...there is no ''fairness'' or anything else.

No playing the game is what players do. they can play without needing rules. its rules that are supposed to make sure they don't ruin things for everything else by introducing some stupid shenanigans that screw everyone else over. because if they are not fair, there is no point to the rules and I might as well just play freeform and say my character is more super-powerful than everyone else.

NichG

2017-09-21, 01:09 PM

No playing the game is what players do. they can play without needing rules. its rules that are supposed to make sure they don't ruin things for everything else by introducing some stupid shenanigans that screw everyone else over. because if they are not fair, there is no point to the rules and I might as well just play freeform and say my character is more super-powerful than everyone else.

Rules, like promises, can be a tool to communicate shared assumable things. If someone says 'if you do X, I'll do Y' then they're giving the other person a way to make decisions with (if they aren't lying) correct future knowledge about at least some of the consequences. An additional effect specifically for tabletop gaming is that lets the mental effort be distributed around the table a bit better.

When the DM says, for example, 'okay, here's an item and here are the rules on how it works' then:

1) The player can assume that when they use the item, events follow from that as they have been told, and so they can plan things out with at least some specific knowledge of how parts of that plan will play out
2) The DM has transferred responsibility for tracking the item and its properties to the player, so they can focus on other things

Both of those are useful things to be able to do.

Talakeal

2017-09-22, 12:45 AM

Well, those are new abilities. Maybe the BAB and such less so, but certainly the feats. And I don't think it really is forever. If your concept is "mundane sword guy" (if you just want to be martial, the issue is largely gone), there has to be some amount of swording that is not mundane enough for you, right? Like, if you can sword hard enough to put out the sun, that's probably too much. So there is some limit to how many abilities you can get. You may never hit it, but it exists. Which implies that someone whose concept is not as constrained like a Death Knight or Gish who gets both swording and spelling will eventually surpass you when you both have all the sword abilities and he has Death Pact or Arcane Strike or something.

By RAW a straight fighter can indeed continue to progress in a linear fashion forever.

True, there will come a point where continuing to pile on BaB and HP will get increasingly stupid, but it will probably be among the least stupid things taking place in your hypothetical level three-hundred and eighty two campaign.

You could also have someone whose power increase asymptotically or with exponential XP costs, thus allowing limitless progression but with diminishing returns kicking in and keeping you from ever breaking the system completely.

But yeah, epic level D&D is not at all well implemented. There is a level of gonzo high fantasy where martial characters are irrelevant, where you are dealing with seemingly omnipotent multi-dimensional beings and rewriting the underlying concepts of reality, but this isn't something that D&D (or really 99% of the entire fantasy genre) even attempts to cover. Conceptually martial characters work just fine alongside casters in your typical castles and dungeons and monsters and quests and wars of good and evil that D&D (and almost all other fantasy) covers, and heck even RAW D&D can mechanically do it if you use ToB martials alongside fixed list casters.

Segev

2017-09-22, 10:13 AM

Why is this thread basically 'How do I fix 3.5?' Well I guess it kinda answers the question, win buttons are bad because 3.5 sucks.

But it's 2 editions old by this point. Fixing it would require a massive amount of work because it's a system with decades worth of baggage built up from how many books and rules it has.

Similarly, why are you arguing with Cosi? His viewpoint is that of the guy with a million bucks. He's not really opposed to other people having a million bucks, but he'll be damned before he gives up any of his money. Them not having a million bucks is their problem, not his.

So for those who want to 'fix' 3.5, I want to ask a question for you.

Why not fix 5e instead? I mean, it's an easier job, simply by how much smaller the system is. What is it about 5e that is so poor to drive you away, or what is so good about 3.5 that you'd prefer it?
5e is actually harder to fix, because it's so much vaguer. It is broken in exactly the way the underlying design paradigm intended, even if there are other, unintended breaks on top of it. That "break" is that it absolutely requires a DM to adjudicate it, and the DM is thoroughly encouraged to be a bit on the tyrannical side when it comes to (dis)approving options. It is, for all its crunch, a much less rules-rigid game. "Fixing" it doesn't work very well because its moving parts interlock in ways that prevent that without knowing your DM through and through.

3e/PF are much more DM-independent. Not that you can run without them, but the predictability of what will and won't work is easier to achieve, so the moving parts can be tooled and tuned and then observed in a standardized way.

Also, why SHOULD somebody "with a million bucks" give up his wealth? It doesn't help anybody else. Even if he is just one of 100 people, and thus would be able to give everybody else $1000, he's only ruined his own lifestyle while barely helping everybody else's. Sure, they like the windfall, but it's not going to change their lives.

So...maybe that's a bad analogy? I am not sure what point you're trying to make if it is, though.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-22, 11:39 AM

5e is actually harder to fix, because it's so much vaguer. It is broken in exactly the way the underlying design paradigm intended, even if there are other, unintended breaks on top of it. That "break" is that it absolutely requires a DM to adjudicate it, and the DM is thoroughly encouraged to be a bit on the tyrannical side when it comes to (dis)approving options. It is, for all its crunch, a much less rules-rigid game. "Fixing" it doesn't work very well because its moving parts interlock in ways that prevent that without knowing your DM through and through.

3e/PF are much more DM-independent. Not that you can run without them, but the predictability of what will and won't work is easier to achieve, so the moving parts can be tooled and tuned and then observed in a standardized way.

Also, why SHOULD somebody "with a million bucks" give up his wealth? It doesn't help anybody else. Even if he is just one of 100 people, and thus would be able to give everybody else $1000, he's only ruined his own lifestyle while barely helping everybody else's. Sure, they like the windfall, but it's not going to change their lives.

So...maybe that's a bad analogy? I am not sure what point you're trying to make if it is, though.

Is that so? So you don't think a fixed (as in set values) skill system couldn't be added on for example? That is one of the more common complaints I hear about 5e.

No analogy is perfect, and we can't really discuss it in the context of a real world scenario. But in the context of being at a D&D table, there would only be 4-5 people. Then replace money with 'fun'.

Cosi

2017-09-22, 11:58 AM

Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the rules apply to each character and anything that one player builds is legal for anyone else to build; there's no "Only people born before August are allowed to be arcane casters" or such nonsense. But on the other hand, there are a lot of antagonists that have things that an equal level character can't have (a 10 HD monster having a 9th level spell as an SLA leaps to mind). And since there's practically no antagonist force that your players won't be able to get somehow, that breaks things by giving them too early.

That's a different kind of break. Raziere is (as far as I can tell) talking about imbalance between players -- min-maxers making characters that overshadow hers and stop her from having fun. That's different from the ability to make characters that are ahead of the level curve (trivially, everyone in your party can play Pun-Pun). They're probably related, but it's a different issue.

With respect, "I need to keep track of points left to spend" has a far different feel from the card mechanic a Crusader has; it feels less like "this class has a new mechanic" and more like "my class requires a mini-game to proceed"

It doesn't seem that involved. You write a chart that matches your maneuvers to playing cards, shuffle those cards together, then draw a hand. That takes some setup, but that setup can be done out of game, and the drawing is pretty fast. And power points are non-trivial. With an implementation like Psionics, you're repeatedly adding and subtracting double digit numbers from a triple digit running total. That's far from impossible, but it's a hassle to do at game time.

This ties into a few things I've said before: 1) The creatures of 3.X made mistakes in their design, resulting in some classes being way overpowered in respect to the parity they wished for and some being underpowered. Divine power falls into this design. and 2) the healer, as bad as it was, was designed to do the anti- undead and healing designs of the cleric because the buffing aspect proved to be too powerful.

This seems to be assuming facts not in evidence. Why was divine power the mistake and not, say, giant vermin? Maybe the Cleric supposed to buff itself and kill undead, but not produce house-sized scorpions. Where is the Healer presented as a toned-down Cleric, rather than a new class? You seem to be asking us to assume that the designers new what they intended to do, knew which things were problems, but still produced those things anyway. And that doesn't make sense.

Well, not to be a Pathfinder fanboy, but have you heard of their Auomatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression)? It removes the need for the "big six" by making you get such bonuses (enhancement bonuses for weapons, armor, natural armor and your ability scores, resistance bonuses to saves, and deflection bonuses to AC) as part of the level up process. This means that the Fighter's prowess isn't as tied to his gear like he was in the current system (I recall reading one thread that, as a thought experiment, pitted a Fighter 10 with level 20 WBL vs a Fighter 20 with level 10 WBL, and the lower-level one won most of the engagements). That way you can leave your magic item slots open to useful items that do cool stuff rather than just than the ones that add numerical bonuses.

That solves part of the problem, but as long as you keep allowing people to spend money on gear, you're going to get the same effect, it's just going to be that now Belts of Battle or whatever are the best item. Something like ABP (though I've heard the specific numbers are bad) works, but instead of just keeping the rest of the Magic Item Christmas Tree, you should have whatever you need to be level appropriate be assumed, and then have random items.

I suppose that depends on how you define "regular dude". Do you mean stat-wise? If he's not going to get into personal combat (or at least not where the PCs can see), then it doesn't matter what his stats are. He could be a Commoner or a Crusader; if he isn't rolling initiative and making attack rolls where the PCs are watching, you can just say "General Wright fought off three attackers with just his sidearm" or "General Wright was sniped by an archer" or whatever other abstraction you want.

I don't mean conceptually. I mean from a pretty simple balance perspective. Suppose your soldiers are 1st level Warriors. If you are at a level where "a big pile of 1st level Warriors" would be overpowered, you can't have a big pile of 1st level Warriors as an ability (which commanding an army would imply).

By RAW a straight fighter can indeed continue to progress in a linear fashion forever.

True, there will come a point where continuing to pile on BaB and HP will get increasingly stupid, but it will probably be among the least stupid things taking place in your hypothetical level three-hundred and eighty two campaign.

Except then you've put a giant constraint on how much power other character can have. If all the Fighter gets is a point of BAB and some HP, all the Wizard can get is an ability equivalent to that. Which is going to be stupid.

You could also have someone whose power increase asymptotically or with exponential XP costs, thus allowing limitless progression but with diminishing returns kicking in and keeping you from ever breaking the system completely.

People don't just want to progress, there are specific abilities they want to have. "Hit it really hard" just doesn't compete with "teleport", and trying to make it work that way is just going to make progression agonizingly slowly.

Conceptually martial characters work just fine alongside casters in your typical castles and dungeons and monsters and quests and wars of good and evil that D&D (and almost all other fantasy) covers, and heck even RAW D&D can mechanically do it if you use ToB martials alongside fixed list casters.

Except they don't, because they get combat abilities and the casters get those and non-combat abilities. A cannot be balanced against A + B.

Drakevarg

2017-09-22, 12:36 PM

I don't mean conceptually. I mean from a pretty simple balance perspective. Suppose your soldiers are 1st level Warriors. If you are at a level where "a big pile of 1st level Warriors" would be overpowered, you can't have a big pile of 1st level Warriors as an ability (which commanding an army would imply).

Given that mass battlefield combat is handled abstractly and thus runs on plot (and common sense), "an army" is not a meaningful class feature. Anyone from a first-level Aristocrat to a 20th-level Fighter can be a military commander, it has no bearing whatsoever on their personal power.

Tinkerer

2017-09-22, 01:02 PM

Given that mass battlefield combat is handled abstractly and thus runs on plot (and common sense), "an army" is not a meaningful class feature. Anyone from a first-level Aristocrat to a 20th-level Fighter can be a military commander, it has no bearing whatsoever on their personal power.

While it does get abstracted I wouldn't say it runs on plot necessarily. Most GMs that I know will use some manner of mass combat system to abstract it if it becomes required.

Drakevarg

2017-09-22, 01:06 PM

While it does get abstracted I wouldn't say it runs on plot necessarily. Most GMs that I know will use some manner of mass combat system to abstract it if it becomes required.

Heroes of Battle, at least, specifically recommends against attempting to simulate the actual combat actions of hundreds of NPCs because on top of being enormously tedious it rarely adds anything meaningful to gameplay. The battle runs on fiat based on the elements available, and the only things that ever get rolled for are things the players directly interact with.

digiman619

2017-09-22, 01:18 PM

That's a different kind of break. Raziere is (as far as I can tell) talking about imbalance between players -- min-maxers making characters that overshadow hers and stop her from having fun. That's different from the ability to make characters that are ahead of the level curve (trivially, everyone in your party can play Pun-Pun). They're probably related, but it's a different issue.
Good point. Consider my statement retracted.

It doesn't seem that involved. You write a chart that matches your maneuvers to playing cards, shuffle those cards together, then draw a hand. That takes some setup, but that setup can be done out of game, and the drawing is pretty fast. And power points are non-trivial. With an implementation like Psionics, you're repeatedly adding and subtracting double digit numbers from a triple digit running total. That's far from impossible, but it's a hassle to do at game time.
With respect, what's stopping them from using a calculator or scratch paper? And when are you ever adding power points? They are balanced around being a fixed resource. The only time you should have your power points go up is when you regain power points after resting. You might be using cognizance crystals, but that's using the PP from them, not adding to your PP per se.

That solves part of the problem, but as long as you keep allowing people to spend money on gear, you're going to get the same effect, it's just going to be that now Belts of Battle or whatever are the best item. Something like ABP (though I've heard the specific numbers are bad) works, but instead of just keeping the rest of the Magic Item Christmas Tree, you should have whatever you need to be level appropriate be assumed, and then have random items.
Unless you remove all magic items whatsoever, it's inexcapable. Especially if you use actual currency for purchasing them. If it's the souls of those you've killed, or XP (though I advise against that one) or something other than "This guy had $2.15 on his corpse.", then you might not have them blackmailing and/or extorting/price gouging every NPC But even then, all that will do is incentivize players to do whatever sidequest gets the goodies over whatever the actual plot is supposed to be.

I don't mean conceptually. I mean from a pretty simple balance perspective. Suppose your soldiers are 1st level Warriors. If you are at a level where "a big pile of 1st level Warriors" would be overpowered, you can't have a big pile of 1st level Warriors as an ability (which commanding an army would imply).
Are you saying that being in command is supposed to be a class feature? That... makes no sense. Also, no one was expecting that the general is supposed to be a class option for your players. He's an NPC. It's not like there's a King class that you can multiclass into.

Except then you've put a giant constraint on how much power other character can have. If all the Fighter gets is a point of BAB and some HP, all the Wizard can get is an ability equivalent to that. Which is going to be stupid.
With respect, that was a problem 16 levels ago, when the wizard learned to fly. Why bring that up now?

Tinkerer

2017-09-22, 01:25 PM

Heroes of Battle, at least, specifically recommends against attempting to simulate the actual combat actions of hundreds of NPCs because on top of being enormously tedious it rarely adds anything meaningful to gameplay. The battle runs on fiat based on the elements available, and the only things that ever get rolled for are things the players directly interact with.

Oh yeah definitely that's why I said most DMs I know will use a mass combat system if it becomes required. Usually such situations are when the players assume direct control over large amounts of troops. It switches things up kinda like a mini-game but yeah I agree that it isn't something which should be coming up on a regular basis and as such it would make for a pretty lousy power.

Ahahaha I just remembered the only time that I actually got to use that myself it was in WoD of all things, not what one normally thinks of when you think mass combat. That was a fun one, although the PCs were never allowed in South America again.

Satinavian

2017-09-22, 02:21 PM

Are you saying that being in command is supposed to be a class feature? That... makes no sense. Also, no one was expecting that the general is supposed to be a class option for your players. He's an NPC. It's not like there's a King class that you can multiclass into.And why would that be ? Because modern D&D doesn't do it ?

Lots of other traditional fantasy systems give those or similar option. And it is exactly the kind of stuff that helps PC staying relevant in a greater scale of things without relying on supernatural powers

Lord Raziere

2017-09-22, 02:38 PM

And why would that be ? Because modern D&D doesn't do it ?

Lots of other traditional fantasy systems give those or similar option. And it is exactly the kind of stuff that helps PC staying relevant in a greater scale of things without relying on supernatural powers

Yeah just look at Exalted: a Dawn Caste with War 5 and Presence 5. Can be super-convincing to everyone and be the best general ever with those. At character creation. While getting a cool golden sword to go with it. Why did I hate Solars again? Screw it, they may be mary sues, but at least they're equal opportunity mary sues unlike 3.5 wizards.

digiman619

2017-09-22, 02:53 PM

Cosi

2017-09-22, 03:49 PM

No analogy is perfect, and we can't really discuss it in the context of a real world scenario. But in the context of being at a D&D table, there would only be 4-5 people. Then replace money with 'fun'.

Is whoever it was who called me out for disagreeing with other people's preferences ready to jump in now that Forum Explorer has taken the position that optimizers are against other people having fun? I mean, I assume not, but it would be nice to get some notional consistency.

Given that mass battlefield combat is handled abstractly and thus runs on plot (and common sense), "an army" is not a meaningful class feature. Anyone from a first-level Aristocrat to a 20th-level Fighter can be a military commander, it has no bearing whatsoever on their personal power.

Are you saying that being in command is supposed to be a class feature? That... makes no sense. Also, no one was expecting that the general is supposed to be a class option for your players. He's an NPC. It's not like there's a King class that you can multiclass into.

What else would you suggest "has an army" be? It can't be pure fluff, because armies are comprised of people, and those people have stats. It may not be practical to lay down a thousand archers on the minimap, but it's surely practical to lay down, like, seven archers. Also, Marshal is pretty close to General as a class.

With respect, what's stopping them from using a calculator or scratch paper?

Nothing, but seems pretty clearly on the same order of complexity as the "deck of cards" solution for the Crusader.

And when are you ever adding power points?

Augments. I think some things even have multiple augment options (rather than a single scale). Also maybe meta-psionics? I never got that much into the system. All that said, this is less common.

Again, not saying it's back-breaking, or even that people are likely to do it wrong. But it isn't a zero-effort process -- no resource management system is, except maybe "everything at will".

Unless you remove all magic items whatsoever, it's inexcapable. Especially if you use actual currency for purchasing them.

You don't have to remove magic items. You have to remove purchasable magic items. Or at least the treadmill of progressively better purchasable magic items. I think the idea of Ghosts or Dragons being immune to normal weapons is probably cool enough for there to be magic swords you need to harm them (which implies that those magic swords can't be too difficult to acquire), but under no circumstances should there be +2 versus +3 swords to worry about. If you can buy a Ring of Invisibility, that's a problem, because it promotes stripping everything for money. If the only way to get a Ring of Invisibility is to retrieve the One Ring from Gollum under the Misty Mountains, that's an entirely different story.

But even then, all that will do is incentivize players to do whatever sidequest gets the goodies over whatever the actual plot is supposed to be.

That seems like a good thing. If people think "kill Sutur and get the Hellbrand" seems cooler than whatever other quest, that means they are engaging with the world and the story, which is a positive thing for the game.

Drakevarg

2017-09-22, 04:02 PM

Forum Explorer

2017-09-22, 04:55 PM

Is whoever it was who called me out for disagreeing with other people's preferences ready to jump in now that Forum Explorer has taken the position that optimizers are against other people having fun? I mean, I assume not, but it would be nice to get some notional consistency.

No, I'm saying you (and you specifically) are against giving up your own fun. You want to play a high level caster. And if everyone else does too, then great! Everyone gets a million bucks. But if one guy (or more) wants to play a fighter, then it that's his problem, not yours.

Knaight

2017-09-22, 05:00 PM

Because that's what the Leadership feat was supposed to cover. You know just how well that worked out.

Yeah, because if the designers of 3.5 D&D couldn't do it successfully when designing 3.5 D&D it must just be completely impossible.

Talakeal

2017-09-22, 05:15 PM

Except then you've put a giant constraint on how much power other character can have. If all the Fighter gets is a point of BAB and some HP, all the Wizard can get is an ability equivalent to that. Which is going to be stupid.

People don't just want to progress, there are specific abilities they want to have. "Hit it really hard" just doesn't compete with "teleport", and trying to make it work that way is just going to make progression agonizingly slowly.

Except they don't, because they get combat abilities and the casters get those and non-combat abilities. A cannot be balanced against A + B.

Again, early 3.X really screwed up class balance. Other games, editions of D&D, and even later 3.X all do a much better job.

But my point was that a limited concept CAN continue to advance indefinitely, not that such a character would be balanced against a character who was less limited AND continued to advance in power. You can balance increasing power against increasing versatility, but no, I agree, if you cannot balance a character who progresses in both against someone who only progresses in one, assuming the same rate.

Teleport and killing things are not comparable, they are totally different things, and they can compliment one another. For example, the common scry and die tactic involves a diviner, a teleporter, and a combatant working together to eliminate a threat. The problem with 3.X is that the T1 classes are best able to fulfill all three of those roles, but you could easily design a game around a holy trinity where a diviner, a conjurer, and an evoker do the job better than three wizards.

Inability to do things out of combat might or might not be a balancing factor. The typical D&D group spends most of its time fighting or exploring, and as long as someone is able to participate in these things they are balanced fine. Heck, a lot of players ignore their out of combat abilities even if they have them because they want to skip the boring stuff and get back to the action.

Also, in many circumstances mundane skills can actually be better than magical ones, and iirc the ToB classes have more access to mundane skills than most casters. For example, I remember one session where the players were negotiating a peace treaty using diplomacy, and the mage got bored and decided to "fix" the problem with magic and charm the queen. The queen made her save, made her spellcraft check, and then ordered the mage executed. The resulting bloodbath saw the deaths of several PCs and any hope of the PCs accomplishing their mission and averting a war went down in flames.

Segev

2017-09-22, 08:48 PM

Is that so? So you don't think a fixed (as in set values) skill system couldn't be added on for example? That is one of the more common complaints I hear about 5e. I'd call that an improvement more than a fix, but that's arguing semantics, I suppose, so I'll concede the point.

No analogy is perfect, and we can't really discuss it in the context of a real world scenario. But in the context of being at a D&D table, there would only be 4-5 people. Then replace money with 'fun'.I just think it's not a very good analogy for that. "Fun" isn't a zero-sum distribution. And it's quite reasonable to say, "I don't care if others get cool things in order to have fun with their characters, but taking away my fun with my character isn't the way to do it." Not only is that rather not nice, but it probably wouldn't work, either.

digiman619

2017-09-22, 10:30 PM

What else would you suggest "has an army" be? It can't be pure fluff, because armies are comprised of people, and those people have stats. It may not be practical to lay down a thousand archers on the minimap, but it's surely practical to lay down, like, seven archers. Also, Marshal is pretty close to General as a class.
THEY ARE NPCs! What do you want, a "General" class where they get a class ability like this:
"Commander in Cheif (Ex): At 15ht level, your position with the army reaches its maximum. You are now a general commanding <large number> of troops. These troops are loyal to you, but will not break thier oath of service."
That is completely unneccisary. It's not like you have to worry about one of your players multiclassing into it. Until you hit Mass Combat rules (which 3.5 did have, look up the Miniatures Handbook.), their job is kinda moot as there's no way to depict it. So again, unless he's doing something "on camera", who cares what class and level he is?

Nothing, but seems pretty clearly on the same order of complexity as the "deck of cards" solution for the Crusader.
Perhaps.

Augments. I think some things even have multiple augment options (rather than a single scale). Also maybe meta-psionics? I never got that much into the system. All that said, this is less common.
Augments and metapsionic feats add to the cost of a power. That wouldn't be adding to your total. Besides, if you're in the 11-20 level range and having problems with that, all you need is to note on your sheet likely augments so you don't have to do numbers on the fly. Even if you've got a lot of options like with [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/e/ectoplasmic-grapnel/], you can just mark on your sheet the appropriate combinations (Base 5 PP, Base + Medium distance 7 PP, Base + retracting 9 PP, base + retracting + medium distance 11 PP, etc.)

Again, not saying it's back-breaking, or even that people are likely to do it wrong. But it isn't a zero-effort process -- no resource management system is, except maybe "everything at will".
Then why do you keep complaining about every system that isn't "you have X slots"? Heck, you criticise some of those, too!

You don't have to remove magic items. You have to remove purchasable magic items. Or at least the treadmill of progressively better purchasable magic items. I think the idea of Ghosts or Dragons being immune to normal weapons is probably cool enough for there to be magic swords you need to harm them (which implies that those magic swords can't be too difficult to acquire), but under no circumstances should there be +2 versus +3 swords to worry about. If you can buy a Ring of Invisibility, that's a problem, because it promotes stripping everything for money. If the only way to get a Ring of Invisibility is to retrieve the One Ring from Gollum under the Misty Mountains, that's an entirely different story.
Another one for the "This seems like a good idea, but balancing it will be tricky" bin. That hard part, of course, is figuring out how to make something that isn't overpowered when you're 5th level, but is still relevant when you're 15th.

That seems like a good thing. If people think "kill Sutur and get the Hellbrand" seems cooler than whatever other quest, that means they are engaging with the world and the story, which is a positive thing for the game.
Until they decide they want to kill Gandalf for the Foe-Hammer. Though to be fair, that's probably more of a player problem.

Satinavian

2017-09-23, 12:49 AM

THEY ARE NPCs! What do you want, a "General" class where they get a class ability like this:
"Commander in Cheif (Ex): At 15ht level, your position with the army reaches its maximum. You are now a general commanding <large number> of troops. These troops are loyal to you, but will not break thier oath of service."
That is completely unneccisary. It's not like you have to worry about one of your players multiclassing into it. Until you hit Mass Combat rules (which 3.5 did have, look up the Miniatures Handbook.), their job is kinda moot as there's no way to depict it. So again, unless he's doing something "on camera", who cares what class and level he is?First, they are PCa in quite a lot of fantasy games. Granted, D&D and derivatives is kind of rubbish for simulating war and personally i would use something else but i have seen even a lot of games of D&D where PCs had ruler or military commander positions and it was certainly better than being relegated to commando work.

And yes, i have seen class features like the above one in several D&D derivatives. The first coming to mind are those from from Star Wars D20 with a core class of "Noble" instead of being an NPC class providing funds, services and privileges and various imperial officer prestige classes with abilities working like "summon stormtroopers".Iirc even D&D proper had some commander or pirate captain prestige classes firmly tied to a group of underlings. While that is not how i would do things, the idea is not even remotely as ridiculous as you suggest.

Further, half the thread is "How can mundanes stay relevant in comparison to high level magic users". I don't know why mundanes wielding other power than their swordarm by having authority shouldn't be a proper answer. If a mundane character can command the army to fight his enemies, can make laws, can form alliences with whole nations and has funds to buy most of the McGuffins the group might need, or hire 1000 workers to do something, that is real power. It is not yet god tier but it is the tier where the PCs can change the fate of whole kingdoms on their own.

But if you are not open to PCs having that power, well, then players wanting their characters to be relevant beyond what a good commando can do need to go for magic.

digiman619

2017-09-23, 03:15 AM

First, they are PCa in quite a lot of fantasy games. Granted, D&D and derivatives is kind of rubbish for simulating war and personally i would use something else but i have seen even a lot of games of D&D where PCs had ruler or military commander positions and it was certainly better than being relegated to commando work.
I'm not saying that the PCs can't be squad leaders. After a discussion about fabricate, I was saying that unless an NPC is required to act "on camera", his stats do not matter. That doesn't mean that there can't be rules on how to effectively command troops or other "being a General" (or Admiral if you're on water, I suppose) stuff, but if he's never required to do it where the PCs can see, it doesn't matter.

And yes, i have seen class features like the above one in several D&D derivatives. The first coming to mind are those from from Star Wars D20 with a core class of "Noble" instead of being an NPC class providing funds, services and privileges and various imperial officer prestige classes with abilities working like "summon stormtroopers".Iirc even D&D proper had some commander or pirate captain prestige classes firmly tied to a group of underlings. While that is not how i would do things, the idea is not even remotely as ridiculous as you suggest.
Sure, I'm not saying that there can't be a class with such a focus, I'm saying that a) there can still be an NPC that's a General without that class, and b) unless you have such a class there to back it up, there is no reason that the General NPC has to be "high-level", especially since his stats don't matter unless you have him use them "on camera".

Further, half the thread is "How can mundanes stay relevant in comparison to high level magic users". I don't know why mundanes wielding other power than their swordarm by having authority shouldn't be a proper answer. If a mundane character can command the army to fight his enemies, can make laws, can form alliences with whole nations and has funds to buy most of the McGuffins the group might need, or hire 1000 workers to do something, that is real power. It is not yet god tier but it is the tier where the PCs can change the fate of whole kingdoms on their own.
I'm not opposed to giving martial (NOT mundane; mundanes are the NPCs and other non-important (to the story) characters. Even if you never have a single class ability that isn't (Ex), as a PC you are not mundane) power over sqauds of soldiers. The problem is that the campaign would need to change to make mass combat a more imortant factor. As it stands, you're expected to go tomb hunting and other "go to where the monsters and treasures are and fight the monsters and/or steal the treasure" scenarios that having an army isn't much help towards.

But if you are not open to PCs having that power, well, then players wanting their characters to be relevant beyond what a good commando can do need to go for magic.
Except if you'd read my posts, you'd know I don't want a "wizard/cleric/druid solves everything" paradigm. I have said that Tier 3 was the ideal balance point. That lets specialists actually be the best at their field and generalists be useful without being the answer to everything. Such a game environment, at least as far as we can extrapolate from the rules and what ancilary material says, is the power level that the designers intended.

Is there something wrong with that?

Satinavian

2017-09-23, 04:37 AM

I'm not saying that the PCs can't be squad leaders. After a discussion about fabricate, I was saying that unless an NPC is required to act "on camera", his stats do not matter. That doesn't mean that there can't be rules on how to effectively command troops or other "being a General" (or Admiral if you're on water, I suppose) stuff, but if he's never required to do it where the PCs can see, it doesn't matter.Not "sqaud leader", "army leader". PCs as people actually planning and commanding the battles instead of only fighting in them, PCs doing the logistical decisions, maybe even PCs actually raising those armies on their own

Sure, I'm not saying that there can't be a class with such a focus, I'm saying that a) there can still be an NPC that's a General without that class, and b) unless you have such a class there to back it up, there is no reason that the General NPC has to be "high-level", especially since his stats don't matter unless you have him use them "on camera".But if any stat is involved, it means "high level" in D&D. Mainly because the system only does class abilities, spells and skills. And as it doesn't allow an lv 1 expert clrafter with a crafting skill of 20, it also doesn't allow a lv1 commander with whatever commanding is rolled with at a high value.

I'm not opposed to giving martial (NOT mundane; mundanes are the NPCs and other non-important (to the story) characters. Even if you never have a single class ability that isn't (Ex), as a PC you are not mundane) power over sqauds of soldiers. The problem is that the campaign would need to change to make mass combat a more imortant factor. As it stands, you're expected to go tomb hunting and other "go to where the monsters and treasures are and fight the monsters and/or steal the treasure" scenarios that having an army isn't much help towards.Yes, of course.

If you want the game to be about the fate of kindoms decided by PCs (instead of only the plot), you need to shift the focus away from dungeon crawling to other stuff, including mass combat.

Such a game environment, at least as far as we can extrapolate from the rules and what ancilary material says, is the power level that the designers intended. For the same reason you could say "everything is right with caster supremacy. It is obviously what the designers intended, no need to ever change it."

If you want to actually improve the game, you need to be willing to abandon some of the designers choices. And "The game is about small group dungeon crawling" is a pretty obvious thing to ditch. And something that absolutely must go, if you ever want to get the people who choose casters for utility and plot oportunities to go along with it.

Seriously, if i want to do dungeon crawling and nothing but dungeon crawling, i choose something ruleslight like Dungeon Siege. Or maybe even go full board game and play Descent.
D&D always wanted to be the generic fantasy game of choice for everything to get the whole market and is now stuck with all those players interested in other things.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-23, 06:54 AM

Seriously, if i want to do dungeon crawling and nothing but dungeon crawling, i choose something rules light like Dungeon Siege. Or maybe even go full board game and play Descent.
D&D always wanted to be the generic fantasy game of choice for everything to get the whole market and is now stuck with all those players interested in other things.

*eye twitches, loses 10 SAN*

Gee. I wonder why. Its almost as if something drove away all those people who originally wanted to do that.

I have now seen the epitome of ironic stupidity. A DnD player recommending people to find another system to go dungeon crawling, the one activity that DnD is famous for and based upon. and isn't even bothered by this, not seeing how wrong this is. The loss, the utter destruction of its purpose. All this time, I at least believed that people like you were arguing for the same purpose of the game but looked at it as a different method to achieve the same thing. Now I know its just utter warped nonsense, that DnD 3.5 is just bad for anything, because apparently it can't even do the one thing its supposed to be about right. Its just a mess.

I wash my hands of this. This was useless all along. Its clear you'll never understand. I'm out of this thread. This is just as useless as alignment debates.

Satinavian

2017-09-23, 07:43 AM

All this time, I at least believed that people like you were arguing for the same purpose of the game but looked at it as a different method to achieve the same thing. Yes, different people use D&D for different purposes.

That is the sole reason why we can't agree in this thread about which direction changes would be appropriate. And it is only now that you notice ?

Cosi

2017-09-23, 08:13 AM

If your army consists of seven archers, your army will lose.

Your army probably contains seven archers. It contains a bunch of other troops too, but the point is that even if you abstract things like "supporting logistics" or "commanding troops" or "winning battles", armies are still comprised of soldiers, and those soldiers still have stats. If you can order them to battle, you can order them to support your party.

No, I'm saying you (and you specifically) are against giving up your own fun. You want to play a high level caster. And if everyone else does too, then great! Everyone gets a million bucks. But if one guy (or more) wants to play a fighter, then it that's his problem, not yours.

I'm against the idea that the game system can only support one kind of play, and it should be one I don't enjoy. I'm not against compromise, I'm against the compromise your side is suggesting, which is that the entire game be skewed to supporting the characters you want and none of it supporting the characters I want.

Teleport and killing things are not comparable, they are totally different things, and they can compliment one another. .... Inability to do things out of combat might or might not be a balancing factor. The typical D&D group spends most of its time fighting or exploring, and as long as someone is able to participate in these things they are balanced fine.

No. That paradigm will not work.

First, giving some people non-combat options and other people combat options makes the game miserable. If I have teleport, and you have combat options, then each of us is sitting out half the game. That's terrible.

Second, there isn't a clean division of combat options and non-combat options. invisibility allows you to sneak around and gather information, but it equally allows you to get a favorable position in combat. Similarly with teleport. planar binding may allow you to recruit minions as couriers or builders, but it also allows you to use them as warriors. There simply isn't a divide, and if you give people non-combat abilities, that will spill over into combat as well.

Third, even if you somehow managed to balance a game where some people did things in combat and other people did things outside combat, that balance is incredibly fragile. If someone plays a game with more combat that the designers expected, Fighters are broken. If someone plays a game with less combat than the designers expected, Wizards are broken. The only way to preserve balance across different kinds of game is to ensure balance in each subgame, which means that the Fighter must have abilities that provide the same level of value to his party as teleport.

Heck, a lot of players ignore their out of combat abilities even if they have them because they want to skip the boring stuff and get back to the action.

Okay then why do you care if your class has them? If you're just going to not use whatever non-combat options the Fighter class notionally has, why not give it some options in case I want to use them if I play a Fighter?

That is completely unneccisary. It's not like you have to worry about one of your players multiclassing into it. Until you hit Mass Combat rules (which 3.5 did have, look up the Miniatures Handbook.), their job is kinda moot as there's no way to depict it. So again, unless he's doing something "on camera", who cares what class and level he is?

That's completely necessary. The source material has people commanding armies. In Wheel of Time, Mat gets an army. In Mistborn, Vin gets an army. Various people in Malazan have armies. And no, those armies aren't irrelevant, because they are comprised of characters with stats who can be placed on a minimap, and will have mechanical implications if that is done.

Then why do you keep complaining about every system that isn't "you have X slots"? Heck, you criticise some of those, too!

It's important to understand the flaws of things. That doesn't necessarily imply that they also don't have strengths, but people tend to be less willing to acknowledge those flaws.

That hard part, of course, is figuring out how to make something that isn't overpowered when you're 5th level, but is still relevant when you're 15th.

I don't think you need to worry about that. If you assume that characters will be balanced without items, then items can just do whatever. Characters will slightly over-perform, but that's fine, particularly if the game has guidelines for dealing with that (which it should).

Until they decide they want to kill Gandalf for the Foe-Hammer. Though to be fair, that's probably more of a player problem.

I'm of the mindset that I would rather play with people who aren't disruptive because they care about the game than people who aren't disruptive because the game doesn't give them the tools to do it.

A DnD player recommending people to find another system to go dungeon crawling.

To do only dungeon crawling. He didn't say you shouldn't do dungeon crawling in D&D, he said if all you want is dungeon crawling, you should use some other system. If you spent more time reading people's posts and less time being outraged about them, you would have noticed the distinction.

NichG

2017-09-23, 08:16 AM

For what it's worth, 1ed D&D is good for dungeon crawls... but it's also good for leading armies, conquering kingdoms, etc. In fact it had some explicit design choices of the form being discussed here, with high level fighters automatically getting something like Leadership and attracting armies of followers.

2ed D&D moved away from the dungeon crawling paradigm and tried to integrate more story-driven types of play, but mostly did that through a large exploration of all sorts of different settings with different core premises. The mechanical support wasn't really all that much different, and the differences were a bit awkward. 3ed/3.5ed tried to remove a lot of the weird awkward bits of the mechanics, but somewhere in the process it basically broke some of the aspects that made it easy to run good dungeon crawls in 1ed and 2ed. Specifically, in 1ed and 2ed, resources like hitpoints, supplies, spells, etc would slowly get depleted over the course of an extended expedition - even if you took into account stopping to rest, since it took hours per spell to re-memorize a spell.

In 3.5ed with splats, those resources refresh very fast - at worst per rest, and at best per fight. Without consequences chaining from one event to another, often dungeons are better replaced with their boss fights. Traps that you can just heal up after can be detected by throwing the Monk at them, etc. That's why if you want to actually make an interesting 3.5ed dungeon crawl, ability damage and ability drain are some of your best tools - ability drain in particular can put mounting pressure that doesn't become trivial to remove until fairly high level. That plus ensuring that there are always time constraints can make for a decent dungeon crawl experience in 3.5ed, though I don't know if I'd really try it past Lv9 (because if the purpose of much of the content is to wear down characters, scry+teleport is a no-brainer).

digiman619

2017-09-23, 12:55 PM

Not "squad leader", "army leader". PCs as people actually planning and commanding the battles instead of only fighting in them, PCs doing the logistical decisions, maybe even PCs actually raising those armies on their own.
That's a feasible campaign. If your players are that kind of strategists, though, why are you playing D&D and not any other type of wargame?

But if any stat is involved, it means "high level" in D&D. Mainly because the system only does class abilities, spells and skills. And as it doesn't allow a lv 1 expert crafter with a crafting skill of 20, it also doesn't allow a lv1 commander with whatever commanding is rolled with at a high value.
Um, you do realize that every NPC doesn't have to be RAW legal, right? It's like a movie set; if it's not going to be "on-camera", it doesn't matter if it's held together but duct tape.

Yes, of course.

If you want the game to be about the fate of kingdoms decided by PCs (instead of only the plot), you need to shift the focus away from dungeon crawling to other stuff, including mass combat.
Yes. Except dungeon crawling is what the game was designed for. 3.0 didn't have a mass combat system (Minature's Handbook didn't come out until 2003). So while soldiers and tactics are something it can do, it's not the intended purpose.

For the same reason you could say "everything is right with caster supremacy. It is obviously what the designers intended, no need to ever change it."

If you want to actually improve the game, you need to be willing to abandon some of the designer's choices. And "The game is about small group dungeon crawling" is a pretty obvious thing to ditch. And something that absolutely must go, if you ever want to get the people who choose casters for utility and plot opportunities to go along with it.

Seriously, if I want to do dungeon crawling and nothing but dungeon crawling, I choose something rules-light like Dungeon Siege. Or maybe even go full board game and play Descent.
D&D always wanted to be the generic fantasy game of choice for everything to get the whole market and is now stuck with all those players interested in other things.
Saying "everything is right with caster supremacy. It is obviously what the designers intended, no need to ever change it." requires willful ignorance of the rules and every piece of ancillary material where it's clear they thought they built a balanced game. Besides, "Everyone is T3" and "The PCs are commanding armies" are in no way mutually exclusive.

Your army probably contains seven archers. It contains a bunch of other troops too, but the point is that even if you abstract things like "supporting logistics" or "commanding troops" or "winning battles", armies are still comprised of soldiers, and those soldiers still have stats. If you can order them to battle, you can order them to support your party.
Yes, because every D&D battle takes place on an open plain where you can have a couple dozen soldiers with you. It's a good thing you don't have to bring them into a cramped dungeon. Eh, I'm sure I can fit 30 guys into a 50 x 50 room without them getting in each other's way. It'll be fine.

I'm against the idea that the game system can only support one kind of play, and it should be one I don't enjoy. I'm not against compromise, I'm against the compromise your side is suggesting, which is that the entire game be skewed to supporting the characters you want and none of it supporting the characters I want.
Except you twist terms and have a minimum power requirement that excludes most of the game. "Martials" are defined by those who do not cast spells as their primary class ability. Anyone who can cast at least 6th level spells is, by definition, not a martial. 6th casters who also use a weapon as an important part of their arsenal is called a gish. You have not once suggested something that wasn't fit for such a high-powered game.

In short, while there's nothing wrong with your style of play, acknowledge that your "T1 or GTFO" type of game isn't for everyone.

No. That paradigm will not work.

First, giving some people non-combat options and other people combat options makes the game miserable. If I have teleport, and you have combat options, then each of us is sitting out half the game. That's terrible.
Except that if no one person has all the answers, that promotes teamwork. For what it's worth, I agree that such a plan only works of the niches are extremely protected (which one of the major problems with T1 casters is that they step over everyone else's niche), and that there are better way to promote teamwork, but that was the plan as far as I can tell.

Second, there isn't a clean division of combat options and non-combat options. invisibility allows you to sneak around and gather information, but it equally allows you to get a favorable position in combat. Similarly with teleport. planar binding may allow you to recruit minions as couriers or builders, but it also allows you to use them as warriors. There simply isn't a divide, and if you give people non-combat abilities, that will spill over into combat as well.
There's definitely truth to that. That's why making it so only T1 casters can do them causes them to crush other classes niches underfoot.

Third, even if you somehow managed to balance a game where some people did things in combat and other people did things outside of combat, that balance is incredibly fragile. If someone plays a game with more combat that the designers expected, Fighters are broken. If someone plays a game with less combat than the designers expected, Wizards are broken. The only way to preserve balance across different kinds of game is to ensure balance in each subgame, which means that the Fighter must have abilities that provide the same level of value to his party as teleport.
This is the part that I must disagree with. While it's possible to have a character feel useless if the game is all fighting rather what they were designed around (Sherlock Holmes becomes less viable in a game where everything is resolved by combat), fighting is at least something everyone can do. If what is required at the moment is "grabbing a weapon and attacking the enemy", everyone can do that. Sure, the Wizard with the Strength of 8 wielding a club isn't going to do as well as the Fighter with a Strength of 18 with a battleax, but at least he can attempt it and have a non-zero percent chance of success.

Casters (in this scenario, at least) are broken because spells grant exclusive abilites. Lots of classes get summon monster I (or summon nature's ally for that matter). But not all classes do. Heck, not all casting classes do! Hexblades, warmages, shugenja, PF magi; while it's a common ability, not everyone has it. This leads to the problem that if what is required at the moment is "summon something to fight for you", not everyone can do it. Not everyone has the resource (spell slots, power points, etc) to cast a summoning effect, and even ones that do may not have it among their spells known/be on their spell list. For those have-nots, there is a zero percent chance of success.

That's completely necessary. The source material has people commanding armies. In Wheel of Time, Mat gets an army. In Mistborn, Vin gets an army. Various people in Malazan have armies. And no, those armies aren't irrelevant, because they are comprised of characters with stats who can be placed on a minimap, and will have mechanical implications if that is done.
With respect, whether or not your game will have mass combat should be determined at Session 0. Even if you don't plan to include it until you reach level 10, the inclusion of such paradigm-shifting material should be brought forward to your players so they can either agree to play that or try and convince you otherwise.

And just like how you can have high-level play and never go planar. You can have high-level play and not go mass combat. Heck, going mass combat is even less likely, as that was a subsystem that was added later and shifts the game to more tactical, which not every player is interested in; even if you're fighting in the Abyss, you're still fighting, after all.

It's important to understand the flaws of things. That doesn't necessarily imply that they also don't have strengths, but people tend to be less willing to acknowledge those flaws.
That's fair, though I can't halp but note that the only system (that currently exists, at least) you talk about the strengths of is Vancian casting, and you tend to handwave its flaws away. For all my defense of SoP, at least I acknowledge the worth of other systems.

I don't think you need to worry about that. If you assume that characters will be balanced without items, then items can just do whatever. Characters will slightly over-perform, but that's fine, particularly if the game has guidelines for dealing with that (which it should).
Except that in a paradigm like Vancian has, there are abilities that are level-locked (no flying until 5th, no teleporting (or at least teleporting further than you could with a move action) until 7th, etc.). And there are a lot of abilities that obviate previous choices; climb is far less valuable once fly hits the table. Figuring out what will be useful within the limits of what a 4th level character is allowed that is still viable to a 14th level character is where the trickiness is.

Of course, that assumes you're using a magic system with leveled effects. One of the cornerstones of leveled effects is that you only get the lowest level at first, but unlock the more powerful ones as you advance in the appropriate class. If that isn't where the balancing factor is, then this isn't as big a deal. But since you define "high-level games" as ones where your character has many useful abilities, and the breadth of their abilities goes up as you level, what you are saying is easy is anything but.

I'm of the mindset that I would rather play with people who aren't disruptive because they care about the game than people who aren't disruptive because the game doesn't give them the tools to do it.
Fair point. I did admit that it was a player problem more than a system one, if you recall.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-23, 01:05 PM

Um, you do realize that every NPC doesn't have to be RAW legal, right?

This part I agree with -- NPCs should get what they need to be the characters they're supposed to be.

It's like a movie set; if it's not going to be "on-camera", it doesn't matter if it's held together but duct tape.

This part... I've repeatedly used the "2d Hollywood set" as an analogy for the sort of shallow settings and world-building I don't care for.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 01:53 PM

No. That paradigm will not work.

First, giving some people non-combat options and other people combat options makes the game miserable. If I have teleport, and you have combat options, then each of us is sitting out half the game. That's terrible.

Second, there isn't a clean division of combat options and non-combat options. invisibility allows you to sneak around and gather information, but it equally allows you to get a favorable position in combat. Similarly with teleport. planar binding may allow you to recruit minions as couriers or builders, but it also allows you to use them as warriors. There simply isn't a divide, and if you give people non-combat abilities, that will spill over into combat as well.

Third, even if you somehow managed to balance a game where some people did things in combat and other people did things outside combat, that balance is incredibly fragile. If someone plays a game with more combat that the designers expected, Fighters are broken. If someone plays a game with less combat than the designers expected, Wizards are broken. The only way to preserve balance across different kinds of game is to ensure balance in each subgame, which means that the Fighter must have abilities that provide the same level of value to his party as teleport.

Okay then why do you care if your class has them? If you're just going to not use whatever non-combat options the Fighter class notionally has, why not give it some options in case I want to use them if I play a Fighter?

You might be miserable not being able to contribute equally to everything 100% of the time, but to say that it "doesn't work" or "makes everyone miserable" is just false. I have been playing in, running, and designing games for 20+ years, and no one has ever played a character that was "center stage" 100% of the time. True, sometimes people get bored when their area of expertise doesn't come up, but it is rare, and IMO far less of a problem then people getting frustrated over fighting for spotlight time when their specialties overlap or having a D&D T1 who simply takes the spotlight all the time and makes everyone else sit down and shut up while he solves all the problems with a single spell.

And no, everyone playing a T1 does not solve this, because selfish spotlight hogs will push more reasonable players out of the action and demand they do everything themselves.

True, some (probably most) abilities have uses both in and out of combat. So?

As I said, "perfect balance" is too nebulous a concept to even nail down, let alone implement. But it is fairly easy to get roughly equal contribution and spotlight time over the course of the game.

And I personally would not enjoy a "one trick pony" any more than I would enjoy someone who can do everything. But some people like that sort of character, and they should have the option to excel in a narrow area if that is all they are interested in. IMO this is one of the reasons why point by systems are superior to class based systems, but in D&D that option just isn't available.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 02:05 PM

That's a feasible campaign. If your players are that kind of strategists, though, why are you playing D&D and not any other type of wargame?

Because sometimes people want to do wargames and also dungeon crawling? Like in Malazan. Or Mistborn. Or Wheel of Time. Or Lord of the Rings. Or almost any fantasy series that does mass battles.

Um, you do realize that every NPC doesn't have to be RAW legal, right? It's like a movie set; if it's not going to be "on-camera", it doesn't matter if it's held together but duct tape.

Except it does, because a game is not a movie, and players can go off script. If the players do decide to stab the general (or persuade the general, or protect the general, or ask the general a question), the game has to be able to generate answers to questions like "how fast can the general move" or "what happens if someone lights the general on fire" or "does the general know what a Mohrg is". And if the general is a construct of fiat and duct tape, you can't answer those questions fairly.

Yes. Except dungeon crawling is what the game was designed for. 3.0 didn't have a mass combat system (Minature's Handbook didn't come out until 2003). So while soldiers and tactics are something it can do, it's not the intended purpose.

How can you believe this and also that imbalance is bad? If the game's purpose is not mass combat because it didn't have a mass combat system for several years, surely the even longer period it spent without class balance should be proof that isn't something it's intended to do either. Even if we accept that the designer's intended balance and took steps to address imbalance, shouldn't the fact that they took steps to address the lack of mass battle rules first indicate something to us?

Yes, because every D&D battle takes place on an open plain where you can have a couple dozen soldiers with you. It's a good thing you don't have to bring them into a cramped dungeon. Eh, I'm sure I can fit 30 guys into a 50 x 50 room without them getting in each other's way. It'll be fine.

That's a weak argument and you know it. Sure, not every battle is going to accommodate the entire army. But most battles are going to have room for some number of extra participants, and if your character can provide them, that makes them more powerful. Is that broken? No, but it is an ability, and presumably if the number of soldiers you can expect to provide is large enough (and/or the individual soldiers powerful enough), it can't be a low level ability.

Except you twist terms and have a minimum power requirement that excludes most of the game.

Isn't that going to be true of any reasonably specific power band? Suppose you have just three power levels -- low, medium, and high. Assuming content is evenly distributed between them, all of them exclude a majority of content. I'm not saying I don't want there to be games where people can play non-magical characters and contribute. That is absolutely fine, and I am fine with the game supporting it. What I want is to eventually kick the non-magical characters to the curb, so I can have magical abilities that obsolete mundane (aside: your conflation of "mundane" and "NPC" is not what most people seem to mean by the term, and certainly not what I mean) tasks like travel, logistics, or manufacturing. I don't want to overshadow other characters. My demand is very specifically that everyone get abilities like casters currently get.

"Martials" are defined by those who do not cast spells as their primary class ability. Anyone who can cast at least 6th level spells is, by definition, not a martial. 6th casters who also use a weapon as an important part of their arsenal is called a gish. You have not once suggested something that wasn't fit for such a high-powered game.

You are not being sufficiently precise.

First, do you mean practically (working within existing content) or theoretically (designing some new system)?

Second, what do you mean by "spells"? Are maneuvers spells? Why or why not? Are invocations spells? Why or why not? If I wrote a sword-y class that got a bunch of cold and necromancy spells as SLAs, would that be a gish? What if they were Su? Ex? What if they were cold and necromancy abilities that were specifically not based off any existing spells? What if the class got "has Frostmourne" as a class ability, and Frostmourne was what had the magical abilities, while the class was otherwise a RAW 3.5 Fighter?

Third, why is "6th level spells" the point where you stop being martial? Does this mean that a 10th level Cleric is still martial? Does this mean that a Duskblade isn't a gish, being possessed of only 5th level spells at 20th level? If a Wizard is "not a martial" from 1st level, does this mean that he turns into a gish, and then into a martial as he takes more gish PrCs or multi-classes more with Fighter? If your gish-ness can change over time, on what authority can we say any character bellow 10th level (the first level at which no base class levels will take you from "no casting" to "6th level spells) is or isn't a gish?

In short, while there's nothing wrong with your style of play, acknowledge that your "T1 or GTFO" type of game isn't for everyone.

I have. I have repeatedly said that you should be allowed to do other things. The problem is that no one on your side is floating a solution that leaves Tier One in the game at all. Your position is that we should start by cutting the idea of "guy who has a spellbook" and working from there. Frankly, I don't know why I should keep humoring the people who want non-casters in the game. If y'all's plan is "take my ball and go home", why on earth should I offer you anything else?

Except that if no one person has all the answers, that promotes teamwork. For what it's worth, I agree that such a plan only works of the niches are extremely protected (which one of the major problems with T1 casters is that they step over everyone else's niche), and that there are better way to promote teamwork, but that was the plan as far as I can tell.

What ability does any printed class that you would consider martial have that is of comparable narrative impact to teleport or plane shift have? If you cannot name such an ability, what ability would you be prepared to give them?

This is the part that I must disagree with. While it's possible to have a character feel useless if the game is all fighting rather what they were designed around (Sherlock Holmes becomes less viable in a game where everything is resolved by combat), fighting is at least something everyone can do.

But if everyone can fight, and some people can also raise the dead or summon angels, the clearly the people who can only fight are getting the short end of a stick.

This leads to the problem that if what is required at the moment is "summon something to fight for you", not everyone can do it. Not everyone has the resource (spell slots, power points, etc) to cast a summoning effect, and even ones that do may not have it among their spells known/be on their spell list. For those have-nots, there is a zero percent chance of success.

And why is the solution to this problem to make everyone a have-not? Why not give everyone a tool for solving the problem?

That's fair, though I can't halp but note that the only system (that currently exists, at least) you talk about the strengths of is Vancian casting, and you tend to handwave its flaws away. For all my defense of SoP, at least I acknowledge the worth of other systems.

Because Vancian magic is the only system that lets people have abilities I think they should have. It has redeeming features that, say, Invocations don't have. That's not to say it's without flaws, but it's a better starting point than anything else.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 02:10 PM

You might be miserable not being able to contribute equally to everything 100% of the time,

Read the post. I never said everyone has to be in the spotlight all the time. I said that if you have one chunk of the game where Fighters contribute and one chunk where Wizards contribute and never the twain shall meet, half the group can't play half the time. That's terrible.

And no, everyone playing a T1 does not solve this, because selfish spotlight hogs will push more reasonable players out of the action and demand they do everything themselves.

Trying to rely on the rules to make bad players not bad is stupid. Make rules that are good and don't play with people that are bad.

As I said, "perfect balance" is too nebulous a concept to even nail down, let alone implement. But it is fairly easy to get roughly equal contribution and spotlight time over the course of the game.

Yes. By giving people abilities. Except then you couldn't always play Conan all the time, and that is apparently unconscionable (yet, perhaps unsurprisingly, you have no issue telling me I can't play Superman all the time...).

And I personally would not enjoy a "one trick pony" any more than I would enjoy someone who can do everything. But some people like that sort of character, and they should have the option to excel in a narrow area if that is all they are interested in. IMO this is one of the reasons why point by systems are superior to class based systems, but in D&D that option just isn't available.

What is the practical difference between a character without an ability and a character with abilities you ignore? Why is "the Fighter can cast raise dead, but I never do that" not something you are okay with?

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 02:23 PM

What is the practical difference between a character without an ability and a character with abilities you ignore? Why is "the Fighter can cast raise dead, but I never do that" not something you are okay with?

For the same reason why a stealth game where you can just give up on stealth and massacre everyone is not a very good stealth game. When challenge is defined by your limitations, self-imposed limitations with no real consequences are meaningless. If the core challenge is the danger of being detected, then if you aren't actually inconvenienced when that happens then it was never really a challenge to begin with. If the core challenge is the hazards of surviving in the wilderness, than the ability to teleport, conjure food and water, or ignore the effects of weather mean that there's no challenge there at all. If the core challenge is combat, than the ability to offhandedly make people just fall over dead or render yourself invulnerable similarly make those challenges nonexistent, even if you choose not to use them.

Note that these are all general examples, not system-specific. But the point is, powers you have but don't use still undercut challenge, because you could drop that self-limitation at any time with no consequence besides not sticking to your guns. And on top of that, once you do it just makes all the time you spent deliberately not pressing the "make all your problems go away" button feel silly in retrospect.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 02:27 PM

For the same reason why a stealth game where you can just give up on stealth and massacre everyone is not a very good stealth game. When challenge is defined by your limitations, self-imposed limitations with no real consequences are meaningless.

Okay, if your character is defined by their limitations, aren't the inherently possessed of a level cap? If your character is specifically "not a strong as an ogre", shouldn't you eventually stop advancing, rather than demand that no character ever be allowed to be stronger than an ogre?

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 02:35 PM

Okay, if your character is defined by their limitations, aren't the inherently possessed of a level cap? If your character is specifically "not a strong as an ogre", shouldn't you eventually stop advancing, rather than demand that no character ever be allowed to be stronger than an ogre?

Well, no. Because limitations aren't a strict scaling thing. If your character is specifically not as strong as an ogre, but is significantly sneakier than an ogre, then they shouldn't ever reach a point that they don't need to be sneaky because they got that strong. Specialization is the watchword. A character should advance by getting better at what they're good at and somewhere between okay and terrible at what they're not good at. I don't see what's so hard to get about the idea of wanting to get better at your niche without also gaining a bunch of ancillary superpowers that at best have nothing to do with it and at worse make your niche totally redundant.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 02:42 PM

Well, no. Because limitations aren't a strict scaling thing. If your character is specifically not as strong as an ogre, but is significantly sneakier than an ogre, then they shouldn't ever reach a point that they don't need to be sneaky because they got that strong. Specialization is the watchword. A character should advance by getting better at what they're good at and somewhere between okay and terrible at what they're not good at. I don't see what's so hard to get about the idea of wanting to get better at your niche without also gaining a bunch of ancillary superpowers that at best have nothing to do with it and at worse make your niche totally redundant.

Except your "niche" is "ignoring half to a third of the game". While the party Wizard provides teleport and scry and the party Cleric provides raise dead and plane shift, what exactly are you supposed to be providing? A can-do attitude?

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 02:45 PM

Except your "niche" is "ignoring half to a third of the game". While the party Wizard provides teleport and scry and the party Cleric provides raise dead and plane shift, what exactly are you supposed to be providing? A can-do attitude?

Well that's the problem, isn't it? T1s don't have niches. They have a few token things they can't do, and a handful of things another caster can do 10% better, but everything else? There's a spell for that.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 02:50 PM

Well that's the problem, isn't it? T1s don't have niches. They have a few token things they can't do, and a handful of things another caster can do 10% better, but everything else? There's a spell for that.

Wait, I named four spells across two different classes. I can't have a character who can cast two different spells? We have to warp the game so completely around the balance point you want that my character having two spells he can cast is unacceptable? And apparently I'm somehow the unreasonable one for thinking this might not be the idea solution.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 03:25 PM

Wait, I named four spells across two different classes. I can't have a character who can cast two different spells? We have to warp the game so completely around the balance point you want that my character having two spells he can cast is unacceptable? And apparently I'm somehow the unreasonable one for thinking this might not be the idea solution.

Of course those four spells alone aren't the problem. But a guy who can only cast those four spells is going to be standing around feeling a lot more useless than the fighter as they would be pretty useless when you didn't need to travel or bring back the dead.

Read the post. I never said everyone has to be in the spotlight all the time. I said that if you have one chunk of the game where Fighters contribute and one chunk where Wizards contribute and never the twain shall meet, half the group can't play half the time. That's terrible

Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that. If you spend as much time fighting as you do in a standard D&D game every character should be able to meaningfully contribute in combat (which is not to say that their contributions need to be equal, just that they need to be meaningful).

What I object to is saying that people need to be involved in every niche activity. To use your example, I have no problem if the conjurer handles all of the teleportation segments on their own and the cleric handles all of the reviving on their own, and I think trying to shoehorn every archetype into those (and similar niche activities) is a recipe for disaster.

Yes. By giving people abilities. Except then you couldn't always play Conan all the time, and that is apparently unconscionable (yet, perhaps unsurprisingly, you have no issue telling me I can't play Superman all the time...).

You keep conflating character level with character concept.

I would say Conan is probably level 4-8, while Mutants and Masterminds puts Superman at level 16. As presented those characters have no place adventuring in the same party without the DM specifically tailoring the adventure for it.

However, barbarian who is really strong and good at melee, is an adept thief and linguist, and has the natural charisma to be a king, but is distrustful of magic should be a fine character concept for most any fantasy game levels 1-20.

Likewise a guy who is super strong, immune to bullets, can fly, can see through walls, and can shoot lasers from his eyes is also a fine character concept for most any fantasy game levels 1-20.

Superman only becomes a problem if you insist on playing him at his peak from level one (or use the silly silver age superman who can pull new powers out of his butt on a whim). [/QUOTE]

Trying to rely on the rules to make bad players not bad is stupid. Make rules that are good and don't play with people that are bad.

Reality is what it is. All players are bad some of the time, some players are bad most of the time. You will not find a table of perfect players, and a game with bad rules can certainly minimize of exacerbate the problem.

What is the practical difference between a character without an ability and a character with abilities you ignore? Why is "the Fighter can cast raise dead, but I never do that" not something you are okay with?

Oh boy, that's quite a can of worms. Where to start...

In brief, I see a few main problems with this, although I am sure there are a few more:

1: How is the DM supposed to balance a challenge against a character who defines their own limits?
2: If one player decides not to impose any limits on themselves they will run roughshod over the other players and dominate the game.
3: The other players feel betrayed when a character's self imposed limits hinder their efforts. (See my nearly fifty page thread "I am just doing what the dice told my character to do," for a long in depth discussion of why self imposed limits piss off players even if they are less severe than mechanically imposed limits).
4: The constant temptation to ignore your self imposed limits is extremely annoying, and makes the entire game go from a fun bit of escapism into an exercise in self denial and maintaining discipline.
5: You can easily ruin your entire character concept in a moment of weakness. If I had a bad day and decide F-it, I am just going to go super saiyan and annihilate these jokers, then the entire rest of the campaign, both before and after, where I am pretending to be fighting for my life against thugs with baseball bats is just a farce.
6: If everyone is special, no one is. What is the point in being "the miracle man who can bring back the dead," if every class in the game has resurrection abilities. I can't play my character concept unless I trust the entire rest of the world to patronize me and pretend they can't do it because its my thing.

Because Vancian magic is the only system that lets people have abilities I think they should have. It has redeeming features that, say, Invocations don't have. That's not to say it's without flaws, but it's a better starting point than anything else.

Out of curiosity, what is it about vancian casting you like so much?

AFAICT vancian casters don't have "more powers" than other types of casters in either execution or practice.

I don't know about other RPGs, but wizards in Mage and Heart of Darkness (the two RPGs I play most) can replicate any effect a D&D wizard can and more.

The reason D&D wizards are so OP, imo, is not the range of effects they can perform, but rather how the game doesn't recognize the value of versatility and has too many specific implementations of spell effects that allow for NI loops or bypassing the limits that are supposed to exist on the T1 casters.

Yes. Except dungeon crawling is what the game was designed for. 3.0 didn't have a mass combat system (Minature's Handbook didn't come out until 2003). So while soldiers and tactics are something it can do, it's not the intended purpose..

To be fair, D&D started out as a side game for Chainmail. War-gaming is heavily integrated into D&D's roots, and while it is true that 3.0 didn't have a mass combat system for its first few years, earlier editions certainly did.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-23, 03:26 PM

I'm against the idea that the game system can only support one kind of play, and it should be one I don't enjoy. I'm not against compromise, I'm against the compromise your side is suggesting, which is that the entire game be skewed to supporting the characters you want and none of it supporting the characters I want.

Sure, and that's great. Thing is, the game does support the characters you want.. But it doesn't for our stuff. Or rather, not at the same time. Because your characters will inevitably outshine and make irrelevant the lower tier characters. And making the low tier stuff just as strong pretty much makes them identical to your characters because your characters can pretty much do everything.

I just think it's not a very good analogy for that. "Fun" isn't a zero-sum distribution. And it's quite reasonable to say, "I don't care if others get cool things in order to have fun with their characters, but taking away my fun with my character isn't the way to do it." Not only is that rather not nice, but it probably wouldn't work, either.

The problem is when the one guys fun comes at others expense. And it happens outside of just power levels too. You can get it with roleplaying too much, being too random, or being nothing but hack and slash. But that's more game style, and usually a DM or Player problem. You can't fix those things in the rules, but you can fix power levels.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 03:43 PM

What I object to is saying that people need to be involved in every niche activity. To use your example, I have no problem if the conjurer handles all of the teleportation segments on their own and the cleric handles all of the reviving on their own, and I think trying to shoehorn every archetype into those (and similar niche activities) is a recipe for disaster.

"Non-combat" isn't a niche. Which part of "non-combat" does the Fighter handle? Yes, you can cut things down into niches, but you can do that for combat too.

However, barbarian who is really strong and good at melee, is an adept thief and linguist, and has the natural charisma to be a king, but is distrustful of magic should be a fine character concept for most any fantasy game levels 1-20.

Likewise a guy who is super strong, immune to bullets, can fly, can see through walls, and can shoot lasers from his eyes is also a fine character concept for most any fantasy game levels 1-20.

The fact that you think those characters are equal is absurd. The second character is flat immune to everything the first character does. Your concept is "good at melee", but Superman beats every melee enemy for free! You want "good at languages" to be a 20th level ability, when speaking all languages is a 3rd level spell! You're describing "distrusts magic" as a character ability! No part of what you are saying adds up to a 10th level character, let alone a 20th level one.

I stand 100% firm in my belief that the characters you want to play are low level characters and you should stop trying to ruin my game and yours by insisting you get to play them at 20th.

1: How is the DM supposed to balance a challenge against a character who defines their own limits?

The game is balanced for the abilities you have. If you want to use less than those abilities, it is on you to pick up the slack, not the DM to move down the bar.

5: You can easily ruin your entire character concept in a moment of weakness. If I had a bad day and decide F-it, I am just going to go super saiyan and annihilate these jokers, then the entire rest of the campaign, both before and after, where I am pretending to be fighting for my life against thugs with baseball bats is just a farce.

If the opposition requires you to be a super saiyan, a character who is challenged by thugs with baseball bats is not appropriate, and you should stop demanding the system lie to you by saying it is.

This is what you fundamentally do not understand. You keep on insisting that you be allowed to play your character to 20th, but every time you describe the character you actually want to play it is either in terms of their weaknesses, or in terms of abilities they have at 1st level.

Out of curiosity, what is it about vancian casting you like so much?

The abilities. I don't particularly like the resource management more or less than anything else.

Sure, and that's great. Thing is, the game does support the characters you want.. But it doesn't for our stuff. Or rather, not at the same time. Because your characters will inevitably outshine and make irrelevant the lower tier characters. And making the low tier stuff just as strong pretty much makes them identical to your characters because your characters can pretty much do everything.

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level.

jindra34

2017-09-23, 03:51 PM

The game is balanced for the abilities you have. If you want to use less than those abilities, it is on you to pick up the slack, not the DM to move down the bar.

And what happens when the abilities you have answer everything? Or NPCs have the grade of abilities and use them intelligently and exist before the PCs have access to them or the answers to them? The problem with the tier of abilities you want in the game is that it very quickly either renders the PCs utterly unique, kills them out of hand, or renders the world silly or idiotic.

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level. Because advancement doesn't mean that you need to expand your breadth of abilities? As opposed to adding an ever expanding repitoire of ever more diverse tricks?

Cosi

2017-09-23, 03:56 PM

And what happens when the abilities you have answer everything? Or NPCs have the grade of abilities and use them intelligently and exist before the PCs have access to them or the answers to them? The problem with the tier of abilities you want in the game is that it very quickly either renders the PCs utterly unique, kills them out of hand, or renders the world silly or idiotic.

And yet for all that I hear this, it has yet to be explained to we why the adventures proposed in this thread for casters are non-functional for them. I keep being told that you cannot tell coherent stories with characters with the abilities I want available, but no one has bothered to challenge the examples provided of stories for characters with those abilities.

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 04:20 PM

The fact that you think those characters are equal is absurd. The second character is flat immune to everything the first character does. Your concept is "good at melee", but Superman beats every melee enemy for free! You want "good at languages" to be a 20th level ability, when speaking all languages is a 3rd level spell! You're describing "distrusts magic" as a character ability! No part of what you are saying adds up to a 10th level character, let alone a 20th level one.

1) Just because it is a third level spell doesn't mean it should be a third level spell. We're talking about hypothetical rebalancing here, after all.
2) "Distrust magic" was part of the character concept, not a character ability.
3) Hulk would beat Supes in a straight fight, even their own writers admit this. Whether or not it would ever come to a straight fight is another matter entirely, of course, but point is it's possible to be a melee character on that tier.

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level.

So it's literally incomprehensible for you, the idea that Sneaky McSneakerson the Sneak Specialist might continue to get better at sneaking without also being able to raise the dead or summon demons?

Cosi

2017-09-23, 04:38 PM

1) Just because it is a third level spell doesn't mean it should be a third level spell. We're talking about hypothetical rebalancing here, after all.

Unless it's a 9th level spell, it's not covering the whole in that concept. And if it is a 9th level spell, see again the point about you demanding entirely too much warping of the game around your concept.

3) Hulk would beat Supes in a straight fight, even their own writers admit this. Whether or not it would ever come to a straight fight is another matter entirely, of course, but point is it's possible to be a melee character on that tier.

Because Hulk can jump into orbit. That's fine, because it's on par with what Superman does. But if you were actually okay with abilities on par with casters, you would have given examples when I asked for some, not ranted about how two whole spells is unfair.

So again, Wizard has teleport and scry. What do you bring to the table? You think we should accept "speaks French and also German" as a contribution on par with that?

So it's literally incomprehensible for you, the idea that Sneaky McSneakerson the Sneak Specialist might continue to get better at sneaking without also being able to raise the dead or summon demons?

Sure, you could get new stealth abilities. Like invisibility or silent image.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 04:43 PM

"Non-combat" isn't a niche. Which part of "non-combat" does the Fighter handle? Yes, you can cut things down into niches, but you can do that for combat too.

Of course it isn't. When did I ever say it was?

Again, the D&D fighter sucks, both in combat and out of it. But as you said, we are using fighter as shorthand for "not a caster," which can cover 95+% of situations in your typical fantasy game.

The fact that you think those characters are equal is absurd. The second character is flat immune to everything the first character does. Your concept is "good at melee", but Superman beats every melee enemy for free! You want "good at languages" to be a 20th level ability, when speaking all languages is a 3rd level spell! You're describing "distrusts magic" as a character ability! No part of what you are saying adds up to a 10th level character, let alone a 20th level one.

I never said that those were class abilities, merely part of the character concept.

Again, as I clearly said in my previous post, you are conflating power level with character concept.

I could conceptually get a young superman by applying the following template to a level 1 commoner:

Template: Kryptonian
+10 Strength
DR 10 / Magic
Fly speed 60' Average
Special Attack: Heat Vision (Range 30', damage d6 Fire)
Special Abilities: X-ray vision as the ring.

This character would be pretty strong for first level, but hardly game breaking, and I am fairly sure that even a mid level martial character would have little problem taking him out or overshadowing him in a cooperative capacity in tasks that don't specifically involve x-ray vision, flight, or feats of strength (and even then the can replicate those abilities with the right magic items). By the time we get to level 20 such a template could be attached to most characters without anyone really noticing.

Likewise I could easily scale Conan up to level 20 by simply, well, leveling him up to Barbarian 20. Barbarians continue to gain HP, saves, skills, BaB, feats, ability increases, and class abilities all the way to 20. True, barbarian is not a great class, but if we also give him a bard's skills and a handful of war blade's maneuvers on top of that he would be ahead of the curve when it comes to class progression.

The game is balanced for the abilities you have. If you want to use less than those abilities, it is on you to pick up the slack, not the DM to move down the bar.

Oh yeah, that's gonna be a fun game.

Hey, guys, I know you wanted to play a gritty crime drama, but we are using the Cosi system, so I need you to simply take your omnipotent god character and ignore all the abilities that aren't appropriate for a low level detective. Of course, I will still be balancing the encounters for your full power level, so don't be surprised when the first suspect you track down happens to be Anthony Fremont and he will wish you into the cornfield as soon as you so much as look at him funny.

Come on, you can't seriously be saying that self imposed limits are going to make for a better game if the DM is taking their gloves off to design the challenges.

If the opposition requires you to be a super saiyan, a character who is challenged by thugs with baseball bats is not appropriate, and you should stop demanding the system lie to you by saying it is.

This is what you fundamentally do not understand. You keep on insisting that you be allowed to play your character to 20th, but every time you describe the character you actually want to play it is either in terms of their weaknesses, or in terms of abilities they have at 1st level.

I didn't say the opposition required super saiyan. I am saying that you were fighting an appropriate challenge (whatever that might be) but were tired / cranky and didn't feel like struggling through an appropriate challenge and decided to simply ignore your limits and blow the encounter away without a challenge.

Ok, so you are using "20th level" to mean has no limits or weaknesses. Why the heck not just say "in a game where characters have no limits or weaknesses, characters with limits or weakness are not appropriate" rather than trying to redefine 20th level into something that no one else ever used it to mean and no one but you understands?

I stand 100% firm in my belief that the characters you want to play are low level characters and you should stop trying to ruin my game and yours by insisting you get to play them at 20th.

Ok, so why are you posting on a forum at all? If you are 100% convinced that you know the one true way, and that everyone who disagrees (mostly from personal experience) are simply stupid and / or deluded, what do you hope to gain from the discussion? If I am so deluded that I thought the last 20 years of "ruined" games were fun and balanced, do you actually think you have a prayer of changing my mind?

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level.

Ok, lets do this really simply:

Bob has one apple. Every day bob gets another apple. Every day bob has more apples than he did the previous day.
Tom has one orange. Every day Tom gets another orange. Every day Tom has more oranges than he did the previous day.
Bob will never get an orange.
Tom will never get an apple.
Bob's inability to get oranges does not in any way hamper his ability to continue amassing apples.
Tom 's inability to get apples does not in any way hamper his ability to continue amassing oranges.

Carol can choose to get either an apple or an orange each day.
Carol can have both apples and oranges, but if she does she will never have as many apples as bob or as many oranges as Tom.

Each person has the same total number of apples and oranges.

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 04:53 PM

Unless it's a 9th level spell, it's not covering the whole in that concept. And if it is a 9th level spell, see again the point about you demanding entirely too much warping of the game around your concept.

And "being a linguist" is admittedly not much of a niche for a cosmic-tier adventure game. Seems more suitable for something like WoD. I mean, personally I don't think "speak literally every language ever" should be a spell at all because it kills a lot of mystery plots, to the point that a lot of example adventures in the books suggest flat out fiating that a language being undecipherable by the spell be a plot hook - which actually comes up a lot, now that I think about it. Casters can trivially solve so many problems that it's a regular suggestion that the DM going "nuh-uh" be used to create intrigue.

Because Hulk can jump into orbit. That's fine, because it's on par with what Superman does. But if you were actually okay with abilities on par with casters, you would have given examples when I asked for some, not ranted about how two whole spells is unfair.

So again, Wizard has teleport and scry. What do you bring to the table? You think we should accept "speaks French and also German" as a contribution on par with that?

Thing is, my problem isn't that the Wizard can teleport and scry. It's that they can do that and also eleventy million other things. If, instead of being the omnipotent God-Man, you had a class that was some kind of oracle/pathfinder mix for whom finding things/people and getting to them was their entire schitck (like some kind of occult equivalent of the ranger, I guess), that'd be cool! But full casters aren't that. They can be the oracle, the summoner, the teleporter, the blaster, the necromancer, the illusionist, the buffer, the warder, the miscellaneous-problem-go-away-er all at once, and the most it ever costs them is a nap between roles.

Sure, you could get new stealth abilities. Like invisibility or silent image.

Sure, yeah. As long as they made you really good at stealth and not just better at everything.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 05:04 PM

Again, the D&D fighter sucks, both in combat and out of it. But as you said, we are using fighter as shorthand for "not a caster," which can cover 95+% of situations in your typical fantasy game.

What. Ability. Should. The. Fighter. Get. That. Is. As. Useful. As. teleport.

Again, as I clearly said in my previous post, you are conflating power level with character concept.

I'm not conflating them, they naturally overlap. The Hulk isn't simply Conan but bigger, he's a different character. If Conan becomes Hulk, he has changed.

This character would be pretty strong for first level, but hardly game breaking

That would be the single best first level character in the game and it's not close.

Come on, you can't seriously be saying that self imposed limits are going to make for a better game if the DM is taking their gloves off to design the challenges.

It would be nice if you could start reading my posts. My point is that if you want to have less abilities than the game says you should at a given level, you can achieve that by simply not using abilities you have without having to change the game at all. That does not imply that there are no limits.

I didn't say the opposition required super saiyan.

Well what if it does? What if I specifically want to fight enemies that require me to go Super Saiyan? Can I just not do that ever?

Ok, so you are using "20th level" to mean has no limits or weaknesses. Why the heck not just say "in a game where characters have no limits or weaknesses, characters with limits or weakness are not appropriate" rather than trying to redefine 20th level into something that no one else ever used it to mean and no one but you understands?

A 20th level Wizard (that is not abusing cheese) has limits and weaknesses. She simply has less than the proposed "20th level Conan" you would like to play.

*apples and oranges*

If you want the same abilities with bigger numbers, play WoW and stop trying to ruin D&D. If all you want is bigger numbers, video games do that better than TTRPGs ever will, and I heartily suggest you play them instead.

Casters can trivially solve so many problems that it's a regular suggestion that the DM going "nuh-uh" be used to create intrigue.

Haven't we already established that not everything in D&D books is good? Why would we expect the advice to be any different?

Thing is, my problem isn't that the Wizard can teleport and scry. It's that they can do that and also eleventy million other things. If, instead of being the omnipotent God-Man, you had a class that was some kind of oracle/pathfinder mix for whom finding things/people and getting to them was their entire schitck (like some kind of occult equivalent of the ranger, I guess), that'd be cool! But full casters aren't that. They can be the oracle, the summoner, the teleporter, the blaster, the necromancer, the illusionist, the buffer, the warder, the miscellaneous-problem-go-away-er all at once, and the most it ever costs them is a nap between roles.

Again, you are wrong, and you refuse to admit that you are wrong because you think being a 10 at one thing and a 6 at other things is "doing everything" while being a 5 at one thing and a 1 at other things is "being a specialist".

Also, you have yet to answer the actual question, which suggests to me that you do not have an answer. What shtick should we give the Fighter? What should we do that is "buffing him" and not "nerfing the Wizard"?

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 05:16 PM

Again, you are wrong, and you refuse to admit that you are wrong because you think being a 10 at one thing and a 6 at other things is "doing everything" while being a 5 at one thing and a 1 at other things is "being a specialist".

Because the two aren't comparable. Being good at one thing and not good at everything else is in no way similar to being amazing at one thing and merely great at everything else.

Also, you have yet to answer the actual question, which suggests to me that you do not have an answer. What shtick should we give the Fighter? What should we do that is "buffing him" and not "nerfing the Wizard"?

You're not going to get an answer from me, because I am still 100% insistent that casters need nerfing. It's not that their powers are too big, it's that they have all the powers, and no amount of tacking on thematically appropriate powers to other classes will ever change the fact that the caster can also do those things and also everything else.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-23, 05:23 PM

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level.

Can you reword that maybe? I'm not sure I understand.

But, let me take an idea of a fictional Tier 1 caster. Raistlin Majere. Even a D&D style caster to boot!

Now he starts off small. Individual foot soldiers are a threat, he gets sick, stuff like that. He grows in power, being able to fend off bands of warriors (with help), as well mastering powerful artifacts. Then at the end, he can take on the elite soldiers, clerics, and wizards of the BBEG by himself. Finally he aspires to become god, and does. He takes out all of her minions, drags Thraksis to the Material Plane and beats her down. Eventually even destroying the entire universe (mostly by accident).

So at a glance, he looks like a perfect example of a 3.5 caster. Start small, end up shaking the heavens and reordering the entire world as you like.

But only at a glance. See, even at his best, his power has some sharp limitations. For example, surprise. If something catches him by surprise, he's out. He can't keep magical protections up 24/7, so he has moments of vulnerability, and beneath all his power, he's still a mortal man (well until he becomes a god). A single hit to head knocks him out, a single stab wound almost kills him. He can't cast with his mouth and hands bound, and he can't expend his power frivolously. Because while he can defeat an army with his power, but it takes him weeks or longer to regain it. Not 8 hours in a bed. And some magic is beyond even him. Teleportation over long distances isn't a thing, neither is travelling to other planes. Those require special things, not a single spell. And in the end, even becoming a god won't let him create life.

So he is very much 'defined by his weaknesses'. But at the same time, very little is beyond him. He just has meaningful weaknesses and pays a meaningful cost to his power. It's not free, and never is. Now, being a fictional character, he doesn't fit into a game system well. But it's the same basic premise of not being perfect. Of having weaknesses, and those weaknesses being meaningful. But at the same time, he enslaves dragons, defies the world, travels in time, conquers armies and fortresses, and even slays the gods.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 05:40 PM

Because the two aren't comparable. Being good at one thing and not good at everything else is in no way similar to being amazing at one thing and merely great at everything else.

They are if you scale expectations. Is the Wizard more competent than all the Fighter-level characters? Sure, but those characters are equally all less competent than the Wizard.

You're not going to get an answer from me, because I am still 100% insistent that casters need nerfing. It's not that their powers are too big, it's that they have all the powers, and no amount of tacking on thematically appropriate powers to other classes will ever change the fact that the caster can also do those things and also everything else.

If you will not consider any buff to Fighters, why should I consider any nerf to Wizards?

Can you reword that maybe? I'm not sure I understand.

If you define your concept by the abilities it doesn't have, you will eventually fail to measure up to challenges that require those abilities.

So he is very much 'defined by his weaknesses'. But at the same time, very little is beyond him.

You just described an entire paragraph of things that are beyond him. Also, he still doesn't have a hole in his abilities that "a Fighter, but bigger and stronger" would fill, so the point is rather moot.

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 05:46 PM

If you will not consider any buff to Fighters, why should I consider any nerf to Wizards?

A false dichotomy. I won't consider any buff for fighters that bring them up to the wizard's level, because I think the wizard is too powerful. I wouldn't want the fighter to be that versatile any more than I want the wizard to be. Optimally, I'd like them to meet somewhere in the middle. Give the fighter more utility, give the wizard a lot less.

If you define your concept by the abilities it doesn't have, you will eventually fail to measure up to challenges that require those abilities.

Well yes, but that's why D&D is a party-based game. If you can't do everything, then having someone around who can do the things you can't has some value besides company or not having to work quite as hard.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-23, 05:56 PM

If you define your concept by the abilities it doesn't have, you will eventually fail to measure up to challenges that require those abilities.

You just described an entire paragraph of things that are beyond him. Also, he still doesn't have a hole in his abilities that "a Fighter, but bigger and stronger" would fill, so the point is rather moot.

Sure. And you're playing a team game, so that's actually a good thing. It lets other people have the answer, rather then it always being about you.
Or those things will actually be challenges, rather then a simple 'yes I can do that,' check.

I would say that qualifies under 'very little'. I didn't say nothing. And you know what comes closest to killing him? A fighter who stabs him. If the fighter had aimed for his heart or throat he would've died. So there is a hole there, because every time he uses his powers, he becomes vulnerable. Or if he's caught by surprise.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 05:57 PM

Well yes, but that's why D&D is a party-based game. If you can't do everything, then having someone around who can do the things you can't has some value besides company or not having to work quite as hard.

Certainly, not everyone has to deal with everything. But everyone has to deal with something, and since you refuse to describe what it is that Fighters should actually deal with, it seems to me that you do not have a solution. You just have a demand to be able to be a parasite on the rest of the party.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 06:13 PM

What. Ability. Should. The. Fighter. Get. That. Is. As. Useful. As. teleport.

That is a meaningless question. You need context.

Teleport is a useful ability, but it isn't the answer to every situation.

If I am in a pit fight teleporting isn't totally useless, but a good sword and the skill to use it will serve me a lot better.
If I am trying to form a treaty teleporting might come in handy, but diplomatic skills are going to be a lot better.
If I am trying to track someone I will find him a lot faster by following his trail than randomly teleporting around and hopping I land next to him.
If I am trying to save a wounded ally I could teleport him to a hospital, but it would be a lot more efficient to simply have a medic in the party.
If I need to get an item out of a vault that is too small to teleport into, it is a lot more useful to have a safe cracker in the party.

Furthermore, teleport isn't a personal ability. Even if I need to cross a long distance in a very short amount of time, there is no reason why I need to have multiple characters capable of casting teleport in the party when it is a group effect.

Frankly, your whole argument seems kind of circular to me; you seem to be defining a high level adventure is one that requires magic to complete and therefore non-magical characters are not appropriate for a high level game. Yes, the DM can arbitrarily construct a scenario where mundane means don't help, but a DM could also arbitrarily construct a scenario where magical means don't help. In reality I have never seen an adventure that could not be completed in a wide variety of ways, some of them magical and others mundane.

That would be the single best first level character in the game and it's not close.

He would be a top tier bruiser, that's for sure, but he isn't omnipotent or invincible. A single sleep spell or shot from a magic arrow could take him out, and there are lots of problems he isn't fit to solve, and after he has a few levels under his belt the template stops really mattering.

It would be nice if you could start reading my posts. My point is that if you want to have less abilities than the game says you should at a given level, you can achieve that by simply not using abilities you have without having to change the game at all. That does not imply that there are no limits.

A 20th level Wizard (that is not abusing cheese) has limits and weaknesses. She simply has less than the proposed "20th level Conan" you would like to play.

And here, I totally agree with you.

The thing is, you insist that your 20th level wizard simultaneously doesn't abuse cheese and has weaknesses, but is still so good that they make even a hypothetical buffed martial obsolete. And I just don't see it. I have been running games with moderately nerfed casters and moderately buffed martials for years and years and have never seen this supposed making of martials obsolete.

Well what if it does? What if I specifically want to fight enemies that require me to go Super Saiyan? Can I just not do that ever?

That would depend on the game.

If you are upfront about the type of game you want to play it is perfectly appropriate, but pretending you are playing a different game than you actually are and intentionally hobbling yourself is a recipe for disaster that I have never seen work well, and believe me I have tried.

I have played a pacifist 4E games where I didn't use any damaging abilities and was attacked by my fellow party members for being useless, I have seen a guy play a phoenix in human form and swear he would only assume his true form in the most dire circumstances (which turned out to be "any combat"), I have played characters with mental flaws and been told I am being a problem player for sabotaging my party, and I have played Mage games where it was up to players to police their won paradigms and watched characters try and stomp on other people's toes and steal the spotlight while I was in the middle of a deeply unpleasant internal struggle between my desire to RP and my desire to win.

If you want the same abilities with bigger numbers, play WoW and stop trying to ruin D&D. If all you want is bigger numbers, video games do that better than TTRPGs ever will, and I heartily suggest you play them instead.

Strongly disagree on all points.

First, when you say "ruin D&D" I am having trouble interpreting it as anything other than "High level 3.X works really well for people like me who only want to play T1 casters and ban most (but not all) of the cheese. All other editions, levels, and classes are terrible and anyone who enjoys them is wrong."

Second, what I enjoy in a game is creating and playing a unique character and exploring a fantasy world. Video games have piss all in the way of character customization and have a very finite setting in which to explore, and interactions between said character and said world are almost always scripted and on very tight rails.

Third, its funny you use WoW as an example. Because I have had this exact same argument about WoW. I enjoy playing a character with relatively static capabilities, and my friend loves getting new powers all the time. In D&D I tend to play martials and he tends to play casters. I was complaining about how every time a new expansion for WoW comes out the developers decide to rework all of the classes from the ground up rather than just balancing what they have, while my friend said that he wouldn't play the game if they didn't redesign his class every expansion because playing the same character for years would bore him to tears.

I don't see how having a variety of balanced characters hurts your game in any way, unless you are the aforementioned spotlight hog who has to be better than everyone else all the time.

If you define your concept by the abilities it doesn't have, you will eventually fail to measure up to challenges that require those abilities.

This is absolutely true.

If you think this is a bad thing, maybe that is a fundamental reason why we are having trouble communicating.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 06:35 PM

That is a meaningless question. You need context.

Teleport is a useful ability, but it isn't the answer to every situation.

If I am in a pit fight teleporting isn't totally useless, but a good sword and the skill to use it will serve me a lot better.
If I am trying to form a treaty teleporting might come in handy, but diplomatic skills are going to be a lot better.
If I am trying to track someone I will find him a lot faster by following his trail than randomly teleporting around and hopping I land next to him.
If I am trying to save a wounded ally I could teleport him to a hospital, but it would be a lot more efficient to simply have a medic in the party.
If I need to get an item out of a vault that is too small to teleport into, it is a lot more useful to have a safe cracker in the party.

Furthermore, teleport isn't a personal ability. Even if I need to cross a long distance in a very short amount of time, there is no reason why I need to have multiple characters capable of casting teleport in the party when it is a group effect.

Answer the question. What ability should the Fighter provide to the party that has a similar range of use and impact to teleport? What group capability is he providing? If the answer is nothing, he is not an appropriate PC class and should be kicked to the curb.

He would be a top tier bruiser, that's for sure, but he isn't omnipotent or invincible. A single sleep spell or shot from a magic arrow could take him out, and there are lots of problems he isn't fit to solve, and after he has a few levels under his belt the template stops really mattering.

He out ranges sleep if he picks a heavy crossbow as his simple weapon of choice. Magic arrows might do it, but they're rare, and even then they still might miss. As is, I think he beats literally every CR 1 monster in the MM automatically, assuming he has room to maneuver. Most of them even if he doesn't. DR magic is stupid good at low levels.

The thing is, you insist that your 20th level wizard simultaneously doesn't abuse cheese and has weaknesses, but is still so good that they make even a hypothetical buffed martial obsolete. And I just don't see it. I have been running games with moderately nerfed casters and moderately buffed martials for years and years and have never seen this supposed making of martials obsolete.

Your personal experiences in games where everyone has agreed to abide by a power cap don't prove anything. It is equally true that people have had fun playing games without martials. Should we exclude them on this basis?

First, when you say "ruin D&D" I am having trouble interpreting it as anything other than "High level 3.X works really well for people like me who only want to play T1 casters and ban most (but not all) of the cheese. All other editions, levels, and classes are terrible and anyone who enjoys them is wrong."

You explicitly want both:

1. To get only abilities that are better versions of 1st level abilities.
2. To not be overshadowed by people who get new abilities.

This means that I can never get any ability that I didn't have a version of at 1st level. That's terrible, because it means my concept can never develop beyond it's simplest version. That ruins D&D, because it makes "advancement" nothing more than a treadmill of differently colored orcs.

This is absolutely true.

If you think this is a bad thing, maybe that is a fundamental reason why we are having trouble communicating.

It's not a bad thing any more than it's a bad thing that your concept might be defined around some ability that is only appropriate at a high level. But it implies things about how your concept should function in the game. If your concept is "is a prince of hell", clearly you cannot achieve your concept as a 1st level character as the hellish legions you would command overmatch the whole of the party. But equally if your character concept is one that has "knows languages" and "fights in melee" as defining aspects, it is not appropriate for accompanying a prince of hell, and insisting that it be made so only makes the game worse for both characters.

digiman619

2017-09-23, 06:51 PM

Well, I was out for a few hours. Looks like I missed a lot. Let's do this.

This part I agree with -- NPCs should get what they need to be the characters they're supposed to be.

This part... I've repeatedly used the "2d Hollywood set" as an analogy for the sort of shallow settings and world-building I don't care for.I think I get what you mean, but I'm talking about "he's not going to enter combat, so I don't need to know his initiative". If he's an important NPC, you must have a decent amount of stuff devoted to who he is, how he got to be where he is, and what he wants from the players.
tl;dr: The fluff of him needs to be there, but if he's not acting on screen, the crunch doesn't need to be.

Because sometimes people want to do wargames and also dungeon crawling? Like in Malazan. Or Mistborn. Or Wheel of Time. Or Lord of the Rings. Or almost any fantasy series that does mass battles.
Fair point, but it wouldn't be the first time that a game used a war game to model its mass battles, though.

Except it does, because a game is not a movie, and players can go off script. If the players do decide to stab the general (or persuade the general, or protect the general, or ask the general a question), the game has to be able to generate answers to questions like "how fast can the general move" or "what happens if someone lights the general on fire" or "does the general know what a Mohrg is". And if the general is a construct of fiat and duct tape, you can't answer those questions fairly.
There's truth to that, and having a general idea of his capabilities isn't a bad idea, but you don't have to spend all his skill points, choose every feat, decide what spells he knows, etc. Just a few notes are good enough for most circumstances. And if they go off script and make an NPC you had as a bit character more important, give him a full sheet between sessions. Because now he matters because he's going to do things on camera.

How can you believe this and also that imbalance is bad? If the game's purpose is not mass combat because it didn't have a mass combat system for several years, surely the even longer period it spent without class balance should be proof that isn't something it's intended to do either. Even if we accept that the designer's intended balance and took steps to address imbalance, shouldn't the fact that they took steps to address the lack of mass battle rules first indicate something to us?
Because unless mass battles are the focus of the campaign, they are ancillary at best. Most games use them rarely if ever use them, so they don't affect most games. When character imbalance is an issue, it's front and center and undeniable. It's the difference between discovering evidence that aliens existed long ago and aliens landing in Times Square.

That's a weak argument and you know it. Sure, not every battle is going to accommodate the entire army. But most battles are going to have room for some number of extra participants, and if your character can provide them, that makes them more powerful. Is that broken? No, but it is an ability, and presumably if the number of soldiers you can expect to provide is large enough (and/or the individual soldiers powerful enough), it can't be a low-level ability.
Fine, let's say that instead of a batallion, you bring in a SWAT team to help your party. It's still not a good idea, and it's almost as bad a T1 caster spamming summon spells. It bogs combat down as so many NPCs take their turn, and they will almost certainly get in your and each other's way. Now admittedly, you don't have the "throw the summon at the trap to disarm it" problem with the summon spells, but it comes with the additional risk of making them into DMNPCs, especially if you like to know anything about who's fighting beneath you.

Isn't that going to be true of any reasonably specific power band? Suppose you have just three power levels -- low, medium, and high. Assuming content is evenly distributed between them, all of them exclude a majority of content. I'm not saying I don't want there to be games where people can play non-magical characters and contribute. That is absolutely fine, and I am fine with the game supporting it. What I want is to eventually kick the non-magical characters to the curb, so I can have magical abilities that obsolete mundane (aside: your conflation of "mundane" and "NPC" is not what most people seem to mean by the term, and certainly not what I mean) tasks like travel, logistics, or manufacturing. I don't want to overshadow other characters. My demand is very specifically that everyone gets abilities like casters currently get.
I can see what you mean, but to my eyes, the only way this concept can work is if, at level 1, no one has magic. Everyone started as some type of "mundane" character (scholar, soldier, doctor, whatever) and everyone slowly unlocked power from within that changes their life forever. Because if the theme is "leave the mundane world behind", then you've got to start off mundane, or what's the point of advancing?

You are not being sufficiently precise.

First, do you mean practically (working within existing content) or theoretically (designing some new system)?
I was using what we had currently.

Second, what do you mean by "spells"? Are maneuvers spells? Why or why not? Are invocations spells? Why or why not? If I wrote a sword-y class that got a bunch of cold and necromancy spells as SLAs, would that be a gish? What if they were Su? Ex? What if they were cold and necromancy abilities that were specifically not based off any existing spells? What if the class got "has Frostmourne" as a class ability, and Frostmourne was what had the magical abilities, while the class was otherwise a RAW 3.5 Fighter?
If I had to define them for this argument, I'd say spells are "swappable effects that let the uaer to do things that the rules normally forbid", with the proviso that they are always class-specific (though overlap exists). So for this arguement, I suppose that maneuvers are spells (though moreso for ToB than PoW, as ToB classes had them hardwired in, where PoW classes had some leeway to make changes) and invocations are not (as anyone can attempt the skill checks to do them).
Your Necro-fighter would still be a martial by most people's standards, but there is a point where it'd stop being a martial and start being a gish, though it's very nebulous as to where that is.
Being Su or Ex would give the class more indentity as a martial, but it would still be a gish if using the SLAs was a primary way of using the character.
And "owns a magic weapon that does all the SLAs" would only be a viable class feature is there was some way to make sure that it can't be permanently taken from him. I mean, a wizard without his component poich and spellbook is in trouble, but those are easily replaceable. If there is a quick and easy way to keep it out of the Necro-fighter's hands, it's not a class ability, it's a DM Fiat in sword form.

Third, why is "6th level spells" the point where you stop being martial? Does this mean that a 10th level Cleric is still martial? Does this mean that a Duskblade isn't a gish, being possessed of only 5th level spells at 20th level? If a Wizard is "not a martial" from 1st level, does this mean that he turns into a gish, and then into a martial as he takes more gish PrCs or multi-classes more with Fighter? If your gish-ness can change over time, on what authority can we say any character below 10th level (the first level at which no base class levels will take you from "no casting" to "6th level spells) is or isn't a gish?
I failed a bit in my description. When I was talking about characters with 6th level spells, I meant that that was they're apex; bards rather than wizards. I said that rather than just "spellcaster" becasue otherwise I would have been including Paladins as gishes, which doesn't really apply.

I have. I have repeatedly said that you should be allowed to do other things. The problem is that no one on your side is floating a solution that leaves Tier One in the game at all. Your position is that we should start by cutting the idea of "guy who has a spellbook" and working from there. Frankly, I don't know why I should keep humoring the people who want non-casters in the game. If y'all's plan is "take my ball and go home", why on earth should I offer you anything else?
Because Tier 1 is a mistake! "Guy who has a spellbook" could be a fine character concept, but the problem is that, as it stands, T1 casters (and wizards specifically sicne you brought up the spellbook) can do everything. I'm not opposed to the level of flexibility that a Wizard has. I am opposed to the wizard's spell list, as other than "heals people", it has a couple dozen answers for pretty much every occasion.
And the reason you should "keep humoring the people who want non-casters" is that the noncasters are are people wanting to play the player character classes. Yoiu know, the ones that are supposed to be equal to the casters? They want to play the characters they want, but they were given a false bill of goods, as only a small portion of builds are viable at the level you like to play. It's like we collectively bought a property and there's goodies in the area you happened to pick and virtually nothing everyone else. You aren't willing to give up your stuff even though we all paid the same amount.

But if everyone can fight, and some people can also raise the dead or summon angels, the clearly the people who can only fight are getting the short end of a stick.
In a way, yes. But the one thing that you've yet to understand is that with the power breaks the setting, so giving everyone the power breaks the setting more. Unless the game is on Sigil which has built-in Deus ex Machinas preventing it, but at that point it's just DM Fiat.

And why is the solution to this problem to make everyone a have-not? Why not give everyone a tool for solving the problem?
Tools ara actually a great analogy. Hammers and wrenches and drills all work because they are all built to do a task and do it well. There are also Swiss Army knives that have a lot of functions, but aren't as effective becasue of the limitations inherant in getting them to fit in the knife. Still, even though its flathead screwdriver doesn't have the torque of a regualr size one, it's still useful. Then you come in with the Sonic Screwdriver, wave it over the problem and it goes away.

This is why I want Tier 3. It leasves room for specialist and lets generalists have utility without being the only answer. It also lets the various shapes have purpose. To play the high-power game you want, only a small number of builds are viable, so if you've played more than one or two of them, they mechanically fade toegther. And I used a summon spell becasue as an open-ended spell like that, it's a prime expmle of cherry picking.

Because Vancian magic is the only system that lets people have abilities I think they should have. It has redeeming features that, say, Invocations don't have. That's not to say it's without flaws, but it's a better starting point than anything else.
And the only reason you think they should have those abilites is because they are spells in the Vancian system. It's circular logic.

Okay, if your character is defined by their limitations, aren't the inherently possessed of a level cap? If your character is specifically "not a strong as an ogre", shouldn't you eventually stop advancing, rather than demand that no character ever be allowed to be stronger than an ogre?

Well that's the problem, isn't it? T1s don't have niches. They have a few token things they can't do, and a handful of things another caster can do 10% better, but everything else? There's a spell for that.

"Non-combat" isn't a niche. Which part of "non-combat" does the Fighter handle? Yes, you can cut things down into niches, but you can do that for combat too.
That's not an answer. Why is it okay that a T1 caster gets the niche of "everything"?

The fact that you think those characters are equal is absurd. The second character is flat immune to everything the first character does. Your concept is "good at melee", but Superman beats every melee enemy for free! You want "good at languages" to be a 20th level ability, when speaking all languages is a 3rd level spell! You're describing "distrusts magic" as a character ability! No part of what you are saying adds up to a 10th level character, let alone a 20th level one.
And you've yet to answer why you have to play Superman instead any of the dozens if not hundreds of characters that have amazing move sets and can do astounding things. Other than "Because Superman!" and "I wanna!"

I stand 100% firm in my belief that the characters you want to play are low level characters and you should stop trying to ruin my game and yours by insisting you get to play them at 20th.
And I stand firm in my belief that you don't start at low level because of the way you offhanedly treat 80% of the clases and anyone else's concern. Because you wanna be Superman, and you don't care about anyone else.

This is what you fundamentally do not understand. You keep on insisting that you be allowed to play your character to 20th, but every time you describe the character you actually want to play it is either in terms of their weaknesses, or in terms of abilities they have at 1st level.
And you don't understand that "level 20" doesn't have to mean "is practically a god".

The abilities. I don't particularly like the resource management more or less than anything else.
Then why did you complain that even though SoP lets you keep those abilitiies that it didn't count?

I still don't understand why you insist on having a game where characters who are defined by their weakness can advance without limit. That does not make sense on a fundamental level.
There's a different between a limitation and a weakness. Goku can't summon monsters. He never has been, and unless later instalments go into wierd places, he never will. That doesn't make him weak, as by the end of Z, he was explicitly the most powerful being in the setting, and he wasn't done training.

Unless it's a 9th level spell, it's not covering the whole in that concept. And if it is a 9th level spell, see again the point about you demanding entirely too much warping of the game around your concept.
See the earlier post about not using plane shift as a benchmark as it does not accurately determine if a game is high-level or not.

Because Hulk can jump into orbit. That's fine, because it's on par with what Superman does. But if you were actually okay with abilities on par with casters, you would have given examples when I asked for some, not ranted about how two whole spells is unfair.
So you are saying that anything powerful needs to be a spell?

So again, Wizard has teleport and scry. What do you bring to the table? You think we should accept "speaks French and also German" as a contribution on par with that?[/quote]
Which shifts the paradigm to unfun 5th dimensional chess that even other T1 casters can't defend against (forbiddance is only on the Cleric spell list, and is a higher spell level that teleport, so between 9th & 10th level, there is no countermeasure)!, so we're arguing that he shouldn't have it.

Sure, you could get new stealth abilities. Like invisibility or silent image.
Sure. What we're saying is that they shouldn't be on the spell list of a class that doesn't have "dedicated to sneaking and subterfuge" as an identity; ie.., it should be on the beguiler list, but not on the wizard list.

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 06:58 PM

Certainly, not everyone has to deal with everything. But everyone has to deal with something, and since you refuse to describe what it is that Fighters should actually deal with, it seems to me that you do not have a solution. You just have a demand to be able to be a parasite on the rest of the party.

Fighters, specifically, are a poor choice because they're kind of an anti-Wizard (which is part of why we were trying to move away from using specific classes to define our arguments). The Fighter was designed as an all-purpose martial character, but since it accomplishes this entirely through the venue of BAB and feats, it basically gets to pick one build out of a wide array of options to do poorly, in contrast to a Wizard's ability to pick as many options to do well as it likes.

Neither of these are good options. In my opinion the Fighter (the class, not the archetype) is worthwhile only as a bridgegap for other martial classes that aren't quite capable of attaining the desired archetype. Preferably I'd drop the Fighter and replace it with half a dozen new martial classes that are actually designed to do something rather than hypothetically being able to fill any niche. Maybe draw from Iron Heroes for inspiration.

From the other end, I'd drop the Wizard and replace it with half a dozen new casting classes that fill out specific archetypes rather than a generalist class that can do all of them. Basically fill out the Warmage/Dread Necro/Beguiler lineup with other similarly niche-casters that retain all the power without the ridiculous flexibility. Take out stupid rules like multiclassing penalties and you could easily hop between several of these and build a generalist caster that can't hold a candle to any of the specialists but can do a little bit of everything - the classic "jack of all trades, master of none" ideal, instead of "master of all trades, grandmaster of some" we have in generalist casters now.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 07:09 PM

Answer the question. What ability should the Fighter provide to the party that has a similar range of use and impact to teleport? What group capability is he providing? If the answer is nothing, he is not an appropriate PC class and should be kicked to the curb.

That question cannot be answered without context.

It would be like saying "I need something fixed. Should I call a plumber, a mechanic, or an electrician?" The question is more or less meaningless and cannot be answered without knowing what it is that I need fixed.

Now, I will say that in your standard D&D campaign I would say that has a good BaB, has all weapon and armor proficiencies, has d10 HP, and has a good fortitude save, and gets a bonus feat every other level are all more useful than teleport, and if I was creating a character and had to choose between those and having teleport on my spell list I would not choose teleport (from a utilitarian perspective, in reality I would choose whatever better fit the character concept). Now, if it was SLA at will teleport without error, I might be willing to give up one of those things, but it isn't a sure thing.

Also, even if teleport was the be all and end all of abilities that no martial ability can ever compare to (I don't think it is, but just for the sake of argument), unless the game was explicitly about teleportation, I would simply ban teleportation rather than the ~90% of classes who never get access to teleportation.

And again, teleportation is a group ability. Even if teleportation is a vital tactical asset, you only need one guy on the team who can cast it, leaving the other three people to do whatever they like.

1. To get only abilities that are better versions of 1st level abilities.
2. To not be overshadowed by people who get new abilities.

This means that I can never get any ability that I didn't have a version of at 1st level. That's terrible, because it means my concept can never develop beyond it's simplest version. That ruins D&D, because it makes "advancement" nothing more than a treadmill of differently colored orcs.

I prefer characters with linear growth. You can play whatever character you want.

It is completely possible to balance both types of characters. Again, perfect balance is impossible, but you can easily get close enough.

Let's imagine you have a very simple RPG which has 5 actions, talk, fight, sneak, explore, and craft.

All actions are resolved with a simple d20+modifier vs. a set difficulty.

Although there is some variance between sessions, over the course of the campaign each ability makes up roughly 20% of the rolls which are called for and all are roughly equal in importance to overall success.

All characters are given 5 points per level to distribute however they want.

In such a system we have two characters, Jack of all trades, Bob the fighter, and Mike the Fighter.

Jack decides to have a fight score of 1, a talk score of 1, a sneak score of 1, an explore score of 1, and a craft score of 1.

Mike and Bob decide to just have a fight score of 5.

Now assuming; a DC of 21, Jack will solve 5% of all encounters. Mike and Bob, on the other hand, will also solve 5% of all encounters.

That seems pretty balanced to me, does it not?

Then they level up, Jack decides to raise all of his scores to 2.

Make decides to continue high fighter ways and raises his fight score to 10.

Bob, on the other hand, decides he wants to branch out and leaves his fight score at 5, but decides to raise his sneak score to 5 as well.

In this scenario, assuming the DC stays at 21, all three people will solve about 10% of all problems.

Your personal experiences in games where everyone has agreed to abide by a power cap don't prove anything. It is equally true that people have had fun playing games without martials. Should we exclude them on this basis?

It proves that it is possible for martials and casters to co-exist in high level D&D type games.

I didn't say that is wasn't possible to have fun without martials.

Proving that Bigfoot doesn't exist is impossible, but if I have a sasquatch living in my backyard that is more than sufficient evidence to convince me (or anyone who is willing to come over and have a look) that Bigfoot does exist.

Cosi

2017-09-23, 07:37 PM

There's truth to that, and having a general idea of his capabilities isn't a bad idea, but you don't have to spend all his skill points, choose every feat, decide what spells he knows, etc. Just a few notes are good enough for most circumstances. And if they go off script and make an NPC you had as a bit character more important, give him a full sheet between sessions. Because now he matters because he's going to do things on camera.

You've changed the topic from "has an army shouldn't be a class feature" to "you shouldn't need to stat up all NPCs in advance". I broadly agree with the second, but it in no way implies the first.

Fine, let's say that instead of a batallion, you bring in a SWAT team to help your party. It's still not a good idea, and it's almost as bad a T1 caster spamming summon spells. It bogs combat down as so many NPCs take their turn, and they will almost certainly get in your and each other's way.

Again, you pivoted. Also, something about not making mechanics annoying in hopes of making the balanced.

I was using what we had currently.

Then yes, for anyone to compete with casters, they need spells. Because spells are the only printed content that can replicate the effects if plane shift or teleport. You can have some side access to those spells (like SoP rituals, or magic item crafting), but at bottom everything resolves to fabricate (or whatever other spell is relevant).

I failed a bit in my description. When I was talking about characters with 6th level spells, I meant that that was they're apex; bards rather than wizards. I said that rather than just "spellcaster" becasue otherwise I would have been including Paladins as gishes, which doesn't really apply.

Why not though? The Paladin only gets one spell level less than the Duskblade, which seems pretty gish-y to me. Also, I'm not convinced the Bard counts as a gish. The play pattern seems very different from what gishes are traditionally understood to be, baring atypical builds like the Bardblade.

Because Tier 1 is a mistake! "Guy who has a spellbook" could be a fine character concept, but the problem is that, as it stands, T1 casters (and wizards specifically sicne you brought up the spellbook) can do everything.

No, they can't. They can do lots of things, and they have a much higher level of competence in areas where they aren't specialists, but it is flatly false to assert that they can do everything. Those spells I listed earlier? Each class gets them before the other.

In a way, yes. But the one thing that you've yet to understand is that with the power breaks the setting, so giving everyone the power breaks the setting more. Unless the game is on Sigil which has built-in Deus ex Machinas preventing it, but at that point it's just DM Fiat.

As explained earlier, it doesn't break the setting if you design the setting well. The setting is as much a party of the game as the rules, and attention should be paid to it.

And the only reason you think they should have those abilites is because they are spells in the Vancian system. It's circular logic.

You have to pick something. You could use NichG's definitions, but those aren't exactly better for non-casters.

And you've yet to answer why you have to play Superman instead any of the dozens if not hundreds of characters that have amazing move sets and can do astounding things. Other than "Because Superman!" and "I wanna!"

Why do you want to play Batman?

Then why did you complain that even though SoP lets you keep those abilitiies that it didn't count?

If recollection serves, my point was that the giant citation to another magic system demonstrated that SoP was not self-sufficient, vis-a-vis a debate about the ratio of content provided to concepts covered.

There's a different between a limitation and a weakness. Goku can't summon monsters. He never has been, and unless later instalments go into wierd places, he never will. That doesn't make him weak, as by the end of Z, he was explicitly the most powerful being in the setting, and he wasn't done training.

And the Wizard can't raise the dead, but that doesn't preclude you describing them as "doing everything".

So you are saying that anything powerful needs to be a spell?

I'm saying everything powerful currently is a spell. Given your definition:

If I had to define them for this argument, I'd say spells are "swappable effects that let the uaer to do things that the rules normally forbid", with the proviso that they are always class-specific (though overlap exists).

It seems likely that almost any resource management system would count as spells, so anything in future that did cool things would be "spells". So I guess the answer is "you defined any resource management system that involves selecting a subset of your options as spells, so now Warblades are casters".

From the other end, I'd drop the Wizard and replace it with half a dozen new casting classes that fill out specific archetypes rather than a generalist class that can do all of them.

That doesn't change the non-combat abilities the group needs. If the group needs teleport, they need it whether their caster is niche or not. The amount of non-combat mojo each character has to provide is dependent not on the narrowness of their niche but the variety of non-combat challenges that must be overcome.

That question cannot be answered without context.

Consider the utility of teleport over the set of all possible situations. What ability should the Fighter get that provides the overall utility across that set?

Now, I will say that in your standard D&D campaign I would say that has a good BaB, has all weapon and armor proficiencies, has d10 HP, and has a good fortitude save, and gets a bonus feat every other level are all more useful than teleport, and if I was creating a character and had to choose between those and having teleport on my spell list I would not choose teleport (from a utilitarian perspective, in reality I would choose whatever better fit the character concept). Now, if it was SLA at will teleport without error, I might be willing to give up one of those things, but it isn't a sure thing.

Sorry, no. Trading off combat and non-combat abilities breaks game balance. Try again.

I prefer characters with linear growth. You can play whatever character you want.

Okay, then stop complaining when my character is better than yours.

It is completely possible to balance both types of characters. Again, perfect balance is impossible, but you can easily get close enough.

No, it isn't. It literally mathematically isn't. If the Fighter scales as a function of X and the Wizard scales as a function of X^2, they are not equal. This is high school math.

It proves that it is possible for martials and casters to co-exist in high level D&D type games.

THOSE SCALINGS ARE ALL LINEAR!

You just said you could balance linear and non-linear characters, then proposed a system where everyone was linear as proof. Were you lying, or do you not understand what "linear" means?

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 08:07 PM

And the Wizard can't raise the dead, but that doesn't preclude you describing them as "doing everything".

Difference is, Goku can only do the things he's specifically able to do. A generalist caster can do all the things they aren't specifically unable to do.

That doesn't change the non-combat abilities the group needs. If the group needs teleport, they need it whether their caster is niche or not. The amount of non-combat mojo each character has to provide is dependent not on the narrowness of their niche but the variety of non-combat challenges that must be overcome.

A campaign is, by necessity, tailored to its party. The group never needs teleport, as previously discussed there aren't any objective requirements for high-level play besides maybe "can defeat CR-appropriate encounters." A party with a teleporter will certainly reap the benefits, but it's not like the game will break if nobody in the party can do that, same way the party won't necessarily break if nobody in the party is good at social encounters.

Talakeal

2017-09-23, 08:52 PM

Consider the utility of teleport over the set of all possible situations. What ability should the Fighter get that provides the overall utility across that set?

Sorry, no. Trading off combat and non-combat abilities breaks game balance. Try again.

Sorry, I don't remember non-combat abilities being a requirement.

I personally agree that in a game like D&D all characters should have options both in and out of combat, and fighter is poorly designed precisely because it has next to no out of combat utility. If your point is that fighters should have more out of combat things to do then you won't get any argument from me.

Now, I don't have a problem with a hyper specialized character who can only do one thing if that is what a player likes, but I don't like how D&D forces that on people who want to play certain archetypes.

Now, if we are using "fighter" to mean martial, I would probably rather have Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Knack, Timeless Body, Divine Grace, the Diplomacy skill, the Perception skill, the Heal skill (in an edition where it actually does something), the Stealth skill, the Gather Information skill, the Survival skill, and the spell craft skill than teleport. In a more robust crafting system I would probably rather have crafting skills than teleportation. Maybe tracking or disable device, it depends.

Use magic device is also unarguably better, but that is not really martial.

Okay, then stop complaining when my character is better than yours.

I don't care that all characters are equal.

What I don't like is that in D&D the class balance is so far apart that the generalists often perform better in their areas of specialty than the specialists. That's the problem. If I make a healer and the cleric outheals me, if I make a monk and the druid out unarms me, if I make a warmage and the sorcerer out blasts me, or I make a dread necromancer and the wizard out minions me, then we have a problem.

No, it isn't. It literally mathematically isn't. If the Fighter scales as a function of X and the Wizard scales as a function of X^2, they are not equal. This is high school math.

THOSE SCALINGS ARE ALL LINEAR!

You just said you could balance linear and non-linear characters, then proposed a system where everyone was linear as proof. Were you lying, or do you not understand what "linear" means?

I guess I don't know what linear means then, I can't find any definition of linear that suits Bob's advancement paradigm.

Now, the total character power is linear, vs. D&D's quadratic growth for T1 casters, and if that is what you meant then again, I am not going to argue that point.

But a character who continues to grow in a single direction can be balanced against someone who grows in multiple directions, if you make a character choose between increasing the power of an existing ability OR gaining a new ability you can balance that.

NichG

2017-09-23, 09:35 PM

I can see what you mean, but to my eyes, the only way this concept can work is if, at level 1, no one has magic. Everyone started as some type of "mundane" character (scholar, soldier, doctor, whatever) and everyone slowly unlocked power from within that changes their life forever. Because if the theme is "leave the mundane world behind", then you've got to start off mundane, or what's the point of advancing?

Actually, I think this would resolve a lot of the sort of stuck mentality about 'mundanes'. I think a level-based game where it explicitly says e.g. at Lv5, Lv11, and Lv17 new rules come into play and everyone starts to get abilities based on those new rules would be a pretty reasonable design. We could say 'magic', but it could apply to other things too in other games/settings, like at Lv5 you can start inventing new technologies or at Lv11 everyone gets their own country equivalent to rule and so on. If you combine that with a requirement that advancement is not automatic, but that you must actually satisfy that condition in order to actually be that level (e.g. if you were to abdicate your rule, your level would instantly drop), then you'll end up having clearer boundaries about where level should or should not correlate with the concepts in play and the plots being run.

It makes sense to me in that it plays to the strength of level-based games in terms of standardizing challenges and saying 'the party level indicates what sorts of things the party can expect to have to deal with' - essentially, if you're going with levels, it should be there to prevent you from accidentally making a character who can't participate. This is in contrast with point-buy types of games where you have a lot more expressiveness in terms of what character concepts you can represent at the cost of it becoming trickier to standardize challenges and characters against each-other.

To me it seems like the kind of thing Drakevarg is calling for is well-suited to the point-buy style of game (the 'apples and oranges' example is close to being exactly this). In that case you can put all your points into 'Accounting' or 'Swinging a Sword' or 'Travelling', and still be wholly incapable of the other things. So to that extent, if I were redesigning D&D for Drakevarg's tastes I'd probably cut out levels and classes entirely and try to do something like some of the point-buy ability conversions I've seen for older editions. There's a host of things the DM would have to be aware and careful of, but that's really nothing new. The bigger design issue would be how to extend the scaling without either people who don't hyperspecialize being unable to participate or losing the ability of 'still being able to advance in your speciality' - generally you have something like diminishing returns for skill investment in point buy games so that hyperspecializing isn't the only viable answer, so if you wanted to make a point buy system with no diminishing returns then I think that would be pretty challenging.

digiman619

2017-09-23, 11:37 PM

You've changed the topic from "has an army shouldn't be a class feature" to "you shouldn't need to stat up all NPCs in advance". I broadly agree with the second, but it in no way implies the first.
Just like you changed the subject from "fabricate is a reason to play a T1" to "Commanding an army is high-level". The conversation can move like that.

Again, you pivoted. Also, something about not making mechanics annoying in hopes of making the balanced.
Then please, tell me how much of your army you should bring into your dungeon crawl. "all of them" is clearly impossible, but you chided me for suggesting "only a few". What is the number of soldier you'd suggest?

Then yes, for anyone to compete with casters, they need spells. Because spells are the only printed content that can replicate the effects if plane shift or teleport. You can have some side access to those spells (like SoP rituals, or magic item crafting), but at bottom everything resolves to fabricate (or whatever other spell is relevant).
By that definition, yes. I suppose you're right.

Why not though? The Paladin only gets one spell level less than the Duskblade, which seems pretty gish-y to me. Also, I'm not convinced the Bard counts as a gish. The play pattern seems very different from what gishes are traditionally understood to be, baring atypical builds like the Bardblade.
My Pathfinder is showing again. All casters in Pathfinder ar 4th, 6th or full casters. I didn;t know a class with a max of 5th level spells was even a thing.

No, they can't. They can do lots of things, and they have a much higher level of competence in areas where they aren't specialists, but it is flatly false to assert that they can do everything. Those spells I listed earlier? Each class gets them before the other.
Fine. Practically everything. They have one or two things they can't do natively, but a) I'm sure if I asked the forums, there are plenty of ways to get past that, and b) that's still too much. The Sonic Screwdriver doesn't stop being a Deus Ex Machina just because it can't work on wood.

As explained earlier, it doesn't break the setting if you design the setting well. The setting is as much a party of the game as the rules, and attention should be paid to it.
It breaks every official setting other than Planescape, and the only reason it doesn't there is because of The Lady of Pain, a.k.a. the incarnation of DM Fiat. Gods can't enter Sigil. Anytime you try to do any of the dozens of RAW legal stuff that breaks the game (chain-gating solars, WBL breaking shinanigans, etc.), she will show up and no-save maze you. Except her maze didn't end until she said it ends and there is no escape from it via plane shift or anything else. It was a pinpoint "rocks fall" and gave the DM carte blanche and lore justification to "time out" and/or boot problem characters.

Why do you want to play Batman?
Because the game promised me Batman was viable. And because Superman is a boring character.

If recollection serves, my point was that the giant citation to another magic system demonstrated that SoP was not self-sufficient, vis-a-vis a debate about the ratio of content provided to concepts covered.
This is the same problem with SLAs. They are too baked in to remove without rewriting a huge amount of monsters, including the vast majority of high-level monsters. You also seemed to imply that scaling effects don't count as high level.

I'm saying everything powerful currently is a spell. Given your definition:
Only if it's swappable. Hulk doesn't trade out his strength for speed or magetism or anything else. If it's always the same ability, then it's not a spell.

Drakevarg

2017-09-23, 11:41 PM

My Pathfinder is showing again. All casters in Pathfinder ar 4th, 6th or full casters. I didn;t know a class with a max of 5th level spells was even a thing.

Off the top of my head, the Adept NPC class as well as the Suel Arcanamach and Disciple of Thrym PrCs are 5th level casters. I generally lump them in as half-casters in terms of power, it's not really that huge a game-changer.

NichG

2017-09-24, 12:13 AM

Then please, tell me how much of your army you should bring into your dungeon crawl. "all of them" is clearly impossible, but you chided me for suggesting "only a few". What is the number of soldier you'd suggest?

If you're looking at a dungeon crawl with an army, let's say for example that each PC leads a specialized battalion of 200. One PC sends out the scouts to find all alternate entrances. Another starts producing a large number of alchemical mixtures that produce smoke and poisonous fog. Another sets up a kill zone with their troops to intercept the fleeing denizens. Another sets up explosives to collapse the alternate entrances. The dungeon is flooded out smoked out, and then stuff happens (presumably the inhabitants have tricks to play too, so things don't go perfectly to plan).

By that definition, yes. I suppose you're right.

My Pathfinder is showing again. All casters in Pathfinder ar 4th, 6th or full casters. I didn;t know a class with a max of 5th level spells was even a thing.

It breaks every official setting other than Planescape, and the only reason it doesn't there is because of The Lady of Pain, a.k.a. the incarnation of DM Fiat. Gods can't enter Sigil. Anytime you try to do any of the dozens of RAW legal stuff that breaks the game (chain-gating solars, WBL breaking shinanigans, etc.), she will show up and no-save maze you. Except her maze didn't end until she said it ends and there is no escape from it via plane shift or anything else. It was a pinpoint "rocks fall" and gave the DM carte blanche and lore justification to "time out" and/or boot problem characters.

That's not really what makes it work. Even if players do crazy stuff like chain-gating solars, the planes are big. Often infinite. So what if someone blows up a hundred thousand miles of the Outlands - it's entirely possible no one would ever notice. Infinities force real change to be about understanding where the essential nature of things and targeting that, which isn't just a matter of some precooked tricks.

Mechalich

2017-09-24, 01:52 AM

That's not really what makes it work. Even if players do crazy stuff like chain-gating solars, the planes are big. Often infinite. So what if someone blows up a hundred thousand miles of the Outlands - it's entirely possible no one would ever notice. Infinities force real change to be about understanding where the essential nature of things and targeting that, which isn't just a matter of some precooked tricks.

The Lady of Pain makes Sigil work, and Sigil - or something else much like Sigil - is necessary to make the setting work because a hub is necessary. Without a strategically valuable hub, the infinity of the planes swamps everything and all the philosophical struggles become impossible to center and you just have random people wandering about randomly in weird otherworlds - ie. what you did in the planes prior to Planescape being introduced.

Planescape had the problem where the entrenched powers - the gods and also the infinitely sized exemplar armies - could systematically flatten anything else that was in any position to challenge them over anything that they cared about. Since 'what is the meaning of the multiverse?' was absolutely on the list of things they cared about, in order to have a safe space to consider that question is was necessary to create a place where an infinitely powerful something - in this case the Lady of Pain - explicitly allowed everyone to consider it in something resembling peace. This made the transmission of ideas actually possible and thereby provided an actual reason for debate as opposed to just trying to smash and grab the biggest chunk of infinity you possibly could.

The thing is if you create any other planar location you have to consider the question of 'why is this not in the possession of the local dominant faction?' regardless of whether that faction is angels, elementals, fiends, or modrons. The answer is usually based in asymmetry of priorities - essential that whomever happens to be in charge of the place is cares more about that place than the exemplars do and is sufficiently powerful that it's not worth the effort of eliminating them. So, for instance, a Pyroclastic dragon might care a lot more about one specific lava flow on Gehenna (because it's her lava flow, by Tiamat!) than the local Yugoloth armies do (because it's a pile of lava of no strategic importance) and therefore the status quo is maintained. Sigil, being of infinite strategic value, had to be guarded by something of infinite power who cared with infinite sincerity.

NichG

2017-09-24, 02:43 AM

The Lady of Pain makes Sigil work, and Sigil - or something else much like Sigil - is necessary to make the setting work because a hub is necessary. Without a strategically valuable hub, the infinity of the planes swamps everything and all the philosophical struggles become impossible to center and you just have random people wandering about randomly in weird otherworlds - ie. what you did in the planes prior to Planescape being introduced.

Planescape had the problem where the entrenched powers - the gods and also the infinitely sized exemplar armies - could systematically flatten anything else that was in any position to challenge them over anything that they cared about. Since 'what is the meaning of the multiverse?' was absolutely on the list of things they cared about, in order to have a safe space to consider that question is was necessary to create a place where an infinitely powerful something - in this case the Lady of Pain - explicitly allowed everyone to consider it in something resembling peace. This made the transmission of ideas actually possible and thereby provided an actual reason for debate as opposed to just trying to smash and grab the biggest chunk of infinity you possibly could.

The thing is if you create any other planar location you have to consider the question of 'why is this not in the possession of the local dominant faction?' regardless of whether that faction is angels, elementals, fiends, or modrons. The answer is usually based in asymmetry of priorities - essential that whomever happens to be in charge of the place is cares more about that place than the exemplars do and is sufficiently powerful that it's not worth the effort of eliminating them. So, for instance, a Pyroclastic dragon might care a lot more about one specific lava flow on Gehenna (because it's her lava flow, by Tiamat!) than the local Yugoloth armies do (because it's a pile of lava of no strategic importance) and therefore the status quo is maintained. Sigil, being of infinite strategic value, had to be guarded by something of infinite power who cared with infinite sincerity.

Sigil is useful if you want Planescape to have room for low level characters to also matter while high level characters are running about, which has its definite upsides. But if we're already talking about high level characters, they have the abilities to go out there and play without the safety net that the Lady of Pain represents. I suppose it's something like the difference between Planescape and Nobilis or Exalted - a beggar can bump elbows with archmages and everything is vaguely copacetic. But I'd say that's a plus, not a necessary element. In fact without Sigil you could have much the same just by having a city close enough to the base of the Spire, which doesn't have to be personified DM fiat but is rather just a universal 'nope' field - even chemistry stops working when you get close enough (iirc poison stops being a thing around the 3rd ring out?).

If you didn't have Sigil, you'd be primarily influencing things by changing the base nature of that which represents cosmic ideals or concepts. For example, what the Harmonium pulled in accidentally abducting a layer of Arcadia into Mechanus - it wasn't a violent take-over or forcing out the occupying interest, but rather it was an alliance that had a more extreme result than either side anticipated. I think the way to see where the vulnerabilities are is basically:

Assume that yes, all locations are in possession of the local dominant faction. However, for a location to provide value, it has to function in some way. Locations aren't set pieces, they're working bits of the engine of the cosmos. If the occupying faction wants to preserve the power that a location offers, they also have to preserve enough of its function that they can exploit that for some kind of control. E.g. if you occupy Sigil and shut down all the portals, you've missed the point. When it comes to factions who want to push very abstract ideas, this means that they actually have to work in a very hands-off way. If you want to e.g. empower the idea of temptation, you have to create a situation where people feel they're free to choose either way but comply of their own will and in doing so lose that will. Making a city where everyone is forced to take addictive substances won't be as effective as running a marketplace where all addictive substances are available, including ones with no consequences or side-effects (they just cost that little bit more that will make you slide into inescapable poverty and turn to the rougher stuff).

So because of that, it makes sense that everything isn't just solid walls made of angels or solid walls made of demons. But in terms of the overall power structure, they're somewhat stable against even very powerful characters who try to use brute force to just overwhelm the setting because there's going to be a nigh infinite number of replacements for the head of the sleaze-market you just killed - and ultimately, that character is going to have to do some lateral thinking if they want to do more than just cut out a slice of infinity. The powerful character can hold their own slice because, as you said, it's likely to have a different level of priority; but a campaign to take over the Abyss one slice at a time is going to take literally forever. So that challenges such characters to try to figure out how to e.g. influence the nature of evil itself - something their abilities let them conceive of and touch, but not just directly make so.

Florian

2017-09-24, 03:58 AM

Then please, tell me how much of your army you should bring into your dungeon crawl. "all of them" is clearly impossible, but you chided me for suggesting "only a few". What is the number of soldier you'd suggest?

Tsk, tsk... You´re the 3PP PF fan, you should know ;)

Look up "Ultimate Commander" by Legendary Games. It´s a "martial pet class" using the "troop" subtype as kinda-sorta companion with an integration option to work with the regular Ultimate Campaign mass battle rules. It´s fun romping around the dungeon with your crack squad of men.

Kallimakus

2017-09-24, 05:40 AM

Coming back to the discussion again. There's too much to quote in any sensible manner, but to reiterate points mostly @Cosi, as well as any others who are of the opinion that everyone should just be Tier 1.

Characters should be defined by meaningful limits. Which T1 has fairly little of. Sure, A wizard can't heal as well as a cleric, nor a cleric blast as well as a wizard, but a wizard can heal and cleric can deal damage.

About Spheres of Power: As has been mentioned by others, most things that a regular caster in PF can do can be achieved by a Spheres caster. The only difference is versatility. Take Teleport.

A Wizard can select it at level 9 as one of his two level 5 spells at no cost, or write it down in his spellbook at a later date for a trivial sum of money. It costs one high-level spell slot, leaving the wizard with about two, as well as all lower level slots. If he doesn't need Teleport, he can just choose to not prepare it that day, or leave the slot empty and take the few minutes it takes to prepare it later if he needs to.
A Spheres Wizard gains Teleport at loevel 10. He has invested a third of his total magical ability (=Talents) to the ability to fully replicate Teleport. It costs him about a fifth of his casting power to do. At the same time, he can teleport himself or an ally to Close Range at will, or spend less power to increase range or teleport as a group.

Take Fabricate. A core Wizard is largely the same. Pick a spell, no cost. Any wizard can do it. Fabricate is a generic ability.
In Spheres, You gain the ability at level 10. You've invested a quarter of your total magical ability for the ability. At the same time, you have access to the lesser powers, to briefly change the shape of objects, to repair or destroy them, or create material from nothing (temporarily).

Take Fireball. A Wizard gains it at level 5. It scales from 5-10 and is done.
A Sphere Wizard could pick it up at level 1. It scales with level both in damage and size. You gain the inherent ability to add elements (or start with a different one), or change the shape, or both, or neither.

What I like about Spheres is that it makes casters unique, rather than generic. What one core wizard can do, basically any core wizard can do. This is the second crux of my problem with the class, the first being that they just get 'all powers' as their power. Sure, a wizard needs to take a detour through Summon or Planar Binding or (Limited) Wish or something, but they can heal and raise the dead just fine. And as has been pointed out by others, they tend to be at least as good as 'specialists' at any given area without actually devoting anything in their build to it. And the reason that I think that Tier 1 should be toned down is that there's not much in the way of building up from there.

Getting on the topic of 'what does a fighter martial bring that is as good as Teleport', while remaining martial. Taking initial inspiration of the 3rd party Knight class, they could have the status to ask for food, shelter, limited gear and aid (growing with their influence) to aid with their quest. At first level, merely getting food and a place to sleep in among civilization, later obtaining things like wilderness guide, commissioned crafting etc. Basically, putting resources in the hands of this 'Knight'. Taking different inspiration, making your character Batman by giving them the ability to retroactively obtain handy items (again, scaling), starting from mundane items, then to potions and minor items, all the way up. They were just that foresighted and prepared. If one wanted to go more spectacular, just giving them ability to 'Teleport' by moving really fast and travel between planes by cutting a hole in dimensions or being such an amazing guy that he can just convince anyone of anything. Bit those latter abilities seem rather disruptive, or alternatively useless if they have easy counters. And these aren't really 'martial' abilities anymore.

And the reason that I don't think that 'have an army' or 'have influence' don't make for good class features is that they take it away from everyone else. What if you wanted to be a Paladin with an army instead of a General? They would be good Feats though (well, Leadership is a Feat). Essentially, my 'fix' for PF is to limit caster Versatility while leaving what they can do intact (can do anything, not everything), while simultaneously giving something to others. Condensing and empowering Feats, adding more class features for out of combat stuff, that sort of thing.

Pex

2017-09-24, 09:45 AM

Lord Raziere

2017-09-24, 10:26 AM

We play our games with Fighters along side Wizards and have no problems with alleged power discrepancy. Warriors appreciate the spellcasters facilitating combats and out of combat obstacles as they can. When that one spell does win the combat, the warriors cheer. The spellcasters appreciate the warriors getting in the face of the bad guys. Occupy them, take them down. Do the dirty work so they don't have to cast their spells because the warriors are taking care of the problem, leaving more room to cast utility spells out of combat or conserve their spells for they really need to cast them against the BBEG. For out of combat, it's mostly about players discussing what to do and while class features are relevant they aren't the only thing that matters. There is roleplaying, make the decisions and follow up. Players are not resenting what the others bring to the table.

I guess thats good to know that what the Tier Wunners says isn't true, but its not to my taste. Because when I want to play a caster I don't want to conserve my spells or solve things in one spell, I want to use my magic as much as I can to be awesome as much as I can. I'm okay with this, but its not my style.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 11:05 AM

Difference is, Goku can only do the things he's specifically able to do. A generalist caster can do all the things they aren't specifically unable to do.

Those statements aren't different. There is, perhaps, an attitudinal difference, but given that the Wizard has a list of spells, it seems to me he falls pretty reasonably under the first category.

A campaign is, by necessity, tailored to its party. The group never needs teleport, as previously discussed there aren't any objective requirements for high-level play besides maybe "can defeat CR-appropriate encounters." A party with a teleporter will certainly reap the benefits, but it's not like the game will break if nobody in the party can do that, same way the party won't necessarily break if nobody in the party is good at social encounters.

The expectation that you will have teleport at 10th level is no different than the expectation that you will be able to beat a trio of hill giants at 10th level. You can ask that the game not make that assumption, but I think that it should because making it is key to avoiding something like the Fighter. If you just say "you can do whatever", you will end up with characters who can do nothing, and that is bad.

Sorry, I don't remember non-combat abilities being a requirement.

Characters have to be balanced in each mini-game, or the game falls apart if you skew minigame ratios. Also, it makes the game less fun when there's a Wizard Minigame where the Fighter has to sit down and shut up and a Fighter Minigame where the Wizard has to sit down and shut up. Consider your example, where every level the Fighter gets +5 to combat while the Wizard gets +1. At 5th level, the Fighter has +25 to combat and the Wizard has +5. The Wizard's bonus is less than the Fighter's by the entire RNG, so there is literally no possible combat encounter where the Wizard matters. At 5th level. That's garbage, and if that's what we're supposed to accept so you can have the character you want, giving you what you want will ruin D&D.

Now, if we are using "fighter" to mean martial, I would probably rather have Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Knack, Timeless Body, Divine Grace, the Diplomacy skill, the Perception skill, the Heal skill (in an edition where it actually does something), the Stealth skill, the Gather Information skill, the Survival skill, and the spell craft skill than teleport. In a more robust crafting system I would probably rather have crafting skills than teleportation. Maybe tracking or disable device, it depends.

I don't see it. Fundamentally, all those powers do is help you progress on some adventure. teleport unlocks entirely new adventures. What adventure are you going on because you are really good at Diplomacy? Also, that list of powers is huge, and it forces way more into the character concept of a Fighter than just "has fabricate would".

What I don't like is that in D&D the class balance is so far apart that the generalists often perform better in their areas of specialty than the specialists. That's the problem. If I make a healer and the cleric outheals me, if I make a monk and the druid out unarms me, if I make a warmage and the sorcerer out blasts me, or I make a dread necromancer and the wizard out minions me, then we have a problem.

So make those classes better. Don't make the Wizard worse.

I guess I don't know what linear means then, I can't find any definition of linear that suits Bob's advancement paradigm.

It's a line. It's a line in more than one dimension, but it's still a line.

Actually, I think this would resolve a lot of the sort of stuck mentality about 'mundanes'. I think a level-based game where it explicitly says e.g. at Lv5, Lv11, and Lv17 new rules come into play and everyone starts to get abilities based on those new rules would be a pretty reasonable design.

Broadly agree. The game should have tiers. I have no problem with there being a point where you have to support someone like Conan. My problem is being told I always have to support Conan's concept, because that means I can't ever do something like Wheel of Time where Conan is not an appropriate character.

Then please, tell me how much of your army you should bring into your dungeon crawl. "all of them" is clearly impossible, but you chided me for suggesting "only a few". What is the number of soldier you'd suggest?

That's not the point. The point is that "it would be really annoying to take your army everywhere because it would make combat take way longer" is not a reason that having an army wouldn't make your character more effective.

It breaks every official setting other than Planescape, and the only reason it doesn't there is because of The Lady of Pain, a.k.a. the incarnation of DM Fiat. Gods can't enter Sigil. Anytime you try to do any of the dozens of RAW legal stuff that breaks the game (chain-gating solars, WBL breaking shinanigans, etc.), she will show up and no-save maze you. Except her maze didn't end until she said it ends and there is no escape from it via plane shift or anything else. It was a pinpoint "rocks fall" and gave the DM carte blanche and lore justification to "time out" and/or boot problem characters.

Okay, it breaks like six different settings, most of which are some variation on "generic Fantasy". Clearly, it can never be made to work.

Also, it doesn't break Spelljammer or Dark Sun, because those are both formulated as answers to "what happens if there are a bunch of high level Wizards in your setting".

Also, I'm not defending Chain Binding, so saying that it breaks settings is a bad argument.

Also, it only breaks those settings if you make some suspicious assumptions about people's incentives.

Because the game promised me Batman was viable. And because Superman is a boring character.

The game promised me Superman was viable. And Batman is a boring character.

Only if it's swappable. Hulk doesn't trade out his strength for speed or magetism or anything else. If it's always the same ability, then it's not a spell.

I'm not saying your definition is illegitimate, just that it's going to make a bunch of characters spellcasters that we wouldn't normally describe that way. Anyone who can swap their abilities day to day is now a caster, and since that's a mechanical constraint rather than a flavorful one, you're going to end up defining things like a Beastmaster who can attune different animal aspects as "spellcasters". You're free to do that, but it seems like it conflicts with people's intuition about what it means to be a spellcaster, just as your conflation of NPC and mundane conflicts with the expectation that mundane means "non-magic".

Characters should be defined by meaningful limits. Which T1 has fairly little of. Sure, A wizard can't heal as well as a cleric, nor a cleric blast as well as a wizard, but a wizard can heal and cleric can deal damage.

Limits are relative, not absolute. A Warblade can heal. Not well, but he can. A Wizard is a 10 in his specialties and a 6 in other things. A Warblade is a 5 in his specialty and a 1 in other things. Both play similarly with characters they are balanced against. Yes, the Wizard is better than the Warblade, but that doesn't mean the Wizard isn't a specialist. The Warblade is better than the Fighter or the Warrior.

What I like about Spheres is that it makes casters unique, rather than generic. What one core wizard can do, basically any core wizard can do. This is the second crux of my problem with the class, the first being that they just get 'all powers' as their power. Sure, a wizard needs to take a detour through Summon or Planar Binding or (Limited) Wish or something, but they can heal and raise the dead just fine.

Phrasing the existence of a specific spell you have a problem with as a problem with the Wizard is dishonest at best. If you think planar binding is the reason the Wizard is bad, you don't think the Wizard is bad. You think planar binding is bad.

And the reason that I don't think that 'have an army' or 'have influence' don't make for good class features is that they take it away from everyone else. What if you wanted to be a Paladin with an army instead of a General?

If you don't want specific options to be locked to specific concepts, why are you in favor of making casters specialists?

I guess thats good to know that what the Tier Wunners says isn't true, but its not to my taste. Because when I want to play a caster I don't want to conserve my spells or solve things in one spell, I want to use my magic as much as I can to be awesome as much as I can. I'm okay with this, but its not my style.

I thought you said you were done with this thread when someone had the temerity to suggest that D&D might be used for something other than dungeon crawling.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-24, 12:09 PM

I thought you said you were done with this thread when someone had the temerity to suggest that D&D might be used for something other than dungeon crawling.

Its not hypocritical to change your mind and to realize you didn't have enough sleep when someone said that.

If your going to argue this, forget it. You don't have a point. your just a jerk who who for like this entire thread has done nothing but argue the same points over and over endlessly in reaction to people saying that 3.5 has a problem at all. Its same talking points that I've seen with every person who argues your side. The same inabilities and inflexibilities of thought. Its still useless to argue with you, because I know what your going to say before you say it.

Let me talk about how this breaks down:
Me: The Classes are imbalanced and this is a problem
Optimizer: No its not a problem
Me: But I want everyone to have an equal chance to be awesome
Optimizer: then play all spellcasters
Me: No I meant all the fighter and rogue lovers, they matter to.
Optimizer: Why do you want to hurt the group?
Me: I don't, I just want them to be equal
Optimizer: you want to make them spellcasters?
Me: No, I didn't say that.
Optimizer: yes you did.
Me: No I didn't, I said I wanted them to be equal in power
Optimizer: so spellcasters
Me: spellcasters don't cover what I want
Optimizer: yes I do, look at these spells that do this stuff
Me: I don't want to use spells to accomplish that
Optimizer: You can't, you can only use spells to accomplish that
Me: Why?
Optimizer: Because only spells can accomplish that!
Me: says who, its just mechanical effects, just apply them to fighters without the spells
Optimizer: Guy At the Gym Fallacy
Me: No I want to be more awesome than that.
Optimizer: But anime stuff is casters. caster are awesome.
Me: No its not!
Optimizer: Yes it is
Me: Can't you conceive of magic being anything other than a spellcaster?
Optimizer: No all magic is wizards just with a different coat of paint. casters are awesome.
Me: Isn't that kind of boring and reductionist?
Optimizer: no, wizards are awesome and anything powerful to do that stuff is a wizard and nothing else
Me: But can't you allow fighters to be more powerful?
Optimizer: No, they're a T3 class, why do want to make them into a spellcaster?
Me: I'm not suggesting to make them a caster, I'm suggesting to make them more powerful to be on par with them
Optimizer: So a caster. Casters are awesome.
Me: Ugh! Can't you accept some limitations on casters then?
Optimizer: No, why do you want to ruin my fun?
Me: I'm not trying to ruin your fun, I'm just trying to balance the system
Optimizer: So ruining my fun, because balance is bad.
Me: no balance is good!
Optimizer: no its bad and you should never try to get it, you'll turn everything the same.
Me: Then whats your suggestion for empowering fighters and rogues?
Optimizer: make them casters, give them magic items. caster are awesome.
Me: .....so making them the same.
Optimizer: No they aren't, they can have different spell selections
Me: but I don't want to use spells to emulate what I want,
Optimizer: Just refluff.
Me: the refluffing is really janky considering how the spells mechanically work and isn't enough.
Optimizer: Not my problem.
Me: But the system is mechanically borked and glitchy! how am I supposed to play something so imbalanced and vulnerable to hacks?
Optimizer: feature not bug
Me: Look, can't just try to actually work with me here to solve this so I can enjoy it the way I want?
Optimizer: No, this system is not for you, get off my lawn.

This entire thread feels like this example conversation above, like every conversation I've ever had with an optimizer, and it never helps. Because it feels like I'm being stonewalled and shut out rather than actually being talked to, just fed stock 3.5 optimizer answers about the issue rather than honestly talking to me about it. and this isn't even the worst, some even think this was all intended design and deny that any of this was not planned by WotC, deny that any of this was falsely advertised in the corebook as being balanced, deny that Tiers and optimizing are not supposed to be the natural state of the game. Its frustrating to hear again and again, and it really makes me think that I can't get through any of this to anyone and that you just don't want me to talk about this, given your behavior and how you respond. You just don't seem to want to hear what I have to say, and there seems to be nothing I can say to change your mind about any of this. So why should I keep talking to you about this?

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 12:16 PM

Those statements aren't different. There is, perhaps, an attitudinal difference, but given that the Wizard has a list of spells, it seems to me he falls pretty reasonably under the first category.

There's a huge difference. The latter is functionally omnipotent except where specifically stated otherwise. The former is functionally a normal person except where specifically stated otherwise. These are literally exact opposites of each other.

The expectation that you will have teleport at 10th level is no different than the expectation that you will be able to beat a trio of hill giants at 10th level. You can ask that the game not make that assumption, but I think that it should because making it is key to avoiding something like the Fighter. If you just say "you can do whatever", you will end up with characters who can do nothing, and that is bad.

The difference is that if you're at 10th level and can't beat a CR 10 encounter, you'll lose. If you're at 10th level and can't teleport... nothing happens, because absolutely nothing about the rules imply teleportation is a required power at this level. There are no listed CR 10 encounters that hinge on the party having access to teleport. Thus, it's not a valid standard.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 12:22 PM

If your going to argue this, forget it. You don't have a point. your just a jerk who who for like this entire thread has done nothing but argue the same points over and over endlessly in reaction to people saying that 3.5 has a problem at all. Its same talking points that I've seen with every person who argues your side. The same inabilities and inflexibilities of thought. Its still useless to argue with you, because I know what your going to say before you say it.

I'm not denying that there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is "the Wizard is too good" rather than "the Fighter is not good enough" (with, of course, the caveat that those both refer to clusters of classes rather than any particular class).

There's a huge difference. The latter is functionally omnipotent except where specifically stated otherwise. The former is functionally a normal person except where specifically stated otherwise. These are literally exact opposites of each other.

Yes, there's a difference in attitude. But both characters can equally be described in the other form. A character who can cast only burning hands can be equally said to be able to only cast burning hands, or to be able to cast anything he wants except things that aren't burning hands.

The difference is that if you're at 10th level and can't beat a CR 10 encounter, you'll lose. If you're at 10th level and can't teleport... nothing happens, because absolutely nothing about the rules imply teleportation is a required power at this level. There are no listed CR 10 encounters that hinge on the party having access to teleport. Thus, it's not a valid standard.

But there should be. Because if you just distribute non-combat abilities willy-nilly, you get things like the Monk. Standards are essential for balance. All not having standards does is legitimize parasite characters like the 3e Fighter who contribute less to the group than the characters they are nominally balanced with.

digiman619

2017-09-24, 12:23 PM

Tsk, tsk... You´re the 3PP PF fan, you should know ;)

Look up "Ultimate Commander" by Legendary Games. It´s a "martial pet class" using the "troop" subtype as kinda-sorta companion with an integration option to work with the regular Ultimate Campaign mass battle rules. It´s fun romping around the dungeon with your crack squad of men.
Well, it's not on the PFSRD and I don't have the money to buy every 3PP thing. So they sometimes slip through the cracks

The expectation that you will have teleport at 10th level is no different than the expectation that you will be able to beat a trio of hill giants at 10th level. You can ask that the game not make that assumption, but I think that it should because making it is key to avoiding something like the Fighter. If you just say "you can do whatever", you will end up with characters who can do nothing, and that is bad.
Really? There's a mechanical reason you should have teleport at 10th level? There's a non-fluff reason that if your arcane caster is a sorcerer that didn't learn teleport you will be falling behind? Because outside of "nope" button, I can't think of a single reason why the game mechanics would require that ability. Sure, there are story reasons you might need teleport, but there are also story reason not to have teleport, at least not as a "standard action, every 9th level wizard can do it" ability.

I don't see it. Fundamentally, all those powers do is help you progress on some adventure. teleport unlocks entirely new adventures. What adventure are you going on because you are really good at Diplomacy? Also, that list of powers is huge, and it forces way more into the character concept of a Fighter than just "has fabricate would".
No, teleport explicitly takes adventures away! You can't have adventures in a ruin along the way, you can't help people during your travels, you can't have tense "will we get to the temple before Baron Evil's forces?" or anything time-sensitive. Teleport is the chapter skip button on your DVD player. it takes anything that happens between part 3 and part 5 and skips past it.

Broadly agree. The game should have tiers. I have no problem with there being a point where you have to support someone like Conan. My problem is being told I always have to support Conan's concept, because that means I can't ever do something like Wheel of Time where Conan is not an appropriate character.
Sure, but D&D is not the game to do that concept with. D&D promises us that every (PC) class is on par with each other, and each of them goes from weak to incredible powerful. The best way to that would be a point-based system where you get X points per level to buy powers with. But that's not what we've got.

That's not the point. The point is that "it would be really annoying to take your army everywhere because it would make combat take way longer" is not a reason that having an army wouldn't make your character more effective.
Sure, the character would be more effective, but that doesn't matter because it makes playing the character incredibly ineffective. Keeping track of enough soldiers to make a difference can easlily triple the lenght of your turn, even if they have less options than a normal character. It keeps the player playing the general in the busy and bores everyone else.

Okay, it breaks like six different settings, most of which are some variation on "generic Fantasy". Clearly, it can never be made to work.
It only breaks the games most iconic settings. Heck, the story of Raistlin is him breaking Dragonlance setting!

Also, it doesn't break Spelljammer or Dark Sun, because those are both formulated as answers to "what happens if there are a bunch of high level Wizards in your setting".
I admit to not knowing a lot about Spelljammer, but Dark Sun is a scorched (metaphorical) hellhole because T1 casters broke the setting!

The game promised me Superman was viable. And Batman is a boring character.
No, you were promised Zatanna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatanna). The fact is you got Superman by accident and then told everyone else to "git gud"

I'm not saying your definition is illegitimate, just that it's going to make a bunch of characters spellcasters that we wouldn't normally describe that way. Anyone who can swap their abilities day to day is now a caster, and since that's a mechanical constraint rather than a flavorful one, you're going to end up defining things like a Beastmaster who can attune different animal aspects as "spellcasters". You're free to do that, but it seems like it conflicts with people's intuition about what it means to be a spellcaster, just as your conflation of NPC and mundane conflicts with the expectation that mundane means "non-magic".
I more or less agree, but you've gotta stop giving examples, as you just can't give one that doesn't shoot you in the foot. The Beastmaster explicitly controls multiple species of animals at the same time. The has a tiger, an eagle and two weasels; they're not even in the same class (taxonomically speaking).

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 12:28 PM

I'm not denying that there is a problem. I'm denying that the problem is "the Wizard is too good" rather than "the Fighter is not good enough" (with, of course, the caveat that those both refer to clusters of classes rather than any particular class).

It's not an either-or. Both are true.

Yes, there's a difference in attitude. But both characters can equally be described in the other form. A character who can cast only burning hands can be equally said to be able to only cast burning hands, or to be able to cast anything he wants except things that aren't burning hands.

This is DU-level bend-words-over-backwards-to-make-your-point-make-sense nonsense.

But there should be. Because if you just distribute non-combat abilities willy-nilly, you get things like the Monk. Standards are essential for balance. All not having standards does is legitimize parasite characters like the 3e Fighter who contribute less to the group than the characters they are nominally balanced with.

Premise-wise, you're correct. Specifically, there is literally no reason for teleport to be a required 10th level ability besides the fact that it's currently an unrequired one and and you want to keep it.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 12:46 PM

Really? There's a mechanical reason you should have teleport at 10th level?

No, but there should be. There should be a way to see if a class measures up out of combat, just as there should in combat.

No, teleport explicitly takes adventures away! You can't have adventures in a ruin along the way, you can't help people during your travels, you can't have tense "will we get to the temple before Baron Evil's forces?" or anything time-sensitive. Teleport is the chapter skip button on your DVD player. it takes anything that happens between part 3 and part 5 and skips past it.

teleport absolutely creates adventures. If you can't think of a plot that requires teleport, you're not thinking hard enough (trivially: the distance to the evil base is too long to make it without teleport). Also, it doesn't remove content, it skips it, and you only skip content you aren't interested in. If I skip over the first twenty minutes of a movie, is that really the fault of the DVD company for adding a "skip" feature rather than the director for writing a boring movie?

I admit to not knowing a lot about Spelljammer, but Dark Sun is a scorched (metaphorical) hellhole because T1 casters broke the setting!

I don't see how if the goal is to create a desert wasteland, having casters create a desert wasteland is "breaking the setting". That's just "making the setting what it is supposed to be". What would break Dark Sun is casters not being able to cause the apocalypse.

No, you were promised Zatanna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatanna). The fact is you got Superman by accident and then told everyone else to "git gud"

Again, no. I was promised a character approximately as powerful as yours. The fact that you got something worse than I did does not imply that I am right and you are wrong. If we both enjoy what we got, shouldn't our goal be to ensure we can keep doing that, without continuing to claim that unequal characters are equal.

I more or less agree, but you've gotta stop giving examples, as you just can't give one that doesn't shoot you in the foot. The Beastmaster explicitly controls multiple species of animals at the same time. The has a tiger, an eagle and two weasels; they're not even in the same class (taxonomically speaking).

I don't mean "the Beastmaster character", I mean a class called "Beastmaster". Which would, hypothetically, be allowed to pick.

This is DU-level bend-words-over-backwards-to-make-your-point-make-sense nonsense.

It's just you failing at set theory. You're describing one guy as "does everything in A" and another guy as "doesn't do anything in A'" and acting like that means anything.

Premise-wise, you're correct. Specifically, there is literally no reason for teleport to be a required 10th level ability besides the fact that it's currently an unrequired one and and you want to keep it.

If there are no standards, why can't I have all the abilities I want? Why are the only limits at the top? Why is your character allowed to be as incompetent as you want, but my character not allowed to be as competent as I want?

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 12:52 PM

It's just you failing at set theory. You're describing one guy as "does everything in A" and another guy as "doesn't do anything in A'" and acting like that means anything.

So by your logic, "Bob was the only survivor in the car crash" and "Bob was the only fatality in the car crash" are functionally the same thing?

Cosi

2017-09-24, 12:55 PM

So by your logic, "Bob was the only survivor in the car crash" and "Bob was the only fatality in the car crash" are functionally the same thing?

I'm saying that "everyone died in the car crash, except the survivors" and "everyone survived the car crash, except the fatalities" are functionally the same thing.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 01:04 PM

I'm saying that "everyone died in the car crash, except the survivors" and "everyone survived the car crash, except the fatalities" are functionally the same thing.

That's moving the goalposts, though, or it means you don't understand how implication works. When I say "Bob was the only survivor," the emphasis was on Bob because he was the distinguishing factor, the outlier in the set. The implication thus being that most of the people involved in the crash died. When you use language like what humans do and not like an incredibly pedantic robot, emphasis is put on what stands out.

Similarly, when I say "character is omnipotent, except where noted" the implication is that the things they can do vastly outnumbers the things they can't do, since what they can't do is the thing that needs specifying. When I say "character is basically normal, except where noted," it means that the things they can do is a much shorter list than the things they can't do. This shouldn't need explaining.

digiman619

2017-09-24, 02:08 PM

No, but there should be. There should be a way to see if a class measures up out of combat, just as there should in combat.
Or maybe, and hear me out on this, it's an arbitrary effect that is not needed in a majority of games. Other than "It's a core 5th level spell", there's no reason that every wizard of 9th level or higher should be able to learn that ability.

teleport absolutely creates adventures. If you can't think of a plot that requires teleport, you're not thinking hard enough (trivially: the distance to the evil base is too long to make it without teleport). Also, it doesn't remove content, it skips it, and you only skip content you aren't interested in. If I skip over the first twenty minutes of a movie, is that really the fault of the DVD company for adding a "skip" feature rather than the director for writing a boring movie?
Except skipping a chapter doesn't change the movie; just because you skipped past the scene where Bambi's mom gets shot doesn't mean that she's still alive during the rest of the film. Skipping the intervening distance from A to B in an RPG, on the other hand, can totally change the story in a For Want of a Nail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForWantOfANail) sort of way. And "You can't get to the evil base on time through conventional means" doesn't mean that you have to use a spell. Nor do scenarios like that explain why that effect has to be a "costs a standard action and a 5th level spell slot" as opposed to an incantation, a ritual or anything else. And don't tell me "Because that's what it is"; this entire argument is that you can't justify teleport as an ability that a 10th level party needs to have other than "it's a 5th level spell".

I don't see how if the goal is to create a desert wasteland, having casters create a desert wasteland is "breaking the setting". That's just "making the setting what it is supposed to be". What would break Dark Sun is casters not being able to cause the apocalypse.
From a Doylist perspective, I suppose. But in-universe, the world used to be a standard high fantasy setting (like the game sells us on) until magic screwed everything up and everyone barely struggles to survive in the resulting wasteland.

Again, no. I was promised a character approximately as powerful as yours. The fact that you got something worse than I did does not imply that I am right and you are wrong. If we both enjoy what we got, shouldn't our goal be to ensure we can keep doing that, without continuing to claim that unequal characters are equal.
Let's ignore D&D. Are you willing to admit that it's possible for a designer to inadvertently create a huge disparity on choices that are intended to be equal? Can you imagine a scenario where things are more-or-less in check except for one or two that are way more effective than the rest? Why should such a designer rewrite the other 85% of the game rather than nerf or eliminate the troublesome 15%?

Also, going back to D&D for a second, there's the fact that that much power is more than what was promised. If we're having a game where we fight with Civil War weapons, you showing up with an AK-47 is too much power. Don't tell us that we should also get more modern weapons because then it stops being a Civil War game.

I don't mean "the Beastmaster character", I mean a class called "Beastmaster". Which would, hypothetically, be allowed to pick.
Which doesn't exist, and your statement gave no indication that you were referring to a class based on that character rather than the character itself. I wonder how I could have possibly gotten confused. That fact that the archetype of said character is already handled by a core class isn't doing you any favors, either.
Apparently, there was a Beastmaster class. Though I feel I should argue because a) it was a prestige class and b) they weren't allowed to switch, but either way, I was wrong and retract the point.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 02:15 PM

Which doesn't exist, and your statement gave no indication that you were refering to a class based on that character rather than the character istelf. I wonder how I could have possibly gotten confused. That fact that the archetype of said character is already handled by a core class isn't doing you any favors, either.

There is, in fact, a Beastmaster PrC in Complete Adventurer. And no, it isn't allowed to swap. It mostly just grants the character multiple animal companions.

digiman619

2017-09-24, 02:27 PM

There is, in fact, a Beastmaster PrC in Complete Adventurer. And no, it isn't allowed to swap. It mostly just grants the character multiple animal companions.
Huh. Okay. Point retracted. Let me edit my post to remove that statement.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 02:43 PM

Or maybe, and hear me out on this, it's an arbirtary effect that is not needed in a mjaority of games. Other than "It's a core 5th level spell", there's no reason that every wizard of 9th level or higher should be able to learn that ability.

What do you think is a better place to make the distinction between "low level" non-combat challenges and "high level" non-combat challenges. In combat, while the fundamental goal of "kill the other guy before he kills you" doesn't change, the kinds of enemies you have to kill and the challenges you have to overcome do. For example, enemies like Werewolves and Trolls provide a "gear check" that is not present at lower CRs, and Dragons require a response to the possibility of highly efficient kiting. Shouldn't that happen outside combat as well?

Skipping the interveneing distance from A to B in an RPG, on the other hand, can totally change the story in a For Want of a Nail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForWantOfANail) sort of way.

Sure, and that's a good thing. It means that the players had a meaningful choice. As a result of casting teleport (the spell), they were confronted with a different tactical and strategic landscape then they would have been had they opted to take the trip on foot (or by some other mechanism like "griffin" or "airship"). Why isn't that a positive thing for the game to support?

And "You can't get to the evil base on time through convential means" doesn't mean that you have to use a spell. Nor do scnarios like that explain why that effect has to be a "costs a standard action and a 5th level spell slot" as opposed to an incatation, a rtiual or anything else. And don't tell be "Because that's what it is"; this entire arguement it that you can't justify teleport as an ability that a 10th level party needs to have other than "it's a 5th level spell".

I think if you agree that "SLA teleport" or "at-will teleport" or "teleport with 10 minute casting time" is something that it is acceptable to require, we agree. I am necessarily constrained by the imprecision of language, so I use teleport as a substitute for "the ability for players to move long distances rapidly without having to get DM approval, and without significant risk or investment of out of game time". Saying "well couldn't it show a swirly portal special effect at both ends" doesn't seem like a compelling objection.

That said, I will make an effort to provide annotations to things like "teleport" in future so that you don't misunderstand things this way again.

From a Doylist perspective, I suppose. But in-universe, the world used to be a standard high fantasy setting (like the game sells us on) until magic screwed everything up and everyone barely struggles to survive in the resulting wasteland.

The game sells you on being a fantasy game. It doesn't have a default setting to be standard fantasy.

Let's ignore D&D. Are you willing to admit that it's possible for a designer to inadvertantly create a huge disparity on choices that are intended to be equal? Can you imagine a scenario where thigns are more-or-less in check excpet for one or two that are way more effecive than the rest? Why should such a designer rewite the other 85% of the game rather than nerf or eliminate the troublesome 15%?

Because:

1. The 85% is largely bellow the balance point implied by challenges.
2. The 15% has unique capabilities that are narratively interesting.

Also, because if all you want to do is hack the content that exists, you don't need to convince anyone outside your group of your position. If you are arguing that the game (rather than your game) ought to be some particular way, then you must reach a much higher standard for removing something. If you remove teleport (the spell, and/or other similar printed abilities) from your game, that has no effect on anyone else. But if you remove teleport (the spell, and/or other similar printed abilities) from the game, that effects everyone else.

Also, going back to D&D for a second, there's the fact that that much power is more than what was promised. If we're having a game where we fight with Civil War weapons, you showing up with an AK-47 is too much power. Don't tell us that we should also get more modern weapons becasue then it stops being a Civil War game.

There was no promise. There was, at best, a promise of balance. At no point were you promised that people would not get teleport (a variety of non-combat abilities that cover a large but non-total selection of utility roles at a level of efficiency approximately equal to that of a full caster). You may have brought that assumption with you, but it was never promised you. Or if it was, I didn't see it.

Which doesn't exist, and your statement gave no indication that you were refering to a class based on that character rather than the character istelf. I wonder how I could have possibly gotten confused. That fact that the archetype of said character is already handled by a core class isn't doing you any favors, either.

There is, in fact, a Beastmaster PrC in Complete Adventurer. And no, it isn't allowed to swap. It mostly just grants the character multiple animal companions.

Is it really weird to think that when talking about possible resource management systems, I might not always talk about existing classes? I'm proving a point by giving an example of a possible character who I would expect most people to describe as not being a caster that still has selectable abilities. I'm not going to check all existing content and all existing fantasy to make sure there isn't a naming conflict. Points like this (and the ones about "what if teleport wasn't a standard action") feel like cheap attempts at diversion rather than legitimate points.

Talakeal

2017-09-24, 02:53 PM

Not that I'm a Tier System Disciple, but I'll speak the language.

D&D works enough those who only want to play Tier 1 may do so, and those who only want to play Tier 3 may do so. There's no need to complain the other exists. Both sides complain the game promised all Tiers can exist together. Tier 1 lovers hate the lower tiers for not pulling their weight. Tier 3 lovers hate the higher tiers for ruining coherence. Let go of the hate for your hate is not definitive. There exists those like me who do not worship the Tier System and many others who have never even heard of the Tier System. We play our games with Fighters along side Wizards and have no problems with alleged power discrepancy. Warriors appreciate the spellcasters facilitating combats and out of combat obstacles as they can. When that one spell does win the combat, the warriors cheer. The spellcasters appreciate the warriors getting in the face of the bad guys. Occupy them, take them down. Do the dirty work so they don't have to cast their spells because the warriors are taking care of the problem, leaving more room to cast utility spells out of combat or conserve their spells for they really need to cast them against the BBEG. For out of combat, it's mostly about players discussing what to do and while class features are relevant they aren't the only thing that matters. There is roleplaying, make the decisions and follow up. Players are not resenting what the others bring to the table.

Must be nice.

I literally have never been in a game of D&D where the fighters didn't feel useless outside of low level combat with their terrible list of class skills (not to mention having 2 skill points a level with Int as a dump stat) and their total lack of utility powers, and their utter lack of versatility in combat.

Likewise I have never been in a game of D&D where a high level caster couldn't solve every single problem with gate or shape-change.

Now, when I run a game I can easily fix these problems with a few house rules, but when I am a player I don't have that luxury.

Also, it is really nice that your games have a need to conserve spells. Most groups run on the 15 minute adventuring day, so that isn't a balancing factor. I imagine if it was you would get a lot less griping about wizards (until the point where you can just use planar binding or shape change to ignore innate spell casting limitations).

I run with the house rule that casters get 4x spell slots but recovering them takes a full month of downtime in a sanctum. It removes the 15 minute adventuring day and forces a need for the sort of thing you describe above, but boy do the caster players bitch about having to ration their spells; and if they "waste" a high level spell by having an enemy save or botching a concentration roll.

Characters have to be balanced in each mini-game, or the game falls apart if you skew minigame ratios. Also, it makes the game less fun when there's a Wizard Minigame where the Fighter has to sit down and shut up and a Fighter Minigame where the Wizard has to sit down and shut up. Consider your example, where every level the Fighter gets +5 to combat while the Wizard gets +1. At 5th level, the Fighter has +25 to combat and the Wizard has +5. The Wizard's bonus is less than the Fighter's by the entire RNG, so there is literally no possible combat encounter where the Wizard matters. At 5th level. That's garbage, and if that's what we're supposed to accept so you can have the character you want, giving you what you want will ruin D&D"..

How narrowly do you define "minigame?"

Now, I personally would say that every player should be able to contribute something in combat, dialogue, exploration, and the downtime between missions as those activities take up the majority of time in my campaign, however if a player really doesn't want to participate in one of those things (and isn't going to get bored and disrupt the game if they are a spectator) I would let them.

But for smaller stuff, you don't have to be onscreen all the time. If we want to spend a few minutes having the cleric heal up the wounded, or the rogue disarming traps, or the fighter clearing fallen tress while the rest of the party watches that isn't a problem.

My example was supposed to be quick and simple. I agree that having numbers which are higher than the dice are a problem in a real system, and were I actually developing a game along those lines I would put in degrees of success / failure and/or implement a floor / ceiling on advancement so the dice always matters, but it was just a mathematical example to show how you could have balanced character power in a system where different characters progressed along different paths.

I don't see it. Fundamentally, all those powers do is help you progress on some adventure. teleport unlocks entirely new adventures. What adventure are you going on because you are really good at Diplomacy? Also, that list of powers is huge, and it forces way more into the character concept of a Fighter than just "has fabricate would"..

And I don't get that. Why does teleport open up entirely new adventures? All it does is eliminate travel time. Do your campaigns frequently involve travelling to places that can only be reached by teleportation because of DM FIAT or something? And even if that was an issue, does it really come up so frequently that the party can't just by a scroll of teleport or have an NPC cast it for them?

It's a line. It's a line in more than one dimension, but it's still a line.

Ok, I actually don't understand the conversation we are having anymore.

I thought I was responding to your statement that a character who only advanced in one direction would eventually hit a power ceiling and that such a character was impossible to balance against one who could advance in any direction.

If you were simply saying that some D&D classes advance at different rates than others and that is bad for balance, then yes, of course you cannot balance a class whose total power progression is linear vs. one that is exponential or quadratic.

So make those classes better. Don't make the Wizard worse.

I am all for making other characters better, you are the one who has repeatedly said you don't want martial characters buffed to the level of caster's because it ruins your immersion and the feeling of being special and that casters should not have any limits.

Now, as far as balancing classes:

"Wizard" is fine, and so are 95% of the spells, but some spells and items need to be nerfed.

As written there are a number of broken spells that make entire aspects of the game non-existent. The wall of iron + gate combination makes the whole WBL and economy aspect a joke. Shapechange and Gate make any character creation choices meaningless as you can effortlessly find a monster with whatever ability your party lacks to do it for you. Planar binding + wish or thought bottles allow infinite XP to make magic items with and break the entire math system of the game. Nightsticks + Divine meta-magic make spell slots meaningless. Force cage negates all of the combat attributes of any enemy who can't travel astrally. And once you get into open ended spells like Polymorph any Object or Genesis you can pull of literally anything you can fast talk your GM into. Shivering Touch and Touch of Stupidity can one shot most any big beefy monster regardless of its CR, and a summoned Allip can do even better.

Now, you say you want to fix cheese, but I have a feeling your tolerance for cheese is pretty high.

I guess thats good to know that what the Tier Wunners says isn't true, but its not to my taste. Because when I want to play a caster I don't want to conserve my spells or solve things in one spell, I want to use my magic as much as I can to be awesome as much as I can. I'm okay with this, but its not my style.

Class balance is a lot easier to fix than most people let on, but I can tell you from experience that if you play close to RAW the tier system tends to hold up pretty well.

Also, have you tried the warlock class? All of its abilities are useable at will, it might be up your alley, and re-fluffed it could make a fairly decent high powered Ki user, which iirc is something you are into.

I personally just wish they would make a battlemaster / war blade type class that ran off of the warlock chassis.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 03:02 PM

I thought I was responding to your statement that a character who only advanced in one direction would eventually hit a power ceiling and that such a character was impossible to balance against one who could advance in any direction.

Yes, and that is true. The characters you suggested were not balanced. You disproved your own point. The "Fighter" cannot contribute to any problem that is not a "Fighter Problem", and he breaks "Fighter Problems" because you now either have to have a Fighter (stupid because sometimes no one wants to play one), or having a Fighter makes you automatically win against all "Fighter Problems".

I am all for making other characters better, you are the one who has repeatedly said you don't want martial characters buffed to the level of caster's because it ruins your immersion and the feeling of being special and that casters should not have any limits.

When? Where do people keep thinking I say this?

I have said that you can't put certain kinds of limitations on characters at high levels. If you think those limitations are what defines a martial, than sure, I don't think martials can be high level. But I don't define martial that way.

As written there are a number of broken spells that make entire aspects of the game non-existent. The wall of iron + gate combination makes the whole WBL and economy aspect a joke.

WBL is already broken without getting into spells, and it also stops you from having settings that are made of valuable stuff, like a city of gold or a factory full of raw or finished materials. Also, it means that you either have to fiat or carefully pre-calculate the value of things like thrones, crowns, and tapestries. It needs to be fixed.

Planar binding + wish or thought bottles allow infinite XP to make magic items with and break the entire math system of the game.

Thought Bottles, yes. Those are broken and dumb and I won't defend them. wish is broken, but the thing that's broken is very specific -- the interaction between the SLA rules, the ability to wish for items of uncapped value, and the fact that the XP is part of the spell's costs. Change any part of that and the interaction is no longer broken, and it's broken without touching planar binding. You can just find or even be an Efreet and do it that way.

Nightsticks + Divine meta-magic make spell slots meaningless.

Agree that this is a problem, disagree with your likely proposed solution to fix it. The reason e.g. Teleport Ambush is so powerful is that low-duration buffs are very good. Therefore, the fix should be to balance the game around the assumption that buffs are long-duration abilities, or are somehow reactive options that can only be used in combat.

Force cage negates all of the combat attributes of any enemy who can't travel astrally.

Which is most high level monsters. forcecage is only an "I win" button against PC martials, and it is that way because those classes are not level appropriate. If you got teleportation, or anti-magic, or just were very big, this would not be a problem, and all that is without touching custom options like "shatters force barriers".

Shivering Touch and Touch of Stupidity can one shot most any big beefy monster regardless of its CR, and a summoned Allip can do even better.

This is a problem with ability damage, not the specific spells. You can do the same thing, in an admittedly more limited way (though it should be noted that there are counters for these) with poison.

Now, you say you want to fix cheese, but I have a feeling your tolerance for cheese is pretty high.

I want to change most of that, though admittedly some of it through mechanisms other than changing the spells. That said, changing that leaves you with characters that are level appropriate in combat, and have e.g. teleport (an ability or abilities that allow effective action outside combat in ways unrelated to 1st level abilities) to boot, making the suggestion of "like the Warblade, but with skill checks" laughable as a balance point for martials.

jindra34

2017-09-24, 03:10 PM

Because:

1. The 85% is largely bellow the balance point implied by challenges.
2. The 15% has unique capabilities that are narratively interesting.

I'm going to have to dispute these numbers. Because in CORE most people agree that at least half the classes are capable of meeting the designer implied challenges. And except for FIGHTER, BARBARIAN, and ROGUE, everyone has unique capabilities that are narratively interesting. So that makes both numbers at least 50%, and one is NOT a subset of the other. And as the game when on the designers dialled in better the expectations and gave almost every class flavorful abilities. Not the same quantity, or to the same absolute degree, but they still did it.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 03:12 PM

I'm going to have to dispute these numbers. Because in CORE most people agree that at least half the classes are capable of meeting the designer implied challenges. And except for FIGHTER, BARBARIAN, and ROGUE, everyone has unique capabilities that are narratively interesting. So that makes both numbers at least 50%, and one is NOT a subset of the other. And as the game when on the designers dialled in better the expectations and gave almost every class flavorful abilities. Not the same quantity, or to the same absolute degree, but they still did it.

1. Those aren't my numbers.
2. In core, the people who measure up are "full casters, and maybe also Rogue", so that says more about the prevalence of full casters than the strength of non-casters.
3. Casters having unique abilities doesn't imply that other people don't.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 03:25 PM

2. In core, the people who measure up are "full casters, and maybe also Rogue", so that says more about the prevalence of full casters than the strength of non-casters.

Well gee, if you consider literally everyone who isn't a full caster in core to be incapable of actually playing D&D, no wonder your perceptions are so skewed.

Talakeal

2017-09-24, 03:39 PM

...and you only skip content you aren't interested in...

That's just blatantly wrong.

If I want to stop for donuts on the way to work but am running behind schedule I will skip the donuts to avoid being late for work, not because I am uninterested in donuts.

If I am playing an RPG where there is both a mid-boss and a final boss and both fights are incredibly tough but also incredibly fun, and there is an option to sneak around the mid-boss and no option to rest and recover health before the final boss the smart move is too skip the mid-boss, not because you are uninterested in the incredibly fun fight but because you don't have the resources to guarantee success against the final boss.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 03:44 PM

Well gee, if you consider literally everyone who isn't a full caster in core to be incapable of actually playing D&D, no wonder your perceptions are so skewed.

If you compare the capabilities of non-casters to the dangers the CR system says they should be able to overcome, they are not able to do so. Go try it. Run a Same Game Test.

If I want to stop for donuts on the way to work but am running behind schedule I will skip the donuts to avoid being late for work, not because I am uninterested in donuts.

You are less interested in donuts than in keeping your job. Again, this kind of linguistic technicality is not making your case look good. Stop doing it.

If I am playing an RPG where there is both a mid-boss and a final boss and both fights are incredibly tough but also incredibly fun, and there is an option to sneak around the mid-boss and no option to rest and recover health before the final boss the smart move is too skip the mid-boss, not because you are uninterested in the incredibly fun fight but because you don't have the resources to guarantee success against the final boss.

If you think it is more fun to use your stealth abilities than your combat abilities to beat the mid-boss, why shouldn't you play that way? If your goal is to maximize fun (and I can't imagine what else it would be, since it's not like you make money from beating game bosses), you won't choose to sneak if it's less fun than fighting. And if you will, I certainly don't want to lose options because you lack self control.

Talakeal

2017-09-24, 03:57 PM

You are less interested in donuts than in keeping your job. Again, this kind of linguistic technicality is not making your case look good. Stop doing it.

Come on now. You said "You only skip things you find uninteresting." It isn't a "linguistic technicality" to respond with the fact that people sometimes skip things they find uninteresting due to the constraints which are placed upon them.

If you think it is more fun to use your stealth abilities than your combat abilities to beat the mid-boss, why shouldn't you play that way? If your goal is to maximize fun (and I can't imagine what else it would be, since it's not like you make money from beating game bosses), you won't choose to sneak if it's less fun than fighting. And if you will, I certainly don't want to lose options because you lack self control.

Every human on the planet has limits to their self-control.

There will always be a struggle between the most enjoyable path and the optimal path.

And you know, this is really rich coming from the guy who considers people playing un-optimal characters that they feel are fun to be "parasites" who have "no place in high level play,"

Yes, and that is true. The characters you suggested were not balanced. You disproved your own point. The "Fighter" cannot contribute to any problem that is not a "Fighter Problem", and he breaks "Fighter Problems" because you now either have to have a Fighter (stupid because sometimes no one wants to play one), or having a Fighter makes you automatically win against all "Fighter Problems".

How does that disprove anything?

All of the characters in that example solved exactly the same % of problems.

If I choose to make a character who can't participate in a particular area of the game how is that a failure?

Why should a guy who is really shy or bored to tears by dialogue be forced to participate in the talky parts of the game?

When? Where do people keep thinking I say this?

Posted by Talakeal in Martials in D&D and similar games: a rambling on 2017-06-19, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)

So you agree that martials need buffs, but it simply ruins your vision of the game for them to be "mundane" in nature?

Posted by Cosi in Martials in D&D and similar games: a rambling on 2017-06-19, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)

"To be blunt, yeah. If the ancient dragon's hide cannot be broken by mortal man, and the guy who breaks it is a mortal man who is "like, really hard core", that cheapens the dragon. Part of making high level meaningful is putting your foot down and demanding that people move past some parts of being low level, just as part of making low level meaningful is keeping out some of the tools of high level."

Cosi

2017-09-24, 04:16 PM

Come on now. You said "You only skip things you find uninteresting." It isn't a "linguistic technicality" to respond with the fact that people sometimes skip things they find uninteresting due to the constraints which are placed upon them.

Your complaint would not make sense if I had instead said "insufficiently interesting". If you can change one word and have your argument not make sense any more, it is a linguistic technically and should probably not be deployed outside arguments about linguistic technicality.

And you know, this is really rich coming from the guy who considers people playing un-optimal characters that they feel are fun to be "parasites" who have "no place in high level play,"

If you have fun by making the party (on who my ability to achieve my goals and have fun rests) less good, you are not some persecuted minority. You are being disruptive, and you are being disruptive in exactly the same way that someone showing up to a low magic game with an Incantatrix is being disruptive. If your behavior is acceptable so is theirs.

All of the characters in that example solved exactly the same % of problems.

Because you contrived it to be so. If someone ran that system with 19% combat, it would no longer be balanced.

Why should a guy who is really shy or bored to tears by dialogue be forced to participate in the talky parts of the game?

If you hate dialog, you should not play a game where "dialog" is a substantial part of the game. Not every game has to be for everyone. It is absolutely okay to have a game where the only supported activity is "go into a dungeon and kill the things in that dungeon". I don't think D&D should be that game, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that everyone in that game needed non-combat abilities.

Also, I don't see how "sit down and shut up during the talk-y parts" is somehow better for those players than "roll some dice and activate a token ability during the talky parts".

"To be blunt, yeah. If the ancient dragon's hide cannot be broken by mortal man, and the guy who breaks it is a mortal man who is "like, really hard core", that cheapens the dragon. Part of making high level meaningful is putting your foot down and demanding that people move past some parts of being low level, just as part of making low level meaningful is keeping out some of the tools of high level."

That's not calling for martials to not get buffs. That's calling for an acknowledgement that people who complete superhuman tasks are, in fact, superhuman. If you are allowed to be a low level character at high level, you must allow people to play high level characters at low level, or you are saying quite explicitly that the people who desire high level play are second class citizens.

Also, your citation is broken. It points to this thread.

digiman619

2017-09-24, 04:24 PM

What do you think is a better place to make the distinction between "low level" non-combat challenges and "high level" non-combat challenges. In combat, while the fundamental goal of "kill the other guy before he kills you" doesn't change, the kinds of enemies you have to kill and the challenges you have to overcome do. For example, enemies like Werewolves and Trolls provide a "gear check" that is not present at lower CRs, and Dragons require a response to the possibility of highly efficient kiting. Shouldn't that happen outside combat as well?
That's what skills should be for. Just as your ability to handle challenges in combat should be gradual, so should your ability to handle things outside of it. The problem is that outside of "does a little more damage/reaches slightly farther/lasts slgihtly longer"-type scaling, magic is binary. Either you have a given spell and can do the otherwise impossible thing or you don't and you can't. That's where most of the anger and frustration come from.

Sure, and that's a good thing. It means that the players had a meaningful choice. As a result of casting teleport (the spell), they were confronted with a different tactical and strategic landscape then they would have been had they opted to take the trip on foot (or by some other mechanism like "griffin" or "airship"). Why isn't that a positive thing for the game to support?
Because encounters could still happen by airship. You can see things on land that give you pause. you can have interesting character interaction while aboard that ship. In short, beacuse going by air still allows things to happen. Instantaneous movement doesn't do that. And short of incredibly contrived reasons (the Grand Archmagus can only be reached via teleport because he lives 1,000 miles stright up), you don't need that power to have a grand aedventure.

I think if you agree that "SLA teleport" or "at-will teleport" or "teleport with 10 minute casting time" is something that it is acceptable to require, we agree. I am necessarily constrained by the imprecision of language, so I use teleport as a substitute for "the ability for players to move long distances rapidly without having to get DM approval, and without significant risk or investment of out of game time". Saying "well couldn't it show a swirly portal special effect at both ends" doesn't seem like a compelling objection.

That said, I will make an effort to provide annotations to things like "teleport" in future so that you don't misunderstand things this way again.
I agree to everything except the "without GM approval" aspect (though the exact details of how far and how fast need to be specified). That seems inherently antagonistic.

The game sells you on being a fantasy game. It doesn't have a default setting to be standard fantasy.
Point of order, 3rd Edition clearly did, as the Gods in the PHB were the gods of the Greyhawk setting. Add to the ads for their "Living Greyhawk" leauge seems to indicate that they did indeed have a default setting.
Besides, I didn't specify a specific setting, I said it was the same type of genre the game is based off of.

Because:

1. The 85% is largely bellow the balance point implied by challenges.
2. The 15% has unique capabilities that are narratively interesting.

Also, because if all you want to do is hack the content that exists, you don't need to convince anyone outside your group of your position. If you are arguing that the game (rather than your game) ought to be some particular way, then you must reach a much higher standard for removing something. If you remove teleport (the spell, and/or other similar printed abilities) from your game, that has no effect on anyone else. But if you remove teleport (the spell, and/or other similar printed abilities) from the game, that effects everyone else.
I wasn't talking about D&D. I was making a hypothetical argument about how if the outliers in design are more powerful that the rest, making them less powerful is often more desireable than buffing everything. Becasue if you can't see that premise, I don't know if I can help you.

There was no promise. There was, at best, a promise of balance. At no point were you promised that people would not get teleport (a variety of non-combat abilities that cover a large but non-total selection of utility roles at a level of efficiency approximately equal to that of a full caster). You may have brought that assumption with you, but it was never promised you. Or if it was, I didn't see it.
And no one promised you that you that you would be able to talk your way into making every sentient being you meet into a fanatical follower, either. That doesn't mean that Diplomancy doesn't exist. There were poor design choices all over 3.X. Both up and down.

You keep bringing up Conan as an example of why "high-level mundanes" don't work, and that by playing Conan, we are inherantly low level. You know what the problem with that is? Conan actually beats the casters in his setting! Even by 5th level (and you often call him 6th level), that is virtually impossible. And by giving us a base class based off him that has a 1-20 progression, the game is telling us that you can be Conan and hang with the big boys and be useful.

Yes, and that is true. The characters you suggested were not balanced. You disproved your own point. The "Fighter" cannot contribute to any problem that is not a "Fighter Problem", and he breaks "Fighter Problems" because you now either have to have a Fighter (stupid because sometimes no one wants to play one), or having a Fighter makes you automatically win against all "Fighter Problems".
See above where everything else develops gradually and spells being binary. The only thing that functions similarly is feats, but if you can't see the differnce between the two, than you are being deliberatly obtuse.

When? Where do people keep thinking I say this?

I have said that you can't put certain kinds of limitations on characters at high levels. If you think those limitations are what defines a martial, than sure, I don't think martials can be high level. But I don't define martial that way.
I think that it comes down to termanology. You see, we divide classes into three types: Martials, Gishes, and Full-casters, Gishes.
Martials have little or no magic (max 4th level) and start with none. They deal with the world through skills and fighting. UMD might play into their repitoire, but not likely.
Gishes are classes that get 6th level magic (though at least one class only got 5th. I have no idea why). They use both magic and fighting, but not as good as Full-casters or as Martials.
Full-Casters get 9th level spells and deal with the world through magic. Gishes sometimes get lumped in with the them by just refurring them as "casters" but that's not that common.

So when your definition of "full-caster" and "martial" can apply to the same class, it gets confusing and makes it look like you're not arguing out of good faith.

Talakeal

2017-09-24, 04:39 PM

If you have fun by making the party (on who my ability to achieve my goals and have fun rests) less good, you are not some persecuted minority. You are being disruptive, and you are being disruptive in exactly the same way that someone showing up to a low magic game with an Incantatrix is being disruptive. If your behavior is acceptable so is theirs.

On a snarky note:
Why should I sacrifice my fun just because you lack self control and need to win at all costs?

On a serious note:

Exactly. Yes. Which is why the gap in power between classes in the basic game that everyone enjoys needs to be brought closer. T4-5 characters need buffs, T1-2 characters need nerfs, so that no one is such an outlier that it disrupts the game. Again, perfect balance is impossible, but except for the bard the classes in 3.5 core don't even try.

If you want to make a high level high power high magic module as an option for groups where everyone wants to play that sort of game, go ahead, and vice versa. But the core game should not be balanced in such a way that simply choosing the core class you like will ruin it for the rest of the party because they are too strong / weak.

If you hate dialog, you should not play a game where "dialog" is a substantial part of the game. Not every game has to be for everyone. It is absolutely okay to have a game where the only supported activity is "go into a dungeon and kill the things in that dungeon". I don't think D&D should be that game, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that everyone in that game needed non-combat abilities.

Also, I don't see how "sit down and shut up during the talk-y parts" is somehow better for those players than "roll some dice and activate a token ability during the talky parts".

You will never find a gaming group that has precisely the same interests, some people WILL be bored with any game that has any depth to it.

And the difference is player choice. If I want to sit down and shut up, I can. If I want to participate fully, I can. If I want to roll a dice and activate a token ability, I can. In your proposed "balanced" system everyone will be FORCED to contribute in every scene.

Because you contrived it to be so. If someone ran that system with 19% combat, it would no longer be balanced.

As I have said many times, perfect balance is impossible, even as a concept. But if you can get something that, on paper, works 100% of the time then in practice it will almost certainly be "close enough" in practice.

Your complaint would not make sense if I had instead said "insufficiently interesting". If you can change one word and have your argument not make sense any more, it is a linguistic technically and should probably not be deployed outside arguments about linguistic technicality.

There is a vast gulf of difference between the two meanings. By that logic changings "black to white" or "short to tall" or "yes to no" would also be a linguistic technicality.

Saying "You only skip things you find uninteresting," is an absolute statement that is absolutely wrong. If what you meant was "People will skip things that are not sufficiently interesting that it outweighs the practical costs of taking that option," you should have said that, they are very different statements with very different meanings.

Also, your citation is broken. It points to this thread.

Previous thread was locked, can't quote it directly, which is why I put the thread title and date of posting in the header.

Kallimakus

2017-09-24, 05:06 PM

teleport absolutely creates adventures. If you can't think of a plot that requires teleport, you're not thinking hard enough (trivially: the distance to the evil base is too long to make it without teleport). Also, it doesn't remove content, it skips it, and you only skip content you aren't interested in. If I skip over the first twenty minutes of a movie, is that really the fault of the DVD company for adding a "skip" feature rather than the director for writing a boring movie?

Unless the distance is 'takes over a lifetime to cross', Teleport is not required. It is merely a convenience. The only ability that Teleport gives is to get from point A to point B faster (skipping content on the way), or bypass a literally impassable (indestructible and impassable) obstacle. The reason why I'm iffy on the Teleport being required is that it is (for me) a form of Tautology. You need Teleport to keep up with someone that can Teleport. Gee. Most circumstances are either time-sensitive (which technically could require Teleport, or you could design the scenario to have enough time for mundane travel).

I'm not, by any means, saying that Teleport should be removed. Indeed, the ability to skip content is right once the challenges encountered on the way are largely trivial. I do agree that a level 10 character should not be struggling with environment, or trying to get food for themselves, or trying to open mundane locks. But that doesn't make Teleport the quintessential high-level ability. It is high-level ability because it is inappropriate at lower levels.

If there are no standards, why can't I have all the abilities I want? Why are the only limits at the top? Why is your character allowed to be as incompetent as you want, but my character not allowed to be as competent as I want?

Is someone actually arguing for the position you speak of here? Because I don't think anyone is.

Phrasing the existence of a specific spell you have a problem with as a problem with the Wizard is dishonest at best. If you think planar binding is the reason the Wizard is bad, you don't think the Wizard is bad. You think planar binding is bad.

If you don't want specific options to be locked to specific concepts, why are you in favor of making casters specialists?

Everyone should be specialist. But 'having an army' or 'having friends' or 'having political power' or 'having social skills' or similar really beg the question of why only a given class can have them. I can't really think of a satisfying answer, so I don't support that. I'm in favour of everyone being a specialist, just as I'm in favour of having certain aspects be outside the system. Social skills, social standing, influence and such should not be class-dependent. Because at that point they are guilty of the same thing as full casters are: Locking content behind classes X (Y, Z...). My solution is to add a meaningful cost to pursuing this, and adding alternative means to achieve every high-level ability. So portals for planar travel, mundane travel for Teleport, airship/wings/items for flying...

And my problem with wizards is not only problem spells, it is the fact that wizards become excessively generic thanks to their universal access to their spells. Can you name one thing that Wizard A can achieve at a given level that a Wizard B CANNOT do? Not 'do slightly worse or slightly different, but 'can do nothing of the sort'. Assuming that they have allocated feats differently and so on. Also assuming Pathfinder specializations, which means that you CAN prepare spells from Opposition schools, they just take 2 slots.

The point is that if I make a martial character, my choices have meaningful impact. I want the same when I build a caster.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 06:08 PM

The problem is that outside of "does a little more damage/reaches slightly farther/lasts slgihtly longer"-type scaling, magic is binary. Either you have a given spell and can do the otherwise impossible thing or you don't and you can't. That's where most of the anger and frustration come from.

But that's also necessary to have diverse suites of abilities. Not everyone has a series of scaling powers. For example (as I understand it), Wheel of Time really does have a binary teleport ability. Rand doesn't get dimension hop, then dimension door, then teleport. He just learns to Travel and that's that. Also, there's the question of impact. There is a fundamentally different feel to "you are slightly better than you used to be" and "you can do something you couldn't before". You may like the first more, but the second is also valuable.

Because encounters could still happen by airship. You can see things on land that give you pause. you can have interesting character interaction while aboard that ship. In short, beacuse going by air still allows things to happen. Instantaneous movement doesn't do that.

Why does something have to happen? Why can't the party just decide that they fundamentally don't care what is between them and their goal, because the goal is (by definition) what they care about? Why should the party be forced to engage with things they don't want to engage with?

And short of incredibly contrived reasons (the Grand Archmagus can only be reached via teleport because he lives 1,000 miles stright up), you don't need that power to have a grand aedventure.

One man's "incredibly contrived reason" is another man's "interesting setpiece".

I agree to everything except the "without GM approval" aspect (though the exact details of how far and how fast need to be specified). That seems inherently antagonistic.

I think there's a difference between "without GM approval" and "against GM's wishes". You don't ask for GM approval before asking a NPC questions.

I wasn't talking about D&D. I was making a hypothetical argument about how if the outliers in design are more powerful that the rest, making them less powerful is often more desireable than buffing everything. Becasue if you can't see that premise, I don't know if I can help you.

And I was making an equally thinly veiled "hypothetical" about why you might want to keep those things. Don't pretend you don't know what you did.

You keep bringing up Conan as an example of why "high-level mundanes" don't work, and that by playing Conan, we are inherantly low level. You know what the problem with that is? Conan actually beats the casters in his setting! Even by 5th level (and you often call him 6th level), that is virtually impossible.

Conan's stories never make the claim that he's the same level as casters.

And by giving us a base class based off him that has a 1-20 progression, the game is telling us that you can be Conan and hang with the big boys and be useful.

It's telling you that you can be a Barbarian and do that. It's not saying that Barbarian is Conan.

But the core game should not be balanced in such a way that simply choosing the core class you like will ruin it for the rest of the party because they are too strong / weak.

Literally everyone agrees on this point. The problem is that you think it implies "and therefore, the game should never become more powerful than my character concept can deal with".

And the difference is player choice. If I want to sit down and shut up, I can. If I want to participate fully, I can. If I want to roll a dice and activate a token ability, I can. In your proposed "balanced" system everyone will be FORCED to contribute in every scene.

This is backwards. Your proposal is to not give classes options in some minigames. You can always ignore options you have. It is entirely more difficult to use options you don't have.

Unless the distance is 'takes over a lifetime to cross', Teleport is not required. It is merely a convenience.

"Unless you are mathematically unable to win, combat ability is not required. It is merely a convenience. Now let me play my Commoner!"

But that doesn't make Teleport the quintessential high-level ability. It is high-level ability because it is inappropriate at lower levels.

That seems like a pretty solid argument that teleport (and abilities like it) define high level. If our desire to support challenges that are soft to teleport boots it to high level, it's only fair to expect that people at high level will have it. Otherwise you're basically saying "for half the game do it all my way, then for the second half do it as much of your way as I want" and that compromise is not terribly tempting from where I'm sitting.

Is someone actually arguing for the position you speak of here? Because I don't think anyone is.

As far as I can tell, Drake is saying that he wants to be able to have as few non-combat abilities as fit his concept (suck as much as he wants) but that he also wants caps on how many abilities people can have (people can only rock as much as he allows).

And my problem with wizards is not only problem spells, it is the fact that wizards become excessively generic thanks to their universal access to their spells. Can you name one thing that Wizard A can achieve at a given level that a Wizard B CANNOT do?

Take a PrC? Take a feat? Be a specialist? Also, Wizards don't generally have the resources to learn "all the spells". This is as much on the dearth of Wizard class features as anything. Also, it's not like martials are that much better. A core Barbarian has literally no selectable class features so, barring feats and skills (which Wizards can also customize), two equal level Barbarians are literally exactly the same. They don't even have the whole "maybe they have different spells" thing going on.

Not 'do slightly worse or slightly different, but 'can do nothing of the sort'. Assuming that they have allocated feats differently and so on. Also assuming Pathfinder specializations, which means that you CAN prepare spells from Opposition schools, they just take 2 slots.

This just sounds like "assuming you can't do any of the things that make Wizards different, what makes them different". Also, I contend that "people can all do most stuff, but at different costs" is more interesting than "everyone has their thing, and no one can touch anyone else's". In the later case, every problem is either solved by shaking the appropriate party member at it, or isn't solved. In the former case, you have to consider which strategy is optimal. Should we send in the Wizard's familiar to scout, or the Druid's animal companion, or the stealthed Beguiler, or cast some divinations? That's way more interesting than just throwing the Rogue at every scouting challenge.

The point is that if I make a martial character, my choices have meaningful impact. I want the same when I build a caster.

Wizard/Incantatrix plays differently from Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order. So does Wizard/Green Star Adept versus Wizard/Acolyte of the Skin.

Lord Haart

2017-09-24, 06:09 PM

In terms of power level, the Tomb of Horrors has a 3.5 update. It's the worst module ever written precisely because it's full of "The players lose" buttons:

Some technically don't kill you outright, only deal enough damage to kill you, maybe allowing a reflex save to be only severely injured instead. The mouth of no-you-just-die is alive and well, though, as are the arrow traps which don't stop firing at you until you disable them and then dispel magic on them and there's no indication that this is the correct course of action. If you're playing the Tomb of Horrors, you're not playing a game. You're rolling dice at people until they stop moving.

Oh, there's also the pillar which isn't trapped, so the not!trap can't be found, but what it does do is split the person off from the rest of the party and force them to solo an EL 10 encounter (at ECL 9) to escape, and all the enemies are massively under-CRed, and the pillar which takes all your equipment and throws you out of the devil face of instakill, but fortunately turns it off for just long enough to chuck you out safely. Oh, and even the treasure tries to kill you: there's a gem which deals two hundred damage and throws a twisted wish at the user, and everyone else nearby, and the crown which stops you leaving the room it's in. There is a way to take the crown off, but guess what? That forces you to make a completely uninformed choice and if you get it wrong, it tries to kill you as well. But don't worry, because there's a broken staff, and even though it's already broken, guess what it does? It tries to freaking kill you, because even the broken treasure is trying to kill you.

Oh, and the treasure you get at the end of the module? Guess what that tries to do.

It doesn't play 5d chess. It just kills the players for daring to exist.

And yet when our DM threw it at our group with a challenge to dare and win it (without telling us in advance that it's going to be the Tomb of Horrors, either; all we knew was that we were going into a very hard module and we were encouraged to optimise well), we just took it and broke it. With a party of a savage Bard 4/Binder 1/Chameleon 3 (ECL 8, because the last level's worth of XP was funneled into crafting) and a straight Artificer 9. And we did not use any high-level divination or teleportation spells, too; not only would scry-and-teleport-in be in poor taste, it would probably deceive and betray us or at least be anticipated and protected against. Slower ways of gathering intel and bypassing the dangers we trusted more.

All it took was: planar binding disposable (but sentient) incorporeal scouts to do the recoinessance work; crafting magic-immune construct creatures to brute force through various magical obstacles and traps; planar binding thoqquas to dig through solid stone; using the artificer class feature to dismantle every recognisably magical item (including traps and, in a little moment of crazy awesome, the sphere of annihilation) into crafting XP without activating, using or, technically, touching it (and yes, we DID dismantle all the treasure; better safe than sorry); one of us (the Artificer) turning himself into a Lich as part of his prep work; and having enough contingent spells crafted to get us out of any unexpected trouble so we could return to it prepared. And the final twist
with Acererac's souls-consuming phylactery has been overcome by the Artificer (who, being a Lich himself, had no soul on hand to drain) going in alone, phoning up Asmodeus and telling him "O Lord of Hells, we found this thingy that contains literally thousands of souls and we want to give it to you as a token of our respect and admiration. Could you send someone to retrieve it?" Cue the Devils taking the problem out of our hands.

I think this will give some ammo to at least one side of the arguement. Personally, i'm convinced by my experience that the problem exists; that saying "the DM can just prepare against the players' tools" is stupid and 5d-chess rabbit hole goes deep enough to stop resembling "normal" play in any form; that emergent 5d-chess game IS often fun for the right players and with a right master, but that does not make the problem less of a problem; that it's not a problem specific to 3.5 but rather shared by all the redactions of D&D save 4e AND by oWoD games AND by Mutants and Masterminds AND by a lot of d20 systems, at the very least.
My own conclusions from this i'll formulate later, after thinking about it a bit more and finishing reading this thread.

Pex

2017-09-24, 06:26 PM

Must be nice.

I literally have never been in a game of D&D where the fighters didn't feel useless outside of low level combat with their terrible list of class skills (not to mention having 2 skill points a level with Int as a dump stat) and their total lack of utility powers, and their utter lack of versatility in combat.

Likewise I have never been in a game of D&D where a high level caster couldn't solve every single problem with gate or shape-change.

Now, when I run a game I can easily fix these problems with a few house rules, but when I am a player I don't have that luxury.

Also, it is really nice that your games have a need to conserve spells. Most groups run on the 15 minute adventuring day, so that isn't a balancing factor. I imagine if it was you would get a lot less griping about wizards (until the point where you can just use planar binding or shape change to ignore innate spell casting limitations).

I run with the house rule that casters get 4x spell slots but recovering them takes a full month of downtime in a sanctum. It removes the 15 minute adventuring day and forces a need for the sort of thing you describe above, but boy do the caster players bitch about having to ration their spells; and if they "waste" a high level spell by having an enemy save or botching a concentration roll.

In my previous Pathfinder group one player increasingly became frustrated he couldn't do things because his character moved more than 5 ft and loved 5E getting rid of that. Another player/DM was strictly in Guy At The Gym Fallacy. There was no talking him out of it and got incensed when an NPC high level bad guy ranger got six attacks with his arrows. In my current Pathfinder group the fighter player for a few days was upset the paladin was doing more damage than him, but it turned out he misinterpreted how Pathfinder Power Attack worked fixing his damage output.

Players will female dog about rules here and there as anyone but nowhere near the animosity the Tier System generates around here.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 06:29 PM

"Unless you are mathematically unable to win, combat ability is not required. It is merely a convenience. Now let me play my Commoner!"

I mean, I have cited Doctor Who several times as a good example of how scale of stakes are completely irrespective of your ability to violence at things, so...

This just sounds like "assuming you can't do any of the things that make Wizards different, what makes them different". Also, I contend that "people can all do most stuff, but at different costs" is more interesting than "everyone has their thing, and no one can touch anyone else's". In the later case, every problem is either solved by shaking the appropriate party member at it, or isn't solved. In the former case, you have to consider which strategy is optimal. Should we send in the Wizard's familiar to scout, or the Druid's animal companion, or the stealthed Beguiler, or cast some divinations? That's way more interesting than just throwing the Rogue at every scouting challenge.

...and this is the point where I dismiss this entire argument as utterly pointless, because your philosophy is fundamentally against the entire concept of party diversity. You would rather have four gods wearing different hats, none of whom actually need each other to succeed, to just take turns waving problems away rather than actually humor the idea of party roles. Trying to compromise this with the notion of specialization on any power scale is a conceptual dead end.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 06:34 PM

I mean, I have cited Doctor Who several times as a good example of how scale of stakes are completely irrespective of your ability to violence at things, so...

If neither "combat" nor "non-combat" is important to the story, what exactly are the rules supposed to adjudicate? Seating arrangements?

...and this is the point where I dismiss this entire argument as utterly pointless, because your philosophy is fundamentally against the entire concept of party diversity. You would rather have four gods wearing different hats, none of whom actually need each other to succeed, to just take turns waving problems away rather than actually humor the idea of party roles. Trying to compromise this with the notion of specialization on any power scale is a conceptual dead end.

"Party Roles" is a design dead-end. The game has to support having people sit down and play the classes they want to play, and if there are "Rogue Problems" which the Rogue must solve, and "Wizard Problems" which the Wizard must solve, and "Druid Problems" which the Druid must solve, the game breaks if two people decide to roll Druids or no one decides to roll a Rogue. That's terrible. Far better to have people specialize in solutions, which is exactly how casters work. Everyone has minions, but different casters have different levels of access to different kinds of minions, which makes the problem interesting. In your model, a challenge where you need minions is just "Do you have a Summoner? If yes, win. If no, cry". That's stupid and terrible.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-24, 06:39 PM

Also, have you tried the warlock class? All of its abilities are useable at will, it might be up your alley, and re-fluffed it could make a fairly decent high powered Ki user, which iirc is something you are into.

I personally just wish they would make a battlemaster / war blade type class that ran off of the warlock chassis.

No, but I'm willing to play it. or Spheres of Power, they're pretty similar in that department. I just haven't had any time to focus on joining any DnD games. though I do have this concept for a character that might be fun that will work best in a normal fantasy setting if I ever get the opportunity.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 06:54 PM

If neither "combat" nor "non-combat" is important to the story, what exactly are the rules supposed to adjudicate? Seating arrangements?

Rules are there to define parameters (what you can or cannot do) and to adjudicate success or failure. Everything else is in service to those goals.

"Party Roles" is a design dead-end. The game has to support having people sit down and play the classes they want to play, and if there are "Rogue Problems" which the Rogue must solve, and "Wizard Problems" which the Wizard must solve, and "Druid Problems" which the Druid must solve, the game breaks if two people decide to roll Druids or no one decides to roll a Rogue. That's terrible. Far better to have people specialize in solutions, which is exactly how casters work. Everyone has minions, but different casters have different levels of access to different kinds of minions, which makes the problem interesting. In your model, a challenge where you need minions is just "Do you have a Summoner? If yes, win. If no, cry". That's stupid and terrible.

That you think this speaks poorly of either your creative capacity, your previous DMs, or your upbringing. Are you really so spoiled that you think that being told you can't do something is the end of the world? The entire point of presenting challenges is to figure out a way to overcome them, not to dig through your collection of "resolve" buttons to find the one that lets you continue. Locked door but no rogue? Smash it down, figure out how to deal with the noise it made. Enemy inbound but no fighter? Sneak past, negotiate, or otherwise find a way to escape. The game isn't a binary series of pass/failures that you either solve or give up on.

Faily

2017-09-24, 06:58 PM

Tomb of Horrors

Sounds like you had a great time. I know some people in our gaming club did something similar... the GM ran it as a Halloween special challenge with chocolate prizes to be won.

And that's the thing: ToH was not written to be used in ongoing stories or campaign. It was written to knock down cocky players who claimed to be invincible (as I heard it, Gygax was pretty fed up with that at cons). And today it's more of a challenging gauntlet to run for fun.

Cosi

2017-09-24, 07:05 PM

That you think this speaks poorly of either your creative capacity, your previous DMs, or your upbringing. Are you really so spoiled that you think that being told you can't do something is the end of the world?

You literally just said the point of the rules was to adjudicate people's attempts to do something, and now you're lobbing ad hominems about my desire to have the rules support me doing things.

The entire point of presenting challenges is to figure out a way to overcome them, not to dig through your collection of "resolve" buttons to find the one that lets you continue.

Guess which class has a list of "resolve" buttons? Oh right, it's literally none of them.

Drakevarg

2017-09-24, 07:12 PM

You literally just said the point of the rules was to adjudicate people's attempts to do something, and now you're lobbing ad hominems about my desire to have the rules support me doing things.

Rules that support you doing all the things, yes.

Guess which class has a list of "resolve" buttons? Oh right, it's literally none of them.

...this entire thread is about people not liking casters having access to every win button in the book.

digiman619

2017-09-24, 07:23 PM

But that's also necessary to have diverse suites of abilities. Not everyone has a series of scaling powers. For example (as I understand it), Wheel of Time really does have a binary teleport ability. Rand doesn't get dimension hop, then dimension door, then teleport. He just learns to Travel and that's that. Also, there's the question of impact. There is a fundamentally different feel to "you are slightly better than you used to be" and "you can do something you couldn't before". You may like the first more, but the second is also valuable.
Only if everyone works like that. Otherwise, one side will constantly get left behind (see wizards vs sorcerers)

Why does something have to happen? Why can't the party just decide that they fundamentally don't care what is between them and their goal, because the goal is (by definition) what they care about? Why should the party be forced to engage with things they don't want to engage with?
Because determining what the party enocounters (both benign and malevolent) is the GM's job. If you feel that the GM is making you roll for random encounters everytime you go as much a 5 feet,, this is a issue to bring up OOC. When you sit down for a game of D&D, you are accepting tha GM's story and taking part in it. You don't have the right to invalidate the GMs hard work because you were bored. You aren't the only player. If you say that takes away agency, you always have the option of leaving the table if it's not right for you. Becasue as long as you're sitting there, you agree to accept the story you're given.

One man's "incredibly contrived reason" is another man's "interesting setpiece".
That seems like it's asking for an interesting one-time-use Deus Ex Machina artifact to act during the setpiece.

I think there's a difference between "without GM approval" and "against GM's wishes". You don't ask for GM approval before asking a NPC questions.
Asking an NPC question questions when he has no answers plans takes, at most, a few minutes of ad-libbing. Deciding to teleport a thousand miles east because you were impatient makes all his notes worthless. Or makes keeping them incredibly obvious, I suppose.

Conan's stories never make the claim that he's the same level as casters.
They don't do anything to talk about what level he is because RPGs wouldn't exist for another 40 years. However, he routinely beats the casters in his setting, something that the class that he inspired can't do.

Literally everyone agrees on this point. The problem is that you think it implies "and therefore, the game should never become more powerful than my character concept can deal with".
The point is that a medium needs to be met. The gap is a mile wide, but you're only willing to move 10 feet.

"Unless you are mathematically unable to win, combat ability is not required. It is merely a convenience. Now let me play my Commoner!"
Except that Commoner isn't a PC class, so using it as an excuse is disengenous.

That seems like a pretty solid argument that teleport (and abilities like it) define high level. If our desire to support challenges that are soft to teleport boots it to high level, it's only fair to expect that people at high level will have it. Otherwise you're basically saying "for half the game do it all my way, then for the second half do it as much of your way as I want" and that compromise is not terribly tempting from where I'm sitting.
There's a difference between "You have to be X level to use this effect" and "here's something you will be able to do a half-dozen times a day when you're X+3 level". It also prevents useful abilities from only existing in one class (forbiddance says hi).

Talakeal

2017-09-24, 07:54 PM

This is backwards. Your proposal is to not give classes options in some minigames. You can always ignore options you have. It is entirely more difficult to use options you don't have.

I already posted a very long response to the idea of why ignoring abilities you have is not a good situation to be in. In the past when I have attempted such things I almost always got flak from the rest of the party members not playing up to my potential, and as someone who thinks suboptimal players are parasites out to ruin your fun I think you would fully understand where they are coming from; I think everyone would be happier if people could rearrange their characters in a way where they were able to leverage inability to perform in situations they don't want to participate in into some form of advantage in situations they do want to participate in.

Trying to succeed when you don't have a simple solution is the source of drama, not having the right tool for every challenge is, imo, a very good thing.

The problem is that you think it implies "and therefore, the game should never become more powerful than my character concept can deal with".

Damn straight.

Although I will add two caveats:

First, this only applies if "my" concept is one that the core rules presents to me; if I create a custom fishmonger class I wouldn't expect to be able to pull my weight in slaying a deadly dragon.

Second, you are the only person I have ever met who thinks wanting all classes to be viable at all levels is a "problem," most everyone thinks that it is in fact a very good thing.

Pex

2017-09-24, 08:30 PM

Sounds like you had a great time. I know some people in our gaming club did something similar... the GM ran it as a Halloween special challenge with chocolate prizes to be won.

And that's the thing: ToH was not written to be used in ongoing stories or campaign. It was written to knock down cocky players who claimed to be invincible (as I heard it, Gygax was pretty fed up with that at cons). And today it's more of a challenging gauntlet to run for fun.

I see nothing wrong with players being proud of their characters. So what if they boast? Why should they not have fun with their characters? How can that diminish the DM? It doesn't take effort for a DM to kill off a PC, and he shouldn't even be trying to anyway in a taking it personal matter. The DM can kill off a PC by fiat or even a more powerful method - refusal of the player playing the game. I have no issue with the DM house ruling particular abilities or combination of abilities that make the game unplayable, Wish/Simulacrum chaining in 5E for example, but house ruling or create adventures just to put players in their place is a get over yourself DM thing. The DM is not a superior being.

Clarification: Not directed at Faily specifically. Only using the quote as a point of reference.

Kallimakus

2017-09-25, 01:38 AM

This is backwards. Your proposal is to not give classes options in some minigames. You can always ignore options you have. It is entirely more difficult to use options you don't have.

Every class should have something to do everywhere by default, but should only be able to easily solve a handful to promote teamwork.

"Unless you are mathematically unable to win, combat ability is not required. It is merely a convenience. Now let me play my Commoner!"

As said, Commoner is an NPC class, and not intended for players. Fighter isn't, so should be just as valid as wizard.

That seems like a pretty solid argument that teleport (and abilities like it) define high level. If our desire to support challenges that are soft to teleport boots it to high level, it's only fair to expect that people at high level will have it. Otherwise you're basically saying "for half the game do it all my way, then for the second half do it as much of your way as I want" and that compromise is not terribly tempting from where I'm sitting.

It is a high level ability, but not an ability required to be high level (see: # of classes that gain Teleport vs # of classes that don't). If one wanted to redesign the game around Teleport, one is free to but it should not be default.

As far as I can tell, Drake is saying that he wants to be able to have as few non-combat abilities as fit his concept (suck as much as he wants) but that he also wants caps on how many abilities people can have (people can only rock as much as he allows).

And why is such specialization wrong in a game primarily about combat? The only issue is that a combat specialist is not meaningfully better at it than a non-specialist.

Take a PrC? Take a feat? Be a specialist? Also, Wizards don't generally have the resources to learn "all the spells". This is as much on the dearth of Wizard class features as anything. Also, it's not like martials are that much better. A core Barbarian has literally no selectable class features so, barring feats and skills (which Wizards can also customize), two equal level Barbarians are literally exactly the same. They don't even have the whole "maybe they have different spells" thing going on.

I come from Pathfinder where Barbarians get Rage Powers and Fighters gain Weapon and armour training, and prestige classes are a joke

This just sounds like "assuming you can't do any of the things that make Wizards different, what makes them different". Also, I contend that "people can all do most stuff, but at different costs" is more interesting than "everyone has their thing, and no one can touch anyone else's". In the later case, every problem is either solved by shaking the appropriate party member at it, or isn't solved. In the former case, you have to consider which strategy is optimal. Should we send in the Wizard's familiar to scout, or the Druid's animal companion, or the stealthed Beguiler, or cast some divinations? That's way more interesting than just throwing the Rogue at every scouting challenge.

The Rogue, however, is presumably the specialist, so should be better than the others. Well, I'd put Ranger as the premier scout, then rogue, then Animal Companion/Familiar (both have pro's and cons)

Wizard/Incantatrix plays differently from Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order. So does Wizard/Green Star Adept versus Wizard/Acolyte of the Skin.

Do those prestige classes take something from wizards? And they don't exist in PF, nor are prestige classes, afaik, default options.

Florian

2017-09-25, 03:02 AM

I see nothing wrong with players being proud of their characters. So what if they boast? Why should they not have fun with their characters? How can that diminish the DM? It doesn't take effort for a DM to kill off a PC, and he shouldn't even be trying to anyway in a taking it personal matter. The DM can kill off a PC by fiat or even a more powerful method - refusal of the player playing the game. I have no issue with the DM house ruling particular abilities or combination of abilities that make the game unplayable, Wish/Simulacrum chaining in 5E for example, but house ruling or create adventures just to put players in their place is a get over yourself DM thing. The DM is not a superior being.

Clarification: Not directed at Faily specifically. Only using the quote as a point of reference.

It´s symptomatic for parts of this whole discussion. On one hand, people want fair and balanced encounters with the rules giving an underlying structure how a gm should achieve this (CR, WBL and so on), while at the same time, optimization culture partly has taken the form to not optimize a character to better function within the constraints of that system, but rather seeking ways to circumvent the system as a whole, or, more extreme, using the system as a means to force the gm into a passive role of service provider, taking away "gm agency", like Cosi advocating the use of spells to skip the "boring" parts.

ToH is less about "boasting" but more about being a reminder that "player agency" has limits that are defined by the overall premise of the game and some things can only ever be achieved by willfully going against the spirit of the game whilst using RAW as an excuse to do so.

Satinavian

2017-09-25, 03:25 AM

And why is such specialization wrong in a game primarily about combat? The only issue is that a combat specialist is not meaningfully better at it than a non-specialist.The problem is making a game aprimarily around combat and introducing a class with the shtick "combat specialist".

Of course he can't be meaningfully better at it when the core assumption is that this is most of the game and most of the focus for all characters.

That is one of the things wrong with D&D and derivatives : Of course everyone has to have combat abilities when 3/4 of gaming time is combat and the rest is lead up to combat. And of course it is difficult to make the game less about combat when every single character out their has the majority off all abilities related to combat and both tools and rules are lacking in every other department.

But when you write a system where everyone is primarily a combatant, "specialised in combat" should never be a thing.

Jerrykhor

2017-09-25, 03:31 AM

But when you write a system where everyone is primarily a combatant, "specialised in combat" should never be a thing.

Tell that to all the defenders of the Fighter class who always toot the same 'Fighters are the best class at fighting', with so much conviction as if all the other classes can't fight for nuts.

Florian

2017-09-25, 05:11 AM

Tell that to all the defenders of the Fighter class who always toot the same 'Fighters are the best class at fighting', with so much conviction as if all the other classes can't fight for nuts.

I´m actually a "pro Fighter" guy and that´s not reflecting my opinion. That class is supposed to be the equivalent of an "all-purpose main battle tank", with no clear strengths and weaknesses, able to handle any kind of role in combat on a reasonable level of performance, while easily outshined by the specialist classes at what they do, when they do it.

In theory, the bonus feats could allow you to slowly build up a broad set of core competencies, like, say, devoting 4 feats each to the blocks of TWF, Mounted Combat and Archery, but in practice this sadly doesn´t work out, generating a very lackluster performance.

Mechalich

2017-09-25, 05:40 AM

But when you write a system where everyone is primarily a combatant, "specialised in combat" should never be a thing.

Well, the fighter is supposed to be 'specialized in soldiering.' Unfortunately, the rules don't really support this and in D&D and similar games, the out-of-combat values of being a trained soldier who has some campaigns under his/her belt tend to be erased quickly by the various win buttons we've been discussing. Teleport, after all, screws the ranger concept over worse than the fighter - since he's the one with all the cool wilderness related abilities. Many known 'win button' abilities like incorporeality gank the rogue far more than they do the fighter (in 3.PF D&D the rogue can borrow other people's win buttons via UMD, but the actual rogue concept falls flat). The barbarian is a better chassis than the fighter for some inexplicable reason - there is no justification on earth for barbarians having twice the skill points fighters do - but still loses viability out of combat almost as swiftly.

The fighter represents an important core fantasy character concept - power through physical force. So to does the rogue - power through guile. The wizard represents the third member of the most basal core - power through supernatural energies. You can see this level of reduction in the Dragon Age universe, which has only these three types. A generalist fantasy RPG absolutely has to provide a viable playspace for warriors, and for sneaky guys, and for magic users. Note that a non-generalist game need no do so: if you play Mage the Ascension, even if your character is a Navy Seal and uses an M4 as their primary focus, they're still drawing power from supernatural energies.

In order to preserve game balance in such a scenario the key question becomes: how much power can I give to my magic users before the power I need to give to the warriors to keep up bursts the boundaries of the warrior concept and turns them into just another type of magic user?

That's a variable boundary, it depends on things like tech level - at higher tech levels sufficiently advanced technology means the boundary between mundane and magic user is totally unnecessary - on setting factors - warriors in the Roman legions can't take on nearly as much magic as warriors in wuxia-influenced China - on genre - if you've gone full epic and warriors can survive hideous wounds one after another and infection is not a thing PCs have to worry about, then that helps - and so on.

In the specific case of 3.PF D&D though, it's quite clear that the power allowed to Tier 1 casters is way, way beyond any place you can pump martials up to hit and still have them hew to the concept of warrior. By contrast, Tier 3 includes a number of classes that retain recognizably martial concepts - Crusader, Warblade, etc - and therefore represents a natural place for the game to meet in the middle.

Satinavian

2017-09-25, 06:53 AM

The fighter represents an important core fantasy character concept - power through physical force. So to does the rogue - power through guile. The wizard represents the third member of the most basal core - power through supernatural energies. You can see this level of reduction in the Dragon Age universe, which has only these three types. A generalist fantasy RPG absolutely has to provide a viable playspace for warriors, and for sneaky guys, and for magic users. Note that a non-generalist game need no do so: if you play Mage the Ascension, even if your character is a Navy Seal and uses an M4 as their primary focus, they're still drawing power from supernatural energies.Yes, of course a generalist fantasy RPG can provide a niche for the fighter.

But nearly every fantasy RPG that is not a D&D clone does emphasize fighting far less. And because those other RPGs are about other things than fighting, PC concepts that can't fight are valid there - and this is what allows the space for the fighter guy which actually fights better then the rest.

As for D&D.PF, well, tier 3 lacks a whole bunch of iconic fantasy abilities and therefore can't do a very large number of typical fantasy character concepts. And people wanting to play those concepts are not willing to give them up only to get better balancing. So "meeting in the middle" can't happen at tier 3. You would have significantly better luck pushing for tier 2 as meeting point as there is hardly any ability exclusive to tier 1 so tier 2 could do nearly all character concepts tier 1 allows.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 08:39 AM

...this entire thread is about people not liking casters having access to every win button in the book.

teleport is not a win button. It beats challenges that are not appropriate for characters with teleport, but that is true of literally any possible ability.

When you sit down for a game of D&D, you are accepting tha GM's story and taking part in it. You don't have the right to invalidate the GMs hard work because you were bored. You aren't the only player. If you say that takes away agency, you always have the option of leaving the table if it's not right for you. Becasue as long as you're sitting there, you agree to accept the story you're given.

The DM's job is not to present a story. If you want to be presented a story you (https://www.google.com/search?q=books&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) have (https://www.google.com/search?q=movies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) options (https://www.google.com/search?q=video+games&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The GM's job is to present a world for you to interact with, and for the story to emerge from those interactions. Sometimes that story will be that you spend a long time trekking through a desert. Sometimes it will be that you immediately cross the desert with teleport. Sometimes it will be that you could immediately cross the desert with teleport, but you instead opt to travel through the desert because you heard there was a hidden temple there, warded with ancient illusions that you would miss if you teleported.

The idea that it is "the DM's game" and you are along for the ride is the single most poisonous notion in all of TTRPG gaming.

Asking an NPC question questions when he has no answers plans takes, at most, a few minutes of ad-libbing. Deciding to teleport a thousand miles east because you were impatient makes all his notes worthless. Or makes keeping them incredibly obvious, I suppose.

Players aren't going to teleport for no reason. They teleport because they are interested in something that is over there, which happens only if the DM describes it. As a DM, you should not include things that players are not expected to interact with, and as a result there should be at least some content anywhere they might decide to go. Also, this problem is 0% unique to teleport. Players can decide to go a direction you haven't prepped even without teleport.

They don't do anything to talk about what level he is because RPGs wouldn't exist for another 40 years. However, he routinely beats the casters in his setting, something that the class that he inspired can't do.

A Barbarian can certainly beat a 3rd level Wizard. Also, Conan-verse casters don't really map well to D&D ones. They spend a lot more time performing vasty rituals of might power than they do casting spells in combat time.

The point is that a medium needs to be met. The gap is a mile wide, but you're only willing to move 10 feet.

The middle of two things is not always the solution. If the Warblade was twice as far from the Wizard as it is now, that would not change the optimal solution.

I already posted a very long response to the idea of why ignoring abilities you have is not a good situation to be in. In the past when I have attempted such things I almost always got flak from the rest of the party members not playing up to my potential,

If people were upset with you for not using abilities you did have, why on earth would they be any less unhappy with you for not having those abilities at all? And no, you can't just balance around that, because now you've taken away their abilities too, which is even worse. Fundamentally, the character you want is worse than the character they want, and you cannot both be happy.

Trying to succeed when you don't have a simple solution is the source of drama, not having the right tool for every challenge is, imo, a very good thing.

Again, this is how casters actually work if you scale challenges to their abilities instead of assuming the adventure you wrote at 1st level should work at every level as long as you make the monsters slightly bigger.

Second, you are the only person I have ever met who thinks wanting all classes to be viable at all levels is a "problem," most everyone thinks that it is in fact a very good thing.

A class is not a concept. I am perfectly happy with you playing a Barbarian at 20th level, so long as that Barbarian has a concept that is appropriate at 20th level. Perhaps some totems he can attune to so he gets some magical abilities (like flight from the Air Totem or divinations from the Eagle Totem).

Every class should have something to do everywhere by default, but should only be able to easily solve a handful to promote teamwork.

Cool, that is exactly how Wizards work and exactly how Fighters don't work.

And why is such specialization wrong in a game primarily about combat? The only issue is that a combat specialist is not meaningfully better at it than a non-specialist.

Because it is fundamentally unbalanced? If it is bad that the Wizard overshadows the Fighter in combat and out of combat, it isn't any less bad if each overshadows the other half the time. Now you've just ensured that someone is always unhappy.

Do those prestige classes take something from wizards? And they don't exist in PF, nor are prestige classes, afaik, default options.

They take away what class features the Wizard receives. They do actually exist in PF through the magic of Backwards Compatibility. PrCs are no less default options than any other splat content.

digiman619

2017-09-25, 11:39 AM

teleport is not a win button. It beats challenges that are not appropriate for characters with teleport, but that is true of literally any possible ability.
He didn't say it was. He just said they existed and that only the full-casters get them, leading to anger and C/MD. You are trying to weasel your way out of admitting you said a patently untrue statement.

The DM's job is not to present a story. If you want to be presented a story you (https://www.google.com/search?q=books&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) have (https://www.google.com/search?q=movies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) options (https://www.google.com/search?q=video+games&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The GM's job is to present a world for you to interact with, and for the story to emerge from those interactions. Sometimes that story will be that you spend a long time trekking through a desert. Sometimes it will be that you immediately cross the desert with teleport. Sometimes it will be that you could immediately cross the desert with teleport, but you instead opt to travel through the desert because you heard there was a hidden temple there, warded with ancient illusions that you would miss if you teleported.

The idea that it is "the DM's game" and you are along for the ride is the single most poisonous notion in all of TTRPG gaming.
How's about this then: The game is not all about you. An RPG is supposed to be a cooperative storytelling endeavor. While your choice should always matter, the fact remains that the GM's job is so much bigger than yours is. You've just got to worry about you, the GM has to do the rest of the world.

Taking abilities that invalidate your GM's hard work is antagonistic and contrary to the entire point of a shared story. That isn't to say that GMs are pure as the driven snow; bad GMs exist and we've had multiple threads here describing the worst of the worst. But if your GM is like that, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it OOC, and if you can't get them to be more reasonable, leave the game. Trying to one-up the GM only leads to an arms race that sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else.

Players aren't going to teleport for no reason. They teleport because they are interested in something that is over there, which happens only if the DM describes it. As a DM, you should not include things that players are not expected to interact with, and as a result there should be at least some content anywhere they might decide to go. Also, this problem is 0% unique to teleport. Players can decide to go a direction you haven't prepped even without teleport.
A party that heads east when they are supposed to head north can trip up a GM some, but he or she should know the general surroundings the PCs are in. But unless they are on the edge of another biome (or more likely 2 other biomes and they pick the "wrong" one), you can still make random encounters and have stuff for them to do there. Once teleport is on the table, they can, at any time, be a thousand miles away, so your notes need to at least triple in size.

Also "As a DM, you should not include things the players are not expected to see"? Didn't you say that you don't need DM approval to talk to NPC's?

A Barbarian can certainly beat a 3rd level Wizard. Also, Conan-verse casters don't really map well to D&D ones. They spend a lot more time performing vasty rituals of might power than they do casting spells in combat time.
Two things about that:
1) Being 2 levels lower than your PC would make these spellcasters en "easy" encounter. The narrative never treats them as such, so you are stretching if you want me to believe that a 5th level Barbarian beating a 3rd level Wizard is the same as Conan fighting the sorcerers in his setting
2) Of course they don't map well to Vancian casters. NO ONE DOES! In a world where you have round and square pegs and holes, you're complaining that your nothing fits your star-shaped hole.

The middle of two things is not always the solution. If the Warblade was twice as far from the Wizard as it is now, that would not change the optimal solution.
Yes. Because the optimal solution is to nerf the caster, because they are too powerful. We've had the "no one other than Q and other reality warpers are more powerful than a PO Wizard" discussion before, and you answered "So?" Here, let me quote it:

It's because outside of reality warpers like Q who can and will instantly no-sell anything you can throw at them, a PO Wizard 20 has more power than virtually any other character in the entire history of fiction! Goku, Saitama (from One Punch Man) and Superman are the cliche overpowered characters, but they will get stomped via scry-and-die and time stop shinanigans.

"Aside from all the characters at their power level, no one is at a Wizard's power level."
So please, explain how the primary problem is that the martials aren't strong enough. I'm all ears.

If people were upset with you for not using abilities you did have, why on earth would they be any less unhappy with you for not having those abilities at all? And no, you can't just balance around that, because now you've taken away their abilities too, which is even worse. Fundamentally, the character you want is worse than the character they want, and you cannot both be happy.
The Wizard of Oz only works if neither Dorothy nor her companions know that ruby slippers has teleport without fail (home only) as an SLA. The others would have probably wanted her to go home, especially when the Wicked Witch came after them.

Again, this is how casters actually work if you scale challenges to their abilities instead of assuming the adventure you wrote at 1st level should work at every level as long as you make the monsters slightly bigger.
Again, this only serves to make the caster, most likely a wizard, as the MVP of the party because only they have the abilities needed.

A class is not a concept. I am perfectly happy with you playing a Barbarian at 20th level, so long as that Barbarian has a concept that is appropriate at 20th level. Perhaps some totems he can attune to so he gets some magical abilities (like flight from the Air Totem or divinations from the Eagle Totem).
The Burj Khalifa is really tall. It's a little over 2,700 feet tall. it's really impressive. But it dwarfs in comparison to Mount Everest, which is literally over 10 times taller. once you take the T1 Casters out of the equation, what is "level appropriate" becomes a lot more manageable.

Cool, that is exactly how Wizards work and exactly how Fighters don't work.
You're 3/4th right. Fighters don't work like that, and wizards do have answers, but they have them for most, if not all, of the problems. If this is the ideal setup and martials are the ones holding it back, give me three problems a wizard can't overcome, and then tell me how an Ideal Martial could.

They take away what class features the Wizard receives. They do actually exist in PF through the magic of Backwards Compatibility. PrCs are no less default options than any other splat content.
What class features? You mean the four bonus metamagic/item creation feats they get every 5 levels? Making it so they have a slightly less powerful familiar (assuming they didn't trade it away for an ACF/substitution level in the first place)? Are you honestly suggesting that you have a lot of Wizard 20 builds, or that you should keep the 15 dead level the Wizard has alone? Come on, don't be that guy.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 12:34 PM

He didn't say it was. He just said they existed and that only the full-casters get them, leading to anger and C/MD. You are trying to weasel your way out of admitting you said a patently untrue statement.

So what are people objecting to? If teleport isn't a win button, what is? I can understand a position like "teleport is a win button I am okay with supporting" or "people should get some win buttons, but that number should be fixed and small", and both of those would allow teleport. But all of the definitions I have seen of win buttons would include teleport.

Taking abilities that invalidate your GM's hard work is antagonistic and contrary to the entire point of a shared story.

What kinds of choices do you think players should be allowed to make. Suppose the DM wants us to defeat the Evil Baron by sneaking into his castle by disguising ourselves as guards, poisoning his food, escaping with his pet dragon dogging our heels, and then turning his lands over to the king, how much of that are we obligated to do? Can we go into the mountains to fight the giants and ignore the Baron altogether? Can we sneak in through the sewers? Can we kill him in his sleep? Can we fight the dragon? Can we take over his lands?

A party that heads east when they are supposed to head north can trip up a GM some, but he or she should know the general surroundings the PCs are in. But unless they are on the edge of another biome (or more likely 2 other biomes and they pick the "wrong" one), you can still make random encounters and have stuff for them to do there. Once teleport is on the table, they can, at any time, be a thousand miles away, so your notes need to at least triple in size.

No they don't. People will not just go off to blank spots on the map (unless the blank-ness is a plot point). They will go to places that interest them. Anything that interests the players should already be in your notes, because otherwise how is it interesting the players?

2) Of course they don't map well to Vancian casters. NO ONE DOES! In a world where you have round and square pegs and holes, you're complaining that your nothing fits your star-shaped hole.

D&D's combat minigame is sufficiently foundational that almost no class maps well to "does a bunch of non-combat stuff that is flashy, but very little combat stuff". It's not like Power Points are a better fit for a Wizard who spends his time on week-long rituals to summon demons.

Yes. Because the optimal solution is to nerf the caster, because they are too powerful. We've had the "no one other than Q and other reality warpers are more powerful than a PO Wizard" discussion before, and you answered "So?" Here, let me quote it:

There are plenty of characters who are comparable to D&D Wizards. You have yet to bother to engage with the reality that they do, in fact, exist. Also, you insist on assuming that I have to be defending Wizards that abuse e.g. planar binding and polymorph. Characters from WoT, Malazan, Riftwar, the Cosmere, and any number of other properties could compete with Wizards in the 10+ range. You may not like those concepts, but D&D cannot be confined exclusively to any one person's tastes.

The Burj Khalifa is really tall. It's a little over 2,700 feet tall. it's really impressive. But it dwarfs in comparison to Mount Everest, which is literally over 10 times taller. once you take the T1 Casters out of the equation, what is "level appropriate" becomes a lot more manageable.

And there we go again. "The characters you want are fundamentally not something I will accept as appropriate for the game at any point and must be destroyed entirely".

You're 3/4th right. Fighters don't work like that, and wizards do have answers, but they have them for most, if not all, of the problems. If this is the ideal setup and martials are the ones holding it back, give me three problems a wizard can't overcome, and then tell me how an Ideal Martial could.

There shouldn't be problems only some characters can overcome. That leads to bad things when no one wants to play the Healer or the Rogue. What there should be are solutions that have different merits. So, for example, the Wizard has teleport. That's a useful power. It transports you very rapidly, with very high precision, and with very low risk. But it has range limitations, capacity limitations, and can only be used a certain number of times per day. So you could give the Rogue an ability that wasn't quite as fast as teleport, but could be used more often. You could give the Range an ability that was lower precision than teleport, but transported a larger number of people.

This is, of course, on some level conjectural. If you were doing this, the place to start wouldn't be "what abilities should the Ranger have at 10th level", but "what challenges should a 10th level party be able to overcome". Once you had that you can look at see what tools people need, then give people versions of those tools.

Kallimakus

2017-09-25, 12:57 PM

teleport is not a win button. It beats challenges that are not appropriate for characters with teleport, but that is true of literally any possible ability.

Correct, in a way. Problems arise if it beats or circumvents problems that are appropriate for high-level characters but are bypassed by Teleport. Because the game was not designed with the idea that Teleport is a milestone ability, turning it into one requires redesigning the game around that point. Again, so does turning Fighter into the paradigm require redesigning the game around that. But you know, there are plenty of classes that occupy the comfortable tier of being challenged but not overwhelmed by level appropriate challenges throughout their careers. How about we balanced around those, instead of the highest or the lowest point possible to achieve?

The DM's job is not to present a story. If you want to be presented a story you (https://www.google.com/search?q=books&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) have (https://www.google.com/search?q=movies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) options (https://www.google.com/search?q=video+games&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The GM's job is to present a world for you to interact with, and for the story to emerge from those interactions. Sometimes that story will be that you spend a long time trekking through a desert. Sometimes it will be that you immediately cross the desert with teleport. Sometimes it will be that you could immediately cross the desert with teleport, but you instead opt to travel through the desert because you heard there was a hidden temple there, warded with ancient illusions that you would miss if you teleported.

The idea that it is "the DM's game" and you are along for the ride is the single most poisonous notion in all of TTRPG gaming.

Sorta, maybe, but not at all. A game that moves along sightseeing 'keep your hands inside the vehicle' rails, then yes, it's bad. But otherwise, plot gives the game structure. The world probably does not actually revolve around the PC's even if they are the focus of the game. And as has been stated earlier, the GM does most of the work, so he has most of the power. In a game with different roles or no GM, this is different, obviously.

Players aren't going to teleport for no reason. They teleport because they are interested in something that is over there, which happens only if the DM describes it. As a DM, you should not include things that players are not expected to interact with, and as a result there should be at least some content anywhere they might decide to go. Also, this problem is 0% unique to teleport. Players can decide to go a direction you haven't prepped even without teleport.

This is a fair point, but not achievable in an existing setting, since the GM cannot control what the players know about the world. I have pointed this out previously.

A Barbarian can certainly beat a 3rd level Wizard. Also, Conan-verse casters don't really map well to D&D ones. They spend a lot more time performing vasty rituals of might power than they do casting spells in combat time.

Because the magic system is different. I have (to my regret) not read any stories set on Golarion, so I'm not aware whether they actually even conform to the spellcasting as rules describe it. But I can say that I have never read a story where magic does work like PF/3.5 magic. Generally, the higher end abilities tend to be achieved through rituals. What's more, abilities far in excess of D&D effects can be achieved. But most of the time, what's missing is the ability to switch around your expertise entirely from day to day, which, if it isn't clear, is my #1 problem with the casters that I feel should be brought down to reasonable levels.

If people were upset with you for not using abilities you did have, why on earth would they be any less unhappy with you for not having those abilities at all? And no, you can't just balance around that, because now you've taken away their abilities too, which is even worse. Fundamentally, the character you want is worse than the character they want, and you cannot both be happy.

Because If I remove game-breaking abilities, the game is no longer broken.

A class is not a concept. I am perfectly happy with you playing a Barbarian at 20th level, so long as that Barbarian has a concept that is appropriate at 20th level. Perhaps some totems he can attune to so he gets some magical abilities (like flight from the Air Totem or divinations from the Eagle Totem).

But who gets to assign what is appropriate for 20th level? Is it the Wizard? Is it the Fighter? Probably not either. So what really should be looked at are 20th level challenges and what is actually needed to beat them. Repeat at 15 and 10. I'm sure that 'Teleport' or 'Counter Teleport' start showing at 15-20 range at latest. Maybe at 10. But enemy having Teleport does not necessarily mean that you need Teleport. Same for fly. But the reverse IS true. If the PC's have

Cool, that is exactly how Wizards work and exactly how Fighters don't work.

As pointed out by digiman619, neither qualifies, as Fighter has too little and Wizard way too much.

Because it is fundamentally unbalanced? If it is bad that the Wizard overshadows the Fighter in combat and out of combat, it isn't any less bad if each overshadows the other half the time. Now you've just ensured that someone is always unhappy.

Specialization does not imply ineptitude outside that area. It does imply lesser aptitude. So again, the problem is that T1 casters exceed or equal most classes in just about all areas, they themselves are not really equalled in any respect be anything of same level. That includes monsters. And that has been my point. In order to move the balance point to Wizards, the game needs a redesign from almost ground up. All classes need to be moved to T1, all monsters need to be re-scaled to fit into the defined development curve, and the high end needs to be repopulated because of all the things that need to be moved down because the T1 trivializes them. So nerfing T1 and T2 is just significantly easier to do in a satisfying manner.

They take away what class features the Wizard receives. They do actually exist in PF through the magic of Backwards Compatibility. PrCs are no less default options than any other splat content.

Backwards compatibility is not default, and if I used that why would I play PF at all? (other than the fact that it's free, which is why I play it) But I also think that cutting most of the crap like Prestige Classes that are just flat buffs over the base class was exactly the right move. As pointed out, CASTING is the main Wizard Class Feature. If you don't cut that, you shouldn't give out anything either. (or rather, what you give should be equivalent to what you take. All the way from what each base class gets all the way up to every other point of the game)

Faily

2017-09-25, 01:01 PM

It´s symptomatic for parts of this whole discussion. On one hand, people want fair and balanced encounters with the rules giving an underlying structure how a gm should achieve this (CR, WBL and so on), while at the same time, optimization culture partly has taken the form to not optimize a character to better function within the constraints of that system, but rather seeking ways to circumvent the system as a whole, or, more extreme, using the system as a means to force the gm into a passive role of service provider, taking away "gm agency", like Cosi advocating the use of spells to skip the "boring" parts.

ToH is less about "boasting" but more about being a reminder that "player agency" has limits that are defined by the overall premise of the game and some things can only ever be achieved by willfully going against the spirit of the game whilst using RAW as an excuse to do so.

Since I'm not phone-posting now (also quoting Florian to continue the ToH-point):

Wikipedia:
Tomb of Horrors is an adventure module written by Gary Gygax for the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) role-playing game. It was originally written for and used at the 1975 Origins 1 convention. Gygax designed the adventure both to challenge the skill of expert players in his own campaign, and to test players who boasted of having mighty player characters able to best any challenge.
----
Gygax developed the adventure from an idea by Alan Lucien, one of his original AD&D playtesters, "and I admit to chuckling evilly as I did so."[7] Gygax designed the Tomb of Horrors modules for two related purposes. First, Gygax explains, "There were several very expert players in my campaign, and this was meant as yet another challenge to their skill—and the persistence of their theretofore-invincible characters. Specifically, I had in mind foiling Rob Kuntz's PC, Robilar, and Ernie Gygax's PC, Tenser." Second, so that he was "ready for those fans [players] who boasted of having mighty PCs able to best any challenge offered by the AD&D game."

It is quite clear in its intended design that it is not a "daring and exciting adventure" but a challenge to players, both at his own table and at conventions, who either wanted greater challenges or claimed that they could overcome any challenge in AD&D. :smallwink:

Tomb of Horrors is fun for some players, and not fun for others. Just like certain playstyles is fine for some players, but not for others. Neither preference is "wrong". Myself and many other posters in this thread like our D&D/PF with Teleport, Fly, and Invisibility - for our playstyles, they're not "Negative Play Experiences" or "game-enders". For us, they are tools that help tell different stories or advance plots. Because it works perfectly fine in our groups to have Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards in the same party and everyone is having fun.

The most important is at least to communicate with your playgroup what sort of games you like to play and how your group can work better together to create fun for everyone.

Kallimakus

2017-09-25, 01:03 PM

There shouldn't be problems only some characters can overcome. That leads to bad things when no one wants to play the Healer or the Rogue. What there should be are solutions that have different merits. So, for example, the Wizard has teleport. That's a useful power. It transports you very rapidly, with very high precision, and with very low risk. But it has range limitations, capacity limitations, and can only be used a certain number of times per day. So you could give the Rogue an ability that wasn't quite as fast as teleport, but could be used more often. You could give the Range an ability that was lower precision than teleport, but transported a larger number of people.

True and false. There should be challenges that a character struggles to overcome on their own. Indeed, in a game designed for four, a single character probably should not have easy solutions to half the problems. But three characters of any stripe should really be able to solve just about any problem that they should face. and problems that don't fit into this paradigm should be vanishingly rare. But situations where it is preferable to have a certain kind of character speak to me of good design, provided that other characters can overcome it with more difficulty.

This is, of course, on some level conjectural. If you were doing this, the place to start wouldn't be "what abilities should the Ranger have at 10th level", but "what challenges should a 10th level party be able to overcome". Once you had that you can look at see what tools people need, then give people versions of those tools.[/QUOTE]

I suggested this, actually, only faced a bit differently. My approach is distinctly monster-centric, because of the game's combat focus.

digiman619

2017-09-25, 01:51 PM

What kinds of choices do you think players should be allowed to make. Suppose the DM wants us to defeat the Evil Baron by sneaking into his castle by disguising ourselves as guards, poisoning his food, escaping with his pet dragon dogging our heels, and then turning his lands over to the king, how much of that are we obligated to do? A: Can we go into the mountains to fight the giants and ignore the Baron altogether? B: Can we sneak in through the sewers? C: Can we kill him in his sleep? D: Can we fight the dragon? E: Can we take over his lands?
In order, A) Your DM should have more than one plot hook ready in case you ignore one, b) No, you would have been tasked with killing the Evil Baron and "sneak in and poison him" should only be one way complete the task, C) That's one of the many options you should have, D) I would say yes, but others would claim that having a too-powerful enemy that you should run from is a good thing, and E) You can, but that will radically change the tone of the campaign and should be something that all the players agree with doing.

No they don't. People will not just go off to blank spots on the map (unless the blank-ness is a plot point). They will go to places that interest them. Anything that interests the players should already be in your notes, because otherwise how is it interesting the players?
That's assuming that the map is accurate, or that something new hasn't shown up since it was written. There are plenty of campaign hooks that start with "As you are passing, you notice..."

D&D's combat minigame is sufficiently foundational that almost no class maps well to "does a bunch of non-combat stuff that is flashy, but very little combat stuff". It's not like Power Points are a better fit for a Wizard who spends his time on week-long rituals to summon demons.
Oh, if only a subsystem (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/rituals) like that (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/incantations) existed...

There are plenty of characters who are comparable to D&D Wizards. You have yet to bother to engage with the reality that they do, in fact, exist. Also, you insist on assuming that I have to be defending Wizards that abuse e.g. planar binding and polymorph. Characters from WoT, Malazan, Riftwar, the Cosmere, and any number of other properties could compete with Wizards in the 10+ range. You may not like those concepts, but D&D cannot be confined exclusively to any one person's tastes.
I haven't read any of those. Can you give me specific characters so I can determine if that's right?

There shouldn't be problems only some characters can overcome. That leads to bad things when no one wants to play the Healer or the Rogue. What there should be are solutions that have different merits. So, for example, the Wizard has teleport. That's a useful power. It transports you very rapidly, with very high precision, and with very low risk. But it has range limitations, capacity limitations, and can only be used a certain number of times per day. So you could give the Rogue an ability that wasn't quite as fast as teleport, but could be used more often. You could give the Range an ability that was lower precision than teleport, but transported a larger number of people.

This is, of course, on some level conjectural. If you were doing this, the place to start wouldn't be "what abilities should the Ranger have at 10th level", but "what challenges should a 10th level party be able to overcome". Once you had that you can look at see what tools people need, then give people versions of those tools.
A few thoughts:
1) "There shouldn't be some problems only some characters can overcome". That is how the current system works (Forbiddance says hi.)
2) Balancing "This ability can only be used X times a day" isn't a great factor because that number increases as you level.
But of course, the biggest thing I notice:
3) That is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked for "3 tasks that a Wizard can't do, but an Ideal martial could". Even if I construe "teleport more often/with more people" as a task (and that's being incredibly generous as they clearly can do that, just not as well), that's only one. I'm asking for things they cannot do. Prefereably things that aren't "things wizards could do anyway, but under an anti-magic field".

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 02:00 PM

3) That is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked for "3 tasks that a Wizard can't do, but an Ideal martial could". Even if I construe "teleport more often/with more people" as a task (and that's being incredibly generous as they clearly can do that, just not as well), that's only one. I'm asking for things they cannot do. Prefereably things that aren't "things wizards could do anyway, but under an anti-magic field".

I believe his point is "that's an invalid question, because wizards being able to do anything is a good thing and anyone who wants to compete with one should be similarly omnipotent." Which for some reason he doesn't consider to be the same thing as "everyone is playing the exact same character wearing different hats."

dascarletm

2017-09-25, 03:29 PM

It is important to have obstacles in a game that cannot be directly overcome by class abilities. It forces players to drive the story around said obstacle.

EDIT: bolded

Cosi

2017-09-25, 03:30 PM

But you know, there are plenty of classes that occupy the comfortable tier of being challenged but not overwhelmed by level appropriate challenges throughout their careers. How about we balanced around those, instead of the highest or the lowest point possible to achieve?

I agree, we should balance around Wizards.

This is a fair point, but not achievable in an existing setting, since the GM cannot control what the players know about the world. I have pointed this out previously.

But an existing setting also has material at all of those locations. That's part of the advantage to using an existing setting.

Because If I remove game-breaking abilities, the game is no longer broken.

What does it mean for something to be game-breaking? Is it relative or absolute? Can something be game-breaking in one game, but fine in others?

But who gets to assign what is appropriate for 20th level? Is it the Wizard? Is it the Fighter? Probably not either.

In the abstract, I agree that balance should be determined by compromise. But your side is not willing to do that. Digiman like "Tier Three" content like Spheres of Power. I like "Tier One" content like Wizards. His position is that we should "compromise" by using Spheres of Power instead of Wizards. I'll admit to not being a trained negotiator, but that doesn't really look like a "compromise" to me.

Specialization does not imply ineptitude outside that area. It does imply lesser aptitude. So again, the problem is that T1 casters exceed or equal most classes in just about all areas

If tomorrow Paizo released a book that was just a hundred different PC classes that were worse than the Fighter, would that change the correct balance point? If yes, your position does not make sense. If no, it doesn't matter how many classes are worse than some particular class.

As pointed out, CASTING is the main Wizard Class Feature. If you don't cut that, you shouldn't give out anything either.

In the abstract, yes. In the particular case of 3e, giving some marginal free power in exchange for diversifying Wizard builds is a good trade.

True and false. There should be challenges that a character struggles to overcome on their own. Indeed, in a game designed for four, a single character probably should not have easy solutions to half the problems.

If each class solves 40% of problems, and your group contains 4 classes, a randomly selected group of classes (a plausible approximation of "people play what they want to play") will be unable to solve .6^4 ~= 13% of problems. That's bad. Also, they will have only one solution to many problems, which is bad because it removes the element of resource management present when multiple comparable solutions exist.

In order, A) Your DM should have more than one plot hook ready in case you ignore one,

You mean like "this thing over here were you are, and that thing over there you have to teleport to"?

No, you would have been tasked with killing the Evil Baron and "sneak in and poison him" should only be one way complete the task,

So it is acceptable for the DM to force you to fight some particular opponent?

I haven't read any of those. Can you give me specific characters so I can determine if that's right?

1) "There shouldn't be some problems only some characters can overcome". That is how the current system works (Forbiddance says hi.)

I suppose it depends on how you define problem. Certainly, forbiddance makes defending against teleport easier, but it's far from the only solution.

2) Balancing "This ability can only be used X times a day" isn't a great factor because that number increases as you level.

Pretty sure X is always less than "infinity".

3) That is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked for "3 tasks that a Wizard can't do, but an Ideal martial could". Even if I construe "teleport more often/with more people" as a task (and that's being incredibly generous as they clearly can do that, just not as well), that's only one. I'm asking for things they cannot do. Prefereably things that aren't "things wizards could do anyway, but under an anti-magic field".

You asked a bad question. If I asked you "what are three character classes you think should be allowed to be more powerful than the rest of the party?", you would be well within your rights to say "that is not a thing I want the game to support" (to be clear, this is not something I want).

I believe his point is "that's an invalid question, because wizards being able to do anything is a good thing and anyone who wants to compete with one should be similarly omnipotent." Which for some reason he doesn't consider to be the same thing as "everyone is playing the exact same character wearing different hats."

Yes, because as we all know the fact that every character is able to contribute in combat implies that there is no difference between blasters and battlefield controllers. Wait, no, that's stupid and so is your point.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 03:32 PM

It is important to have obstacles in a game that cannot be overcome by class abilities. It forces players to drive the story around said obstacle.

There is literally nothing better for the game than being forced onto a railroad to solve problems. That is the best thing, and every RPG should make sure it is supported.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 03:39 PM

Yes, because as we all know the fact that every character is able to contribute in combat implies that there is no difference between blasters and battlefield controllers.

If every character can do both of those things, there's no difference between them, no.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 03:43 PM

If every character can do both of those things, there's no difference between them, no.

Yes, fireball and earthquake are the same ability. You can tell by how they have different names.

Segev

2017-09-25, 03:44 PM

It is important to have obstacles in a game that cannot be overcome by class abilities. It forces players to drive the story around said obstacle.The goal should be to come up with those obstacles, and to then let players find ways to use (combinations of) class abilities to overcome them. Not to throw one's hands in the air and say, "Because flying is a thing, chasms are no longer obstacles. Flying OP."

There is literally nothing better for the game than being forced onto a railroad to solve problems. That is the best thing, and every RPG should make sure it is supported.To be fair, that's not what he said. He is right; good obstacles drive the plot by forcing players to come up with strategic uses of their powers and capabilities to overcome them. It need not be a railroad. The chasm with a troll archer on the far end inside an armored bunker who demands a toll be placed in his zipline-enabled payment bucket before he'll lower the drawbridge is a challenging obstacle. He will shoot those who try to jump or fly across. He's got cover. But he's not unbeatable. He's just got a good position and makes you think about how you're going to get across. Flying may help, but it won't one-off solve the problem.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:01 PM

Yes, fireball and earthquake are the same ability. You can tell by how they have different names.

The effects of earthquake can be largely replicated through Wizard spells (transmute rock to mud, for example). And of course fireball and flame strike aren't really all that meaningfully distinct from one another.

But no, you're right. Similarly, a car and a truck have nothing in common, because one has a steering wheel and the other has seats.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 04:10 PM

To be fair, that's not what he said. He is right; good obstacles drive the plot by forcing players to come up with strategic uses of their powers and capabilities to overcome them.

But that's not what he said. That's what he was disagreeing with, and quite explicitly so. He said "cannot be overcome by class abilities", not "can only be overcome by clever use of class abilities".

But no, you're right. Similarly, a car and a truck have nothing in common, because one has a steering wheel and the other has seats.

There's a difference between "nothing in common" and "no difference". I would imagine that most people who own a car would be upset if your replaced it with a truck, and most people who own a truck would be upset if you replaced it with a car. Given that, it seems quite reasonable to say that they are different, and the choice between one or the other is meaningful.

Segev

2017-09-25, 04:13 PM

But that's not what he said. That's what he was disagreeing with, and quite explicitly so. He said "cannot be overcome by class abilities", not "can only be overcome by clever use of class abilities".

I may be being overly generous, but in context of the thread title, it seems to me that he was saying/implying obstacles are not useful if they can be overcome by single, straight-forward applications of class features. i.e., "win buttons."

I replied to him as I did to disagree if he meant anything broader than that, but to agree that it's generally best to design obstacles so that the obvious "win buttons" are merely reasonable tools to use as part of the ultimate solution.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:16 PM

There's a difference between "nothing in common" and "no difference". I would imagine that most people who own a car would be upset if your replaced it with a truck, and most people who own a truck would be upset if you replaced it with a car. Given that, it seems quite reasonable to say that they are different, and the choice between one or the other is meaningful.

As long as the new vehicle was capable of the same things, the only meaningful difference would be aesthetics. I.e., same thing different hat.

If they can't do the same things, well then they have things they can't do, and thus are not a useful metaphor to generalist casters who you insist on not having any.

BRC

2017-09-25, 04:17 PM

I think that part of the issue here might be that D&D wizards are basically swiss army knives, capable of switching from battlefield controller, to blaster, to utility focus, all on a day-to-day basis. Sure, you could be slightly better at one or the other, but a party of 4 High-level Wizards will have access to basically the same set of tricks.

Unlike, say, taking a Greatsword Fighter and replacing them with an archery fighter, then giving the archer a greatsword, if you take one 15th level Wizard, replace them with a different Wizard, and give that second wizard the first wizard's spellbook, you won't really lose that much. Especially when it comes to puzzle-solving Utility spells.

Balancing around Wizards might work better in a system with more forced specialization, where a Blaster Wizard and a Battlefield-control Illusionist require totally different builds.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:20 PM

Cosi

2017-09-25, 04:22 PM

If they can't do the same things, well then they have things they can't do, and thus are not a useful metaphor to generalist casters who you insist on not having any.

Well, no, you just don't believe "cast earthquake" is a thing.

As an analogy, consider MTG. Legacy decks are better than Modern decks. The card pool is strictly larger (nothing is banned in Legacy that is legal in Modern (https://magiccards.info/query?q=banned%3Alegacy+AND+format%3Amodern&v=card&s=cname)), and yet the format manages to maintain diversity. Because everything gets more powerful, so even though things are more powerful than modern, they are still balanced.

To bring this back to D&D, you are refusing to consider that while the powers of a Wizard are greater than those of a Warblade, the power of their peers (e.g. Clerics) and the challenges they are supposed to face are also greater. You're trying to measure just power, but that's not the relevant metric. If your enemies and your allies also become more powerful, nothing breaks if you become more powerful -- indeed, things break if you don't.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:27 PM

To bring this back to D&D, you are refusing to consider that while the powers of a Wizard are greater than those of a Warblade, the power of their peers (e.g. Clerics) and the challenges they are supposed to face are also greater. You're trying to measure just power, but that's not the relevant metric. If your enemies and your allies also become more powerful, nothing breaks if you become more powerful -- indeed, things break if you don't.

Except MtG was designed that way. D&D was not built around one level of power "omnipotent pajama-wearers" and then a different level of power "guys with sharp metal things" and had different challenges designed for each. They built one difficulty curve which the former category sits WAY, WAY ABOVE because they didn't pay attention to what they were doing. Your enemies and allies don't grow in power with you when you're a mage. YOU become a god, and they sit around expecting to be a relevant challenge to somebody with access to pointy metal.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 04:31 PM

They built one difficulty curve which the former category sits WAY, WAY ABOVE because they didn't pay attention to what they were doing.

Until you've run a SGT, I suggest you stop making claims about balance, because people who know where the balance points empirically are will be able to tell you're wrong.

Your enemies and allies don't grow in power with you when you're a mage. YOU become a god, and they sit around expecting to be a relevant challenge to somebody with access to pointy metal.

They do if they are classes like Beguiler, Druid, or Cleric that are balanced with the Wizard. Similarly, the game doesn't break if the Fighter always plays only with classes on his level. You are arguing that because the game is imbalanced now, it is impossible for it to be balanced. That's obviously false because you've already admitted there are classes balanced with the Wizard.

Florian

2017-09-25, 04:34 PM

I agree, we should balance around Wizards.

Yeah... no. I´m perfectly happy playing Captain America, beating the snot out of Iron Man if I have to.
Now bugger off and go play MtG and don´t try to confuse that with an RPG.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:35 PM

That's obviously false because you've already admitted there are classes balanced with the Wizard.

How many times do we need to repeat that it's not about the Wizard class? The problem isn't the Wizard class, it's generalist casters. The Beguiler isn't balanced to the wizard, because the Beguiler is an Illusionist, aka a specialist, whereas the Wizard can be an Illusionist and also anything else he wants.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 04:41 PM

Yeah... no. I´m perfectly happy playing Captain America, beating the snot out of Iron Man if I have to.
Now bugger off and go play MtG and don´t try to confuse that with an RPG.

Do you have a point? I mean, I assume not because you haven't ever before, but I suppose it has to happen at some point.

How many times do we need to repeat that it's not about the Wizard class? The problem isn't the Wizard class, it's generalist casters.]

Then you were lying when you said being a Wizard means leaving your companions in the dust. It only means that if your companions aren't classes that are balanced with the Wizard. Stop lying.

The Beguiler isn't balanced to the wizard, because the Beguiler is an Illusionist, aka a specialist, whereas the Wizard can be an Illusionist and also anything else he wants.

Yes it is. Normally, I would put some analysis about Prestige Domains or whatever, but you don't seem to see the need to provide any evidence, so why should I bother?

Talakeal

2017-09-25, 04:43 PM

If people were upset with you for not using abilities you did have, why on earth would they be any less unhappy with you for not having those abilities at all? And no, you can't just balance around that, because now you've taken away their abilities too, which is even worse. Fundamentally, the character you want is worse than the character they want, and you cannot both be happy.

I have no idea why people are more accepting of mechanical / forced limitations than self-imposed / RP limitations, but I can assure you that it is the case. I started a very long thread about it earlier this year, and although I never quite got into the other side's head, I can assure you that they do feel that way.

For another example, there was a thread on this board about a player whose group was mad at them for making a cleric with the self imposed flaw of being afraid of crowds. This is despite the fact that, by virtue of being a cleric, their character was still the strongest member of the party even with said flaw.

Also, the solution to both being happy is that you let the other person play whatever character they want and not worry about what other people are doing, instead let everyone make due with what they have.

Now obviously, this is within reason, I wouldn't expect someone to play Pun-Pun or a commoner in a standard D&D party, but if one person wants to play a wizard and one person wants to play a fighter they just need to get over themselves and stop telling other people how to have fun IMO.

In the abstract, I agree that balance should be determined by compromise. But your side is not willing to do that. Digiman like "Tier Three" content like Spheres of Power. I like "Tier One" content like Wizards. His position is that we should "compromise" by using Spheres of Power instead of Wizards. I'll admit to not being a trained negotiator, but that doesn't really look like a "compromise" to me.

People with a moderate position should not have to compromise with one extreme as that ignores the other extreme.

A compromise between people who like T3 and T1 might result in T2 as a balancing point, but that pretends people who prefer T4 and T5 don't exist, if we factor them in we get right back to the T3 compromise point.

This isn't a compromise between two people, it is a compromise for the D&D community as a whole.

There is literally nothing better for the game than being forced onto a railroad to solve problems. That is the best thing, and every RPG should make sure it is supported.

Weren't you arguing a few pages ago that it is awesome when the DM puts problems into the game that can only be solved by a specific class ability? How is it that putting a location that can only be accessed by teleporting is an awesome set-piece, but a location that can can't be accessed by teleportation is a railroad?

And there we go again. "The characters you want are fundamentally not something I will accept as appropriate for the game at any point and must be destroyed entirely".

See, what I, and I think most people, want is for every class in the PHB to be a valid choice from levels 1-20, the level range that the PHB covers.

When you say that martials should be banned in high level games and casters banned in low level games, it sounds like you are the one telling people that their character is fundamentally not something you will accept and must be destroyed.

The character you want has a place, but it is in the high epic range. A level 20 character is supposed to be challenged by Balors, Pit Fiends, Older Dragons, Titans, Tarrasques, Krakens, and Nightshades, but you want a nigh omnipotent reality warper like Q or Mr. Myxylpytl or Tzeentch or Urza. Those things just aren't in the same weight class.

And if that was your premise, that you want to play a high epic game for omnipotent reality warpers and someone else wanted to be Conan, that's a different premise than standard 1-20 quests and monsters D&D.

Although, I will say, Conan could still be appropriate in such a game, but Conan's player needs to understand that he is going to mostly be an observer / social character and not get mad when overshadowed, you need to not get mad that he isn't "pulling his weight," and the DM needs to understand the difference in character power and keep it in mind when balancing the difficulty curve of the game.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-25, 04:46 PM

How many times do we need to repeat that it's not about the Wizard class? The problem isn't the Wizard class, it's generalist casters. The Beguiler isn't balanced to the wizard, because the Beguiler is an Illusionist, aka a specialist, whereas the Wizard can be an Illusionist and also anything else he wants.

Why are you still arguing with Cosi? He's made it abundantly clear that he's not going to change his mind and he gives zero care to your opinion on the matter.

So why bother? You (likely) aren't in a game with him, and if you want to homebrew a balance fix to 3.5 you certainly don't need his permission or help.

Because at this point I see most of everyone arguing with Cosi, and only Cosi. And the conversation seems to be going nowhere, because Cosi refuses to admit/deal with the problem of casters.

digiman619

2017-09-25, 04:46 PM

But an existing setting also has material at all of those locations. That's part of the advantage to using an existing setting.
That's fair. On the other hand, if they are using teleport as a "fast-forward until we reach the next town" button, what's the difference between teleport and teleport circle?"

What does it mean for something to be game-breaking? Is it relative or absolute? Can something be game-breaking in one game, but fine in others?
I see what you're getting at, but that con only be defined by using what we have instead of what was promised. Tiers and optimazation levels are a thing, but judging on the rules (unless you have testimony that proves otherwise), this was not the intent.

In the abstract, I agree that balance should be determined by compromise. But your side is not willing to do that. Digiman like "Tier Three" content like Spheres of Power. I like "Tier One" content like Wizards. His position is that we should "compromise" by using Spheres of Power instead of Wizards. I'll admit to not being a trained negotiator, but that doesn't really look like a "compromise" to me.
Okay, let me ask you this. If the rather than the magic that exists now, it only existed in 1st-6th rather than 1-9th. Would you still like it? If in that consolation, it got rid of all the broken and extraneous spell that 99% of spellcasters would ignore. Would you like it? Are you against the idea of spontaneous casters, even if they got rid of the various nerfs they have vs prepared casters?

If each class solves 40% of problems, and your group contains 4 classes, a randomly selected group of classes (a plausible approximation of "people play what they want to play") will be unable to solve .6^4 ~= 13% of problems. That's bad. Also, they will have only one solution to many problems, which is bad because it removes the element of resource management present when multiple comparable solutions exist.
Only if you assume each problem only has one answer. As a general GMing rule, when you design an adventure, have at least three viable solutions to every encounter; the riddle that you know that answer to is only easy for you.

So it is acceptable for the DM to force you to fight some particular opponent?
Are you saying you never have a benfical questgiver in your games? Since the scenario you posed ended with "retrun control of it to the king", it only makes sense you are doing it on behest of the king or one of his people. There are tons of viable "We need to do X to complete our objective" missions and I was operating under the assumption that there was in in-character reason rather than your DM saying "Here's what you're going to do..."

I haven't read any of those. Can you give me specific characters so I can determine if that's right?
I asked this last. I think you forgot to put quotes around it. Or answer it.

I suppose it depends on how you define problem. Certainly, forbiddance makes defending against teleport easier, but it's far from the only solution.
It's the only solution you've brought up. And I've gotta assume it's the lowest level one one because if there was a 5th level anti-teleport spell, you'd have mentioned it when I claimed that levels 9 & 10 are ideal "ascry and die" times becasue the countermeasure isn't available yet.

Pretty sure X is always less than "infinity".
Are you suggesting that martials get at-will SLAs of lower level spells? Because that's the first time you've suggested it. Besides, in practice, they don't run out of slots, so they could have an infinite number of spells available.

Yes, because as we all know the fact that every character is able to contribute in combat implies that there is no difference between blasters and battlefield controllers. Wait, no, that's stupid and so is your point.

If every character can do both of those things, there's no difference between them, no.

Yes, fireball and earthquake are the same ability. You can tell by how they have different names.
Excpet a) if it's on a preapared caster's list, there's nothing from stopping from using both, and b) you arguing out of bad faith again, as you know for a fact that fireball is a 3rd level spell and earthquake is an 8th.

You asked a bad question. If I asked you "what are three character classes you think should be allowed to be more powerful than the rest of the party?", you would be well within your rights to say "that is not a thing I want the game to support" (to be clear, this is not something I want).
No, it's not. You have said multiple times that your ideal system is one where everyone enjoys the power and versatiilty that Wizards do now. You also supported the claim that by Kallimakus that said "Every class should have something to do everywhere by default, but should only be able to easily solve a handful to promote teamwork."

If you believe both statements, then by very definition the martial will have some answers the wizard does not. There has to be unique answers to problems, even if multiple anwers can solve it. Unless, of course, you only want the martila to have 15% and the wizard to have 65% or 10% and 70%+. But that would mean that you are lying about wanting balance. Which begs the question: If you want the wizard to have incredible power and the martial to have little if any power, why are you complaining?"

BRC

2017-09-25, 04:49 PM

You've summed up roughly the last 10-15 pages of debate. Problem is, Cosi likes Swiss Army Wizards and thinks everyone else should get on their level, rather than set things up where specialization is actually necessary.

I can accept a situation where a single Swiss Army Wizard is fine. The issue is, if you say that "Everybody should be wizards", then everybody ends up playing basically the same character, and we're back to my old argument about character build diversity and optimization levels.
If I recall, Cosi and others responded to that by saying "You can have lots of diversity within the Wizard class".

But, when everybody has access to the same spell list, with only minor variations based on feats and class features (Wizard Bob is BETTER at casting Fireball then Wizard Dan, but they can both cast fireball).

Well, no, you just don't believe "cast earthquake" is a thing.

As an analogy, consider MTG. Legacy decks are better than Modern decks. The card pool is strictly larger (nothing is banned in Legacy that is legal in Modern (https://magiccards.info/query?q=banned%3Alegacy+AND+format%3Amodern&v=card&s=cname)), and yet the format manages to maintain diversity. Because everything gets more powerful, so even though things are more powerful than modern, they are still balanced.

To bring this back to D&D, you are refusing to consider that while the powers of a Wizard are greater than those of a Warblade, the power of their peers (e.g. Clerics) and the challenges they are supposed to face are also greater. You're trying to measure just power, but that's not the relevant metric. If your enemies and your allies also become more powerful, nothing breaks if you become more powerful -- indeed, things break if you don't.

But, this isn't just a question of Raw Power, it's a question of Utility, and that's where the Wizard class is especially problematic. Because, a Wizard can change what it's good at daily, and so doesn't have a set "Skillset". A Wizard is a Generalist.

A part of a Cleric, a Beguiler, a Druid, and a Sorcerer is probably fine.

Need an Illusion? The Beguiler is here. Need some healing? The Cleric! Want to lay down some serious firepower? SORCERER POWERS ACTIVATE!

Heck, you could do a party of 4 sorcerers, if they agreed to avoid knowing the same spells.

But, a key part of the Wizard's power is it's versatility. So, the only class "balanced around Wizard" is the Wizard. And, by the nature of the Wizard as a versatile generalist, any TWO wizards can be basically interchangeable. If, by some restriction or limitation you cut down on that versatility, say limiting them to a handful of schools each, then you're nerfing Wizards.

Drakevarg

2017-09-25, 04:50 PM

Then you were lying when you said being a Wizard means leaving your companions in the dust. It only means that if your companions aren't classes that are balanced with the Wizard. Stop lying.

For the eleventy-billionth time, Wizard = all-purpose caster in common parlance.

Yes it is. Normally, I would put some analysis about Prestige Domains or whatever, but you don't seem to see the need to provide any evidence, so why should I bother?

Beguilers are incapable of summoning, or blasting, or healing. For a huge swath of magical options, they need someone else to do those things for them, or bring a scroll. A Wizard? Take a nap, they can do those things tomorrow.

Kallimakus

2017-09-25, 04:53 PM

But you know, there are plenty of classes that occupy the comfortable tier of being challenged but not overwhelmed by level appropriate challenges throughout their careers. How about we balanced around those, instead of the highest or the lowest point possible to achieve?

I agree, we should balance around Wizards.

I am not sure how you reached this conclusion.

But an existing setting also has material at all of those locations. That's part of the advantage to using an existing setting.

Material that I might not have access to, but the existence of which is implied by something the player knows. The argument 'it exists' is invalid here.

What does it mean for something to be game-breaking? Is it relative or absolute? Can something be game-breaking in one game, but fine in others?

I don't want to go on a full tangent about game-breaking things. If it is significantly beyond what the designers intended (i.e. can overcome what by game design states should be challenging obstacles trivially) it is a game-breaker. If I have to design encounters around a specific ability, that is a good indication that the ability is broken, rather than the rest of the game.

In the abstract, I agree that balance should be determined by compromise. But your side is not willing to do that. Digiman like "Tier Three" content like Spheres of Power. I like "Tier One" content like Wizards. His position is that we should "compromise" by using Spheres of Power instead of Wizards. I'll admit to not being a trained negotiator, but that doesn't really look like a "compromise" to me.

Spheres of Power is a compromise between martials and casters that both elevates martials (through various archetypes, as well as rituals and invocations that brings magic to them), and brings casters down to reasonable levels. That makes it a compromise. The fact that some people have already reached the point of compromise does not mean you should move goalposts there.

If tomorrow Paizo released a book that was just a hundred different PC classes that were worse than the Fighter, would that change the correct balance point? If yes, your position does not make sense. If no, it doesn't matter how many classes are worse than some particular class.

This is a stupid argument. No. Because Balance is based around the rest of the game, not PC classes. The game design does not provide me with guidelines as to what kind of out-of-combat challenges are appropriate to what level, so I must default to combat challenges, which even a fighter can generally handle appropriately. I hope I do not need to reiterate that this doesn't mean that Fighter is the right balance point.

In the abstract, yes. In the particular case of 3e, giving some marginal free power in exchange for diversifying Wizard builds is a good trade.

I ask again, how, fundamentally, are these Prestige classes different from Wizard, because I honestly do not know what makes them so different. Because as far as I understand, they are all pretty much Wizard+. Which isn't really helping when you are adding to what is already too much.

If each class solves 40% of problems, and your group contains 4 classes, a randomly selected group of classes (a plausible approximation of "people play what they want to play") will be unable to solve .6^4 ~= 13% of problems. That's bad. Also, they will have only one solution to many problems, which is bad because it removes the element of resource management present when multiple comparable solutions exist.

Because problems are not binary can/can't solve. At least they shouldn't be. I even outright stated it. And not all problems need to be overcome. Much like not every combat needs to be won. Sometimes it is okay to not win outright.

You asked a bad question. If I asked you "what are three character classes you think should be allowed to be more powerful than the rest of the party?", you would be well within your rights to say "that is not a thing I want the game to support" (to be clear, this is not something I want).

We believe that it is important there is NO 'master of all' class. Which means that there MUST be things that wizard CAN'T do that a martial CAN do, since the game promises that martials and casters are equally good choices. So without compromising the identity of 'badasss guy that doesn't need spells', which, again, the game promises us is a valid level 20 character concept regardless of whether you like it or not, what abilities should they have that spellcasters don't?

90sMusic

2017-09-25, 05:01 PM

Why didn't frodo just ride eagles to Mount Doom?

dascarletm

2017-09-25, 05:03 PM

There is literally nothing better for the game than being forced onto a railroad to solve problems. That is the best thing, and every RPG should make sure it is supported.

Who said anything about railroading? How did you arrive at that? I'm curious what your actual DnD games look like if that is what you think I meant. In fact that is one of the most ludicrous things I've seen all day. "Players driving the story" is the exact opposite, in fact. That was exactly what I said. If you cannot resurrect an NPC you need to resurrect, for example, you can do something else for someone who can.

The goal should be to come up with those obstacles, and to then let players find ways to use (combinations of) class abilities to overcome them. Not to throw one's hands in the air and say, "Because flying is a thing, chasms are no longer obstacles. Flying OP."
Yes, class abilities, or non-class abilities. If you need to read an inscription on the royal jewels and no one for example has the skill to sneak in and steal it, you can always hire a thief to do the job for you for example. This isn't for every obstacle, but lacking the ability to overcome something in a specific party is not a game-breaker is my point.

Cosi

2017-09-25, 06:12 PM

Why are you still arguing with Cosi? He's made it abundantly clear that he's not going to change his mind and he gives zero care to your opinion on the matter.

You realize exactly as many people on your side have changed their minds, right? I have moved exactly as much as anyone else in this thread. So singling me out is just saying lobbing ad hominems because you don't have any argument for your positon.

That's fair. On the other hand, if they are using teleport as a "fast-forward until we reach the next town" button, what's the difference between teleport and telepoer circle?"

You're going to have to clarify, because teleport circle is just a better version of teleport by RAW.

I see what you're getting at, but that con only be defined by using what we have instead of what was promised. Tiers and optimazation levels are a thing, but judging on the rules (unless you have testimony that proves otherwise), this was not the intent.

I have yet to see this promise. Where is it? What is it? What does it promise? Does it promise that my generic fantasy setting will have an elven empire? Does it promise that the setting won't include gunpowder?

Okay, let me ask you this. If the rather than the magic that exists now, it only existed in 1st-6th rather than 1-9th. Would you still like it?

Depends. Are we just cutting out everything over 7th? Are we shifting to the Bard progression for all classes? What are we doing with monsters that have 7th level SLAs? What about e.g. true resurrection or other status removal spells?

If in that consolation, it got rid of all the broken and extraneous spell that 99% of spellcasters would ignore. Would you like it?

I suspect this is one of those things (like "classes should be balanced") where we agree in the abstract, but differ sharply in the particular. What do we mean by "broken"? What do we mean by "extraneous"? Are we replacing things like polymorph that, while broken, represent core fantasy concepts?

Are you against the idea of spontaneous casters, even if they got rid of the various nerfs they have vs prepared casters?

We've had this discussion earlier. I like spontaneous casters. The Beguiler and the Dread Necromancer are quite able to be equal participants in a party with Wizards and Clerics, particularly with minor shifts like expanding their default lists or making PrCs they benefit from (notably, ones that expand a caster's list) full progression. In general, I think casting spontaneously is a pretty big advantage, and can compensate for a relatively large differential in list size, particularly through niche spells.

Only if you assume each problem only has one answer. As a general GMing rule, when you design an adventure, have at least three viable solutions to every encounter; the riddle that you know that answer to is only easy for you.

It seems like this is intentionally creating more work for DMs. Wouldn't it be simpler to present a list of appropriate non-combat challenges at each level, give classes enough tools to solve 70% of them each (which means a random group will have an answer for more than 99% of them), and then plug-and-play? That's the way monsters work, and it's pretty great for DMs.

I asked this last. I think you forgot to put quotes around it. Or answer it.

D'oh.

First, let's define the party. For this exercise, the rest of the party is:

Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order
Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage
Druid

Assuming the party is somewhere between 10th and 20th, probably in the 13th to 17th range. Optimization is high, but not total.

The Wizard is probably looking at knowing most of the best spells at any given level, plus some other options, but hasn't learned every single spell (though he does have some access to the spellpool). The Beguiler probably has several Prestige Domains (along with substitute domain) and has Shadow Illusions that are level + 10% real (so they never surpass 100% reality). The Druid uses Wild Shape freely (but with a relatively fair interpretation of inheritance rules so that she's not stacking multiple form's abilities), and probably has some options like Greenbound Summoning that make their summons more dangerous.

Characters do have minions abilities, but they don't have large numbers of permanent minions. They may use abilities outside combat (like charm person for infiltration), or summon allies in combat (like summon nature's ally). They have (or can produce) mundane wealth in excess of WBL, but there's something like the Wish Economy in place that stop that from translating into infinite personal power. Characters have access to a variety of options, but there are limits -- the Beguiler has a relatively low number of spells known at any given time, the Wizard has a sharp limit on his spellpool and doesn't know every spell, and the Druid has to prepare spells every day.

In general, this is roughly the balance point I would like to see the game at. Every character has some ability to contribute in any situation, but they all have capabilities the others can't match.

So, who could you add from fiction that would be able to contribute reasonably? Obviously, spoilers without any particular regard for anything.

1. Khellus (The Second Apocalypse). Khellus has permanent flight (self only, possible height limit), teleportation (LoS only, likely he can carry passengers), blasting (exact power level is unclear, notably works at a dramatically larger scale than D&D magic), demon summoning (the demons seem to be largely immune to mortal weapons, and have some magical ability, though they require a level of effort to control that is not fully clear), mind control (it's unclear to me exactly how useful this is, as IIRC it's only seen in used against someone who was already incapacitated), has something like plane shift (though the setting's cosmology is different from D&D's to some degree), and has some kind of symbiotic relationship with a god (it is unclear how this works or what exactly it entails). Those abilities are all at-will, or at least have a substantially lower daily cap than the Wizard's. He also has mental stats that are essentially arbitrarily high. He manipulates humans casually, sees through the disguise of a shapeshifter because of his understanding of anatomy, identifies a nuclear weapon on sight (at least as a bomb, it's not 100% clear to me if he knew exactly what it would do -- others with his powers successfully repaired/armed it), and does various other tricks with things like logic or learning languages. He also crafts some number of magic items, including an enchanted fireplace which allows him to see into every fire in his army. In-setting, his long term plans are to stop the titular Second Apocalypse and to eventually conquer hell and end damnation.
2. Pretender Gods (Dominions (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Dominions)). I'm not super familiar, but pretty much the whole list of globals is at least as good as anything D&D Wizards do. Options like "second sun", "no sun", or "endless winter" all exist. Also has a lot of summoning options, and the possibility of personally killing entire armies.
3. Anomander Rake (Malazan). Has a sword that steals souls and kills anyone it cuts, shapeshifts into a dragon, has various shadow magic (including teleportation), and rules a flying fortress full of dark elves (some of whom also turn into dragons, or have other magic) and other minions. Admittedly, not as clear on this as I could be, as I've only read the first book.
4. Dr Strange (Marvel). Even in the movies, he has teleport/plane shift and a time loop power that appears to be basically at-will true resurrection. He can project an astral form (kind of like astral projection, although he can be killed by sufficiently powerful magic). He has pretty much the gamut of "magic powers" -- illusions, conjuration, telekinesis, elemental powers. He also has more powerful stuff like temporal manipulation or the Black Speech, which is some kind of linguistic magic I'm not clear on.
5. The God Emperor of Man (Warhammer 40k). Powerful psionics, including something that sounds a lot like time stop. Has some kind of shape-shifting/alternate form ability, and teleporation. Apparently fought one of the C'Tan, which are (as I understand it) planet eating dark gods.

The list is probably skewed high to some degree. Willing to add more, but running low on time. One thing that strikes me as possible are the Hive Gods from Destiny, who have some pretty impressive feats.

It's the only solution you've brought up. And I've gotta assume it's the lowest level one one because if there was a 5th level anti-teleport spell, you'd have mentioned it when I claimed that levels 9 & 10 are ideal "ascry and die" times becasue the countermeasure isn't available yet.

I've mentioned earlier that I don't really think the core problem with scry-and-die is teleport. The problem is that you are dramatically more effective if you have your buffs up than if you don't, which makes ambush tactics as a whole disproportionately good.

Are you suggesting that martials get at-will SLAs of lower level spells? Because that's the first time you've suggested it. Besides, in practice, they don't run out of slots, so they could have an infinite number of spells available.

I've suggested earlier that the knock v Open Lock paradigm keep scaling, and that's essentially what this would be.

Excpet a) if it's on a preapared caster's list, there's nothing from stopping from using both, and b) you arguing out of bad faith again, as you know for a fact that fireball is a 3rd level spell and earthquake is an 8th.

I don't think it's bad faith to pick abilities of different levels when pointing out that different characters have different abilities, and the important thing is that earthquake is not a Wizard spell and fireball is not a Cleric spell.

If you believe both statements, then by very definition the martial will have some answers the wizard does not.

Sure, and I gave a couple of examples of that. But you seem to want the martials to have answers to questions Wizards can't answer, and that I don't support (and I hope I haven't come across that way).

A compromise between people who like T3 and T1 might result in T2 as a balancing point, but that pretends people who prefer T4 and T5 don't exist, if we factor them in we get right back to the T3 compromise point.

If I wrote a thousand classes that were worse than every printed class, would that move the optimal balance point down?

Weren't you arguing a few pages ago that it is awesome when the DM puts problems into the game that can only be solved by a specific class ability? How is it that putting a location that can only be accessed by teleporting is an awesome set-piece, but a location that can can't be accessed by teleportation is a railroad?

Because one makes player choice meaningful and the other makes it meaningless?

See, what I, and I think most people, want is for every class in the PHB to be a valid choice from levels 1-20, the level range that the PHB covers.

When you say that martials should be banned in high level games and casters banned in low level games, it sounds like you are the one telling people that their character is fundamentally not something you will accept and must be destroyed.

LITERALLY NO ONE DISAGREES ABOUT THIS. I have never said, and will never say, that I want some PHB classes to be worse than others. Stop claiming that is what I am saying. What I am saying is that high level characters need to be balanced, and that high level characters should be different from low level ones. That implies that sufficiently narrow concepts (like "know lots of languages" or "rules hell") will not be appropriate at all levels. That doesn't mean that Barbarian should be appropriate at all levels. It absolutely should. It should just be made appropriate by adjusting the Barbarian up rather than defining high level down.

The character you want has a place, but it is in the high epic range. A level 20 character is supposed to be challenged by Balors, Pit Fiends, Older Dragons, Titans, Tarrasques, Krakens, and Nightshades, but you want a nigh omnipotent reality warper like Q or Mr. Myxylpytl or Tzeentch or Urza. Those things just aren't in the same weight class.

Why does it have to be though? Why not scale everything to 20 so that 1 is whatever the weakest character the game supports is and 20 is the strongest?

Although, I will say, Conan could still be appropriate in such a game, but Conan's player needs to understand that he is going to mostly be an observer / social character and not get mad when overshadowed, you need to not get mad that he isn't "pulling his weight," and the DM needs to understand the difference in character power and keep it in mind when balancing the difficulty curve of the game.

You'd have to write a class for that, right? Presumably (giving Conan's title), it's going to be "Barbarian". What if I want to be a Barbarian and actively participate in an Epic game?

Forum Explorer

2017-09-25, 06:33 PM

You realize exactly as many people on your side have changed their minds, right? I have moved exactly as much as anyone else in this thread. So singling me out is just saying lobbing ad hominems because you don't have any argument for your positon.

That's because you're wrong. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I'm singling you out because you seem to be the only person they are arguing with. It's you vs all of them. But I suppose I can turn the question around to you. This argument has been going in circles, and everyone else clearly disagrees with you. And they aren't changing their position no matter what you say. So why are you continuing? You can play 3.5 all you want, and they can't stop you.

I mean, I get the value in discussing things and hearing a contrary opinion, but the conversation is repeating itself. Eventually you've got to agree to disagree.

dascarletm

2017-09-25, 07:02 PM

That's because you're wrong. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I'm singling you out because you seem to be the only person they are arguing with. It's you vs all of them. But I suppose I can turn the question around to you. This argument has been going in circles, and everyone else clearly disagrees with you. And they aren't changing their position no matter what you say. So why are you continuing? You can play 3.5 all you want, and they can't stop you.

I mean, I get the value in discussing things and hearing a contrary opinion, but the conversation is repeating itself. Eventually you've got to agree to disagree.

Someone is wrong on the internet.

You realize exactly as many people on your side have changed their minds, right? I have moved exactly as much as anyone else in this thread. So singling me out is just saying lobbing ad hominems because you don't have any argument for your positon.

Pet peeve / nitpick. That's not particularly an ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). I know this forum loves to drop the Logic 101 fallacies, but he'd have to say you are wrong, because <insult>.

Knaight

2017-09-25, 07:22 PM

The problem is making a game aprimarily around combat and introducing a class with the shtick "combat specialist".
...
But when you write a system where everyone is primarily a combatant, "specialised in combat" should never be a thing.
This is undeniably true, and to some extent an issue specifically with later D&D. Every class being a combatant to some degree can leave a combat specialist as just fine (1e D&D fits here), every class being a combat specialist tends to turn them into combat specialist + schtick, and just lacking that schtick is a bad idea.

But nearly every fantasy RPG that is not a D&D clone does emphasize fighting far less. And because those other RPGs are about other things than fighting, PC concepts that can't fight are valid there - and this is what allows the space for the fighter guy which actually fights better then the rest.
It's also worth observing that other fantasy RPGs with just as heavy an emphasis on fighting tend to avoid the fighter who can't do anything but fight well. Every character in Legends of the Wulin fights, but they're also all a warrior-something, not just a warrior.

Faily

2017-09-25, 07:41 PM

This argument has been going in circles, and everyone else clearly disagrees with you.

Now I admit I haven't paid attention to the big quote-wars going on for the past... 20 pages or so... but from what I recall of the discussion then, there are people who agree with Cosi. Like myself. Maybe not in all the details (because frankly no I'm not reading all those pages with those long paragraphs from both Cosi and digiman and others), but in the general gist of it that things like Teleport isn't "win buttons" but adventure and storytelling enablers, because that's the experiences we seem to have from the tables and groups we have played with.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-25, 07:49 PM

Faily

2017-09-25, 08:08 PM

Talakeal

2017-09-25, 08:19 PM

If I wrote a thousand classes that were worse than every printed class, would that move the optimal balance point down?

If you were the author of the PHB and able to do so retroactively yes, it would move the balance point down as it would be far easier to nerf existing classes and monsters down than to buff thousands of new weak classes. That isn't the case, however, and has nothing to do with the face that most players of the game prefer characters who are in the T2-4 range.

Because one makes player choice meaningful and the other makes it meaningless?

I actually don't understand how requiring a specific power to overcome an obstacle is more restrictive than saying one specific power doesn't work on an obstacle. Its like saying the set of numbers from 1-8 is greater than from 9-10.

LITERALLY NO ONE DISAGREES ABOUT THIS. I have never said, and will never say, that I want some PHB classes to be worse than others. Stop claiming that is what I am saying. What I am saying is that high level characters need to be balanced, and that high level characters should be different from low level ones. That implies that sufficiently narrow concepts (like "know lots of languages" or "rules hell") will not be appropriate at all levels. That doesn't mean that Barbarian should be appropriate at all levels. It absolutely should. It should just be made appropriate by adjusting the Barbarian up rather than defining high level down.

No, I never said or thought that you want some classes to be worse than others. What I think you want is for all characters to, basically, be wizards with only slight differences in capability and fluff.

Why does it have to be though? Why not scale everything to 20 so that 1 is whatever the weakest character the game supports is and 20 is the strongest?

In a hypothetical game that might work (although you should probably devote the majority of the material to the range people actually want to play in).

D&D is not that system though, and at this point buffing / nerfing existing classes is much easier than rewriting the whole game with different power scale.

You'd have to write a class for that, right? Presumably (giving Conan's title), it's going to be "Barbarian". What if I want to be a Barbarian and actively participate in an Epic game?

That's a tough one. It really depends on where you were going with the character.

You could go with a demigod angle, something like Maui, Chu-Chalain, Hercules, or Napi, but honestly such a character isn't powerful enough for that type of game.

Likewise you could go with someone who is so skilled that they can do things that are seemingly impossible by operating on fundamental principles of the universe that are invisible to normal people, but again that tops out before you got to seemingly omnipotent reality warper levels of power.

I suppose you could have a shaman type who can command the spirits of entire worlds or an ancestor who has become one of those spirits, but those aren't really barbarian archetypes and would functionally just be wizards (or druids) with war paint and feather headdresses.

If you are going with the classic distrusts magic archetype for barbarians you could maybe go with a sort of nullifier; their belief in the way the world works is so strong that it actually conforms to their belief, supernatural powers simply fail to work in their vicinity and anyone who wishes to engage them has to do so while playing by their rules.

Likewise you might be able to become something akin to high end Incredible Hulk, their rage is so strong it taps into some alternate dimension and allows them to functionally rewrite reality though raw might alone, allowing them to kill abstract concepts with their bare-hands, fold space into new shapes, and do the impossible through sheer strength of emotion.

But yeah, its hard. Writing such a game would be really tough, few professionals even attempt it, and even fewer manage to do it anywhere close to well. Simply playing D&D with the kid gloves off and embracing the infinite wish loops and ascended kobolds won't do it, as the game lacks any sort of framework for high end play, there is nothing to challenge you and no guidelines besides a sort of freeform where you can pull off whatever tricks the DM allows.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-25, 08:34 PM

It's as useless as it is to argue with you, Raziere. :smallwink: You've made up your mind, as have I. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree on what we consider to be win-buttons and negative play experiences.

Most of us on this forum won't be sitting at the same table or play in the same group, so I really don't see the point in trying to argue why someone's feelings or experiences are somehow "wrong". I get it, you don't like that people have abilities that can present solutions to problems easily. That is fine, and I actually sincerely hope you get to play with playgroups who let you have fun with roleplaying games as you prefer it.

Well, here is the fundamental difference here;

your framing the whole thing as subjective. your focusing on the subjective part.

while I see the 3.5 system's problems being objectively bad design and the fact that you can subjective fun from that bad design is beside the point. the point is not about the subjective fun, its about repairing something broken, because it is broken regardless of peoples feelings about it. Thats simply the reality of it, and has nothing to do with subjectivity. Thats the point, because its clouding the issue with your feelings and experiences over principles of good design. If was arguing what I find subjectively fun, there'd be no point to the discussion. because it would have nothing to do with 3.5, therefore not relevant. I cannot be sure my subjective experience of fun is the basis of good design principles, and therefore do not argue my subjective view of what I find fun.

because I said before I like Spheres of Power, and I actually find characters like a fighter less interesting to play as they have no cool powers, BUT I still argue in favor of them, because there is someone out there who likes them and finds them awesome and they deserve to not be overshadowed regardless of my own tastes of preferring superpowers over not-superpowers. another example: I may not like Batman as a fanwank character, but I will fight for the right of anyone to play that kind of superhero alongside others with superpowers so that they may have their awesomeness in a superhero game. That is something bigger than me, because I do not want to see someone getting screwed over because of the way some system is set up. Because people don't deserve that, and I don't care about the "git gud" response as it just seems to be a way for the people are good at the system to not solve the systems problems. No ones deserves the suckiness of BMX Bandit.

digiman619

2017-09-25, 08:45 PM

You're going to have to clarify, because teleport circle is just a better version of teleport by RAW.
Fair point, I mixed it up with something else. If you're just using to skip the intervening wilderness area, why does teleport have to be go anywhere and not to fixed locations?

I have yet to see this promise. Where is it? What is it? What does it promise? Does it promise that my generic fantasy setting will have an elven empire? Does it promise that the setting won't include gunpowder?
I'm talking about optimazation and mechanics, you're talking about fluff and setting. Those two are more-or-less completly unconnected.

Depends. Are we just cutting out everything over 7th? Are we shifting to the Bard progression for all classes? What are we doing with monsters that have 7th level SLAs? What about e.g. true resurrection or other status removal spells?
in this scenario, we'd be condensing them, so that they would now be 6th level. Though I could advocate that we don't need them, I suspect I might be a bit biased to do so.

I suspect this is one of those things (like "classes should be balanced") where we agree in the abstract, but differ sharply in the particular. What do we mean by "broken"? What do we mean by "extraneous"? Are we replacing things like polymorph that, while broken, represent core fantasy concepts?
Well, using Pathfinder's spells because that's what's easiset to find, I'm talking about things like Decollate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/decollate). Because that's a power that an adventure will hinge on, boy howdy. That's not a jab at you, but at the stupidity of that spell.

We've had this discussion earlier. I like spontaneous casters. The Beguiler and the Dread Necromancer are quite able to be equal participants in a party with Wizards and Clerics, particularly with minor shifts like expanding their default lists or making PrCs they benefit from (notably, ones that expand a caster's list) full progression. In general, I think casting spontaneously is a pretty big advantage, and can compensate for a relatively large differential in list size, particularly through niche spells.
Forgive me, but if you like Beguiler-type casters, and every is complaining about omni-specialized wizards, why do you never bring them up? It paints you as far less inflexible if you have a more balanced (at least in most perople's eyes) alternative.

It seems like this is intentionally creating more work for DMs. Wouldn't it be simpler to present a list of appropriate non-combat challenges at each level, give classes enough tools to solve 70% of them each (which means a random group will have an answer for more than 99% of them), and then plug-and-play? That's the way monsters work, and it's pretty great for DMs.
Except that if every class has the 70% of the answers, then a) they all start blending in to one another, and b) it only incentivizes working in parties of 2 at the most and the game is designed for 4-6.

~who those characters were~
I don't have the time to dig up the details on these guys right now, so consider my point on this one retracted until I do my research.

I've mentioned earlier that I don't really think the core problem with scry-and-die is teleport. The problem is that you are dramatically more effective if you have your buffs up than if you don't, which makes ambush tactics as a whole disproportionately good.
The problem with that is that countermeasure can't stop it without shutting down the entire teleport mechanic. An effect that stops it has to have a long enough effect that you can cast it once and forget it, otherwise the "can strike at anytime" aspect bites you in the butt. And at that point it simply become tax that you always have to keep up.

I've suggested earlier that the knock v Open Lock paradigm keep scaling, and that's essentially what this would be.
Didn't put two and two together like that, but I guess you're right.

I don't think it's bad faith to pick abilities of different levels when pointing out that different characters have different abilities, and the important thing is that earthquake is not a Wizard spell and fireball is not a Cleric spell.
First things first, it's totally possible to be a single classes Pathfinder cleric and have both spells, but more importantly, you hurt your position because you compared a 3rd level spell to an 8th level one. Even if what you say is true, you come off as coniving and manipulative.

Sure, and I gave a couple of examples of that. But you seem to want the martials to have answers to questions Wizards can't answer, and that I don't support (and I hope I haven't come across that way).
Let me make a analogy. Let's say letters A-J are all the possible roles that an RPG character can do. As it stands, Wizards get A, B, C, E, F, G, & I
If you want a martial to be it's equal without nerfing wizards (and therefore only having 4 of the 10 things), then Martials need to also 7 of the 10 things, Unless the martial also gets the exact same seven things, there has to be some thing they can do that the Wizard can't.

LITERALLY NO ONE DISAGREES ABOUT THIS. I have never said, and will never say, that I want some PHB classes to be worse than others. Stop claiming that is what I am saying. What I am saying is that high level characters need to be balanced, and that high level characters should be different from low level ones. That implies that sufficiently narrow concepts (like "know lots of languages" or "rules hell") will not be appropriate at all levels. That doesn't mean that Barbarian should be appropriate at all levels. It absolutely should. It should just be made appropriate by adjusting the Barbarian up rather than defining high level down.
I guess that it's because even though you admit that there was bad choices and there was a vast difference between the classes, you are judging it by high point. It's just dissonant is all.

Why does it have to be though? Why not scale everything to 20 so that 1 is whatever the weakest character the game supports is and 20 is the strongest?
With respect, you can't judge your basis on what how classes should be balanced on what exists and also say "why don't we base what power Level 20 is based the the highest possible character power". You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Mechalich

2017-09-25, 09:28 PM

Because people don't deserve that, and I don't care about the "git gud" response as it just seems to be a way for the people are good at the system to not solve the systems problems.

I would say that, in general, game design should be very careful about rewarding system mastery with additional power, especially in tabletop. If players wish to display their awesomeness at mastering criteria presented to them by a game engine in order to take on extremely difficult challenges there are MMOs for that. Go join a progression guild - it will provide a better adrenalin-charged experience of pulling maximum output out of a given chassis than tabletop ever could. All that building an excessively powerful character does in tabletop is that it puts a PC or entire party into an arms-race with the GM, which is wasteful because the encounters aren't fixed generally just means more work for everyone.

Now, it is inevitable that system mastery is going to provide some level of boost to any game design, there are always going to be options that are marginally better than other options, but it best to minimize this so that new players aren't facing an immense barrier to entry when joining a table and so that groups assembled out of strangers don't require an exhaustive session zero to get everyone on the same page power wise.

'Win Buttons' generally are an outgrowth of rewarding system mastery either deliberately or by building some massive imbalance into game design. For a non-D&D example, consider the Resources background in oWoD games. For a game set in a modern capitalist society, vast wealth is effectively a superpower all its own (to the point where the Justice League trailers can call this out explicitly). It the GM doesn't cap starting backgrounds at 5 or allows the party to pool backgrounds, it becomes trivial to assemble a party with Resources 7 or 8, giving them access to billions of dollars and allowing them to simply purchase their way around a huge portion of the challenges the GM can reasonably throw at them and thereby breaking the game.

Additionally, not only does such a move break the game mechanically - because you can use one background to buy a giant pile of other backgrounds (such as converting resources into backup or contacts), it also breaks the intent of the game design by turning a game that is supposed to be about roughly street level adventures into the saga of a bunch of billionaires, which renders roughly 95% of the material produced for the game, mechanics and fluff, totally useless. Which is a major concern by the way, considering people spend actual money on those supplements. In the case of D&D this supports the 'nerf wizards' approach strongly over the 'boost fighters' approach, since the D&D fluff has always converged towards the lower end of the power scale, with even instances where characters are absurdly high-level - like the Return of the Archwizards novels, which have at least ten characters well over level twenty in them - are incredibly low optimization and extremely restrained in character power (in large part because D&D fluff was developed at the much lower power level of 1e and 2e and never adjusted up to the insane capabilities of 3.PF mechanics).

Forum Explorer

2017-09-25, 09:56 PM

Now I admit I haven't paid attention to the big quote-wars going on for the past... 20 pages or so... but from what I recall of the discussion then, there are people who agree with Cosi. Like myself. Maybe not in all the details (because frankly no I'm not reading all those pages with those long paragraphs from both Cosi and digiman and others), but in the general gist of it that things like Teleport isn't "win buttons" but adventure and storytelling enablers, because that's the experiences we seem to have from the tables and groups we have played with.

That really hasn't been the discussion for the last bit. Right now it seems to be more about how Full Casters have all the toys, and martials have almost none.

Cosi is against pretty much any nerf to Casters, and everyone else seems to be trying to explain why simply bringing everyone up to that level doesn't really work because then they become far too samey. And that it's thus much better to meet in the middle. Because the difference of two people who can do pretty much anything is basically zero.

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-25, 10:07 PM

Might be a bit of a pain to work into a D&D edition at this point, but one might start by making the ability to fight off or evade any magical effect more universal to all characters, as opposed to the hole-ridden patchwork quilt of saves, evasions, soaks, and plain-old-you're-screwed.

Satinavian

2017-09-26, 12:13 AM

That really hasn't been the discussion for the last bit. Right now it seems to be more about how Full Casters have all the toys, and martials have almost none.

Cosi is against pretty much any nerf to Casters, and everyone else seems to be trying to explain why simply bringing everyone up to that level doesn't really work because then they become far too samey. And that it's thus much better to meet in the middle. Because the difference of two people who can do pretty much anything is basically zero.
Yes, but both sides are dishonest here.

If really "wizard is too versatile" was the main problem, meeting at tier 2 where all those powers still exist but the versatility is limited would be fine.

But Cosi wants to keep not just all the wizard powers (minus chain binding and other NI loops), he also wants to keep the T1 versatility. And your side regularly complains about the raw power of T1-T2 abilities like teleport and argue that those shouldn't really be PC powers at all.

With a tad more honesty it would be easy to see why there can't be an agreement.

digiman619

2017-09-26, 12:17 AM

At this rate, I fully expect us to hit the page limit and have to start "Why the hate for "win buttons"? II: Let Me Explain How You're Wrong"

Forum Explorer

2017-09-26, 01:06 AM

Kallimakus

2017-09-26, 01:33 AM

I have yet to see this promise. Where is it? What is it? What does it promise? Does it promise that my generic fantasy setting will have an elven empire? Does it promise that the setting won't include gunpowder?

I am wondering if you are willingly obtuse here. The promise is presenting Fighter, Bard and Fighter as equivalent choices. But they are not.

Depends. Are we just cutting out everything over 7th? Are we shifting to the Bard progression for all classes? What are we doing with monsters that have 7th level SLAs? What about e.g. true resurrection or other status removal spells?

Personally, I'd just do what some PF hybrid classes did and just cut levels 7-9 of spells. Monsters could still keep them as far as I care. They already have abilities that PCs can't have. (In PF at least)

I suspect this is one of those things (like "classes should be balanced") where we agree in the abstract, but differ sharply in the particular. What do we mean by "broken"? What do we mean by "extraneous"? Are we replacing things like polymorph that, while broken, represent core fantasy concepts?

You could use the straight PF version that I think removes most of the abuse, or Spheres version, which likewise is just a better thing (also starts at 1, which is always a perk).

We've had this discussion earlier. I like spontaneous casters. The Beguiler and the Dread Necromancer are quite able to be equal participants in a party with Wizards and Clerics, particularly with minor shifts like expanding their default lists or making PrCs they benefit from (notably, ones that expand a caster's list) full progression. In general, I think casting spontaneously is a pretty big advantage, and can compensate for a relatively large differential in list size, particularly through niche spells.

Being able to add spells toa fixed list diminishes The value of considering it a fixed list.

It seems like this is intentionally creating more work for DMs. Wouldn't it be simpler to present a list of appropriate non-combat challenges at each level, give classes enough tools to solve 70% of them each (which means a random group will have an answer for more than 99% of them), and then plug-and-play? That's the way monsters work, and it's pretty great for DMs.

Knowing all existing spells seems like more work.

So, who could you add from fiction that would be able to contribute reasonably? Obviously, spoilers without any particular regard for anything.

I'll put powerful spellcasters after responding to these examples. Also, my point will not be to try and find casters as powerful as Wizards, but find casters that are powerful in their setting, and then try to evaluating them in terms of level. Now, you advocated that level 20 should be The ultimate maximum. I disagree. I think that 'beyond the impossible' stuff like fundamentally changing the world or challenging gods or stuff like that are not in the scope of the core game, and as such, belong over level 20, or using something like mythic subsystem that revs up everyone's power.

1. Khellus (The Second Apocalypse).

Has the power but not versatility. I pointed out earlier that many fictional characters can Match or exceed Wizards in power, but generally can't do everything a Wizard can. Also sounds to have god-like power. I would rate level to be 20+ in terms of d&d.

2. Pretender Gods (Dominions (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Dominions))

So literal gods? Again, over 20. Like, well over.

3. Anomander Rake (Malazan). Has a sword that steals souls and kills anyone it cuts, shapeshifts into a dragon, has various shadow magic (including teleportation), and rules a flying fortress full of dark elves (some of whom also turn into dragons, or have other magic) and other minions. Admittedly, not as clear on this as I could be, as I've only read the first book.

Surprisingly, sounds like a reasonable high-level character. Probably on The mid-late teens in terms of level

4. Dr Strange (Marvel). Even in the movies, he has teleport/plane shift and a time loop power that appears to be basically at-will true resurrection. He can project an astral form (kind of like astral projection, although he can be killed by sufficiently powerful magic). He has pretty much the gamut of "magic powers" -- illusions, conjuration, telekinesis, elemental powers. He also has more powerful stuff like temporal manipulation or the Black Speech, which is some kind of linguistic magic I'm not clear on.[/QUOTE]

Probably hanging near 20, but below

5. The God Emperor of Man (Warhammer 40k). Powerful psionics, including something that sounds a lot like time stop. Has some kind of shape-shifting/alternate form ability, and teleporation. Apparently fought one of the C'Tan, which are (as I understand it) planet eating dark gods.

Fought a physical god that was feeling slightly under weather, then threw it to Mars (not literally, I think). Can shapeshift or use illusions to pretend to. Could force a hundred thousand super-soldiers to kneeling. No save. Off-handedly maintains a universal navigational Beacon. Practically invincible in combat (probably through magic). Way over 20. Also a god.

So your argument is that only character concepts that become gods (or very close) are appropriate for level 20? While it isn't an impossible concept, it clearly isn't what D&D is meant to do. Ergo it shouldn't be a design goal either. My suggestion of compromise here would be to tack on a subsystem that basically puts everything over-the-top. So you can have your Wizard hang about with gods without enforcing it on everyone.

Let's take others. Nagash (Warhammer fantasy). Grew from a ceremonial Priest to the first human wizard. Invented necromancy. Used slaves to create a magical battery to get way strong. Raised hundreds of thousands of undead. Created entirely new forms. Possessed generic offensive abilities. Could work curses. Had a transportation spell that beat mundane travel, but wasn't quite Teleport. Grows from 1 to 20 to demigod to actual god. A rare case in My experience.

I've mentioned earlier that I don't really think the core problem with scry-and-die is teleport. The problem is that you are dramatically more effective if you have your buffs up than if you don't, which makes ambush tactics as a whole disproportionately good

This is an example of interaction that The designers didn't think of. Probably. Could be easily fixed by saying that Teleport leaves all buffs behind. Or that scrying creates a visible sensor that needs to use stealth. Probably both, why not?

Sure, and I gave a couple of examples of that. But you seem to want the martials to have answers to questions Wizards can't answer, and that I don't support (and I hope I haven't come across that way).

Why not?

Why does it have to be though? Why not scale everything to 20 so that 1 is whatever the weakest character the game supports is and 20 is the strongest?.

Because we can't agree where the like is. I suggested looking at existing challenges and re-evaluate the game on that basis. This has the side effect of putting some character concepts above 20.

Mechalich

2017-09-26, 01:43 AM

Yes, but both sides are dishonest here.

If really "wizard is too versatile" was the main problem, meeting at tier 2 where all those powers still exist but the versatility is limited would be fine.

But Cosi wants to keep not just all the wizard powers (minus chain binding and other NI loops), he also wants to keep the T1 versatility. And your side regularly complains about the raw power of T1-T2 abilities like teleport and argue that those shouldn't really be PC powers at all.

With a tad more honesty it would be easy to see why there can't be an agreement.

Well, there's two different things going on. First there are abilities (spells) that entirely on their own are ridiculously overpowered compared to the entire ability suite given to a mundane class by the time they hit level 20 - like Shapechange. An 18th level Sorcerer who takes shapechange as their 1 9th level spell can and will contribute more in level-appropriate encounters by doing nothing but using their 3 castings of shapechange each day than an 18th level Fighter will by using everything they have access too. Moreover, they well be more effective than a generalized utility + evocations build by another sorcerer who took a much less useful 9th level spell like meteor swarm.

In the same vein in many other systems there will be abilities that are utterly broken and should not be made allowed to players because they totally take gameplay outside the playspace it was designed to occupy. Letting a character play a billionaire in the oWoD, as a mentioned above, is totally permissible according to the rules, but destroys the game entirely. Certain powers in various superhero games have a tendency to be ludicrously imbalanced - mind control is a common offender - or may be game destroying simply because they open up Pandora's Box - ex. any ability involving Time Travel ever. Then there are powers that, while perhaps only marginally overdone on their own, can be utilized in game-destroying combos with ease - the notorious 'Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick' of Exalted 2e is a nice case study.

So there are powers that need to be nerfed regardless of anything else you do.

Second is that, even when using only perfectly reasonable abilities, the higher-tier classes have so many of these abilities and the capacity to tailor them to the situation so effectively that they utterly outclass the mundanes anyway even without using any of the win button powers baked into the game. To use a non-D&D example - if you do a VtM/MtA crossover, even without all of the literally world-breaking potential options available to Mages (easy example, there's a spell that allows you to teleport a portion of the Sun's Corona onto your target). Sphere magic is just so much more versatile than any form of power vampires have access to, including thaumaturgy, that crossover arguments about power level weren't about whether mages would wipe the floor with Vampires, it was all about how openly jerk-ish they could be while doing so - leading to remarks about turning vampires into lawn chairs.

3.PF D&D has the dualistic problem where casters vs. martials not only have 'powers that are better than yours' they also have 'all the powers.' Keep in mind that balancing things at T3 still means both nerfing wizard types into something with only a narrow suite of cool abilities like the Dread Necormancer, but also buffing the Fighter into something with better abilities like the Warblade.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-26, 02:16 AM

hm.

well I guess I do like the sorcerer better. its limited selection of spells make me feel as if I have an actual identity and choice that matters rather than some free for all eventual grabbing of all power ever.

like I don't have any hard feelings towards sorcerers, because I know that there is a hard limit, since soft limits don't really do it for me. I guess if I were to do it, I'd try to make a fighter and rogue equal a sorcerer in power then just get rid of tier 1 classes, then just give sorcerer an int archetype. like sorcerer is the very top of acceptable for me, power wise. though I will not lie, I do like sorcerer bloodlines over wizard options, assuming we count pathfinder, though I do admit I like PF better than normal 3.5 in general simply because it has more features and feels like it put more thought into it, even if it doesn't fix the issues that are the problem.

like at least PF Fighter has archetypes and options beyond "feats". like you could legitimately choose a different fighter archetype each time you sat down to make one and come up with a different character each time. like if I forced to play some version of DnD 3.5 it'd be Pathfinder over 3.5, no question. in some ways it feels like an actual fantasy setting with some of the archetypes and classes. like its just a better version to me even if it still has that gap. mostly because it lacks the associated videogame exploit stuff I've heard so much about 3.5 that just make me throw up inside.

and no please don't tell me PF's exploits/TO. Ever. I'm serious. I don't want to hear them, that will only ruin a good thing. You do this, your a jerk and I will put you on ignore list. Imagine informing me of this is like a spoiler to a twist that I don't ever want to find out. like Mass Effect 3's ending. I know its there and that its bad, but some things are just better left not experienced at all. That is your warning. That is not a joke. Or a challenge. I'm making this as clear, as possible. I'm sure you have some points you want to make about this or that on this, or a comment, NO. Please don't. You reply trying to inform me about PF exploits/TO, you are willingly acknowledging that you will be ignored for it. As soon as I see you mentioning it, done, ignored. I'll know your someone who won't listen and follow warning and that you get exactly what I warned you about. Clear? This applies even if your a new person who hasn't read the thread, you didn't read, you get to the suffer all the consequences of your ignorance. Its just not something I want anything to do with. I already got ruined by 3.5 exploit stuff, allow me the illusion with PF. Thats my rule on that, the line I'm drawing please don't cross it. I'll allow PF PO, but not the TO. TO ruins everything for me. and if you don't know what those terms mean why are you still here?

Florian

2017-09-26, 03:28 AM

That really hasn't been the discussion for the last bit. Right now it seems to be more about how Full Casters have all the toys, and martials have almost none.

Cosi is against pretty much any nerf to Casters, and everyone else seems to be trying to explain why simply bringing everyone up to that level doesn't really work because then they become far too samey. And that it's thus much better to meet in the middle. Because the difference of two people who can do pretty much anything is basically zero.

Its not only that they´re getting too "same-y" when we would keep using only one subsystem to model everything (spells), but we´d advance deeper into the lock-and-key design that patterns how interaction with the game world works, which is a trap, too.

Satinavian

2017-09-26, 04:31 AM

Well, there's two different things going on. First there are abilities (spells) that entirely on their own are ridiculously overpowered compared to the entire ability suite given to a mundane class by the time they hit level 20 - like Shapechange. An 18th level Sorcerer who takes shapechange as their 1 9th level spell can and will contribute more in level-appropriate encounters by doing nothing but using their 3 castings of shapechange each day than an 18th level Fighter will by using everything they have access too. Moreover, they well be more effective than a generalized utility + evocations build by another sorcerer who took a much less useful 9th level spell like meteor swarm. Yes.

But Shapechange(and/or the polymorph spells) is one of the most iconic supernatural abilities ever. It is in fairy tales from all over the world and also features in fantasy literature. There is basically no other ability at all that is that representative for fairy tale magic users. If you cut it from D&D that makes D&D far far less useful as generic fantasy RPG. I would even say that D&D needs those abilities.

Florian

2017-09-26, 05:22 AM

Mechalich

2017-09-26, 05:44 AM

Yes.

But Shapechange(and/or the polymorph spells) is one of the most iconic supernatural abilities ever. It is in fairy tales from all over the world and also features in fantasy literature. There is basically no other ability at all that is that representative for fairy tale magic users. If you cut it from D&D that makes D&D far far less useful as generic fantasy RPG. I would even say that D&D needs those abilities.

The ability to change shape is an iconic fantasy capability. Shapeshifting on the level of the shapechange spell is nothing of the kind. In fact, as constituted in 3.PF D&D shapechange is far less an ability allowing a character to change shape and instead a power that allows borrowing of the best spell-like and (Su) abilities available to address a given challenge by dumpster-diving through 5 monster manuals or 6 bestiaries. There are far better ways to provide the ability to change shape.

There are indeed any number of iconic powers that a fantasy kitchen sink game should include, but that is not a carte blanche to write utterly broken abilities into the game, and sometimes it may be the best choice in design to take a certain narrative device off the table in the interest of making a functional game. Time travel is a good example. It's a feature of pretty much ever comic book universe ever invented, but any superhero game that includes functional time-travel, well...good luck with that.

Frozen_Feet

2017-09-26, 05:55 AM

I said pages ago (have I mentioned today this discussion keeps going in circles?) that you should not confuse concept for its implementation.

Shapechanging spells in d20 D&D is messed up because they were implemented as zero-effort list-search functions. As the list kept expanding, it turned these abilities into mini-wishes.

It's trivial to fix. 1) ban list-search versions of these spells. 2) make each distinct form into a spell of its own. Bam, done.

Florian

2017-09-26, 07:08 AM

Do you have a point? I mean, I assume not because you haven't ever before, but I suppose it has to happen at some point.

You made it clear that you have a very limited horizon. No use using olive branches, as you don´t understand them.

Cosi

2017-09-26, 08:58 AM

This is a stupid argument. No. Because Balance is based around the rest of the game, not PC classes. The game design does not provide me with guidelines as to what kind of out-of-combat challenges are appropriate to what level, so I must default to combat challenges, which even a fighter can generally handle appropriately. I hope I do not need to reiterate that this doesn't mean that Fighter is the right balance point.

Have you run tests? Because when people do, it doesn't usually look good for the Fighter.

Who said anything about railroading? How did you arrive at that? I'm curious what your actual DnD games look like if that is what you think I meant. In fact that is one of the most ludicrous things I've seen all day. "Players driving the story" is the exact opposite, in fact. That was exactly what I said. If you cannot resurrect an NPC you need to resurrect, for example, you can do something else for someone who can.

Wait, do you mean "PCs don't have the ability" or "PCs have the ability, but it doesn't work"?

If you were the author of the PHB and able to do so retroactively yes, it would move the balance point down as it would be far easier to nerf existing classes and monsters down than to buff thousands of new weak classes. That isn't the case, however, and has nothing to do with the face that most players of the game prefer characters who are in the T2-4 range.

Ah, but what specifically do they prefer about those tiers? Saying "I like Tier Four because I like Barbarians and the Barbarian is in Tier Four" is, really, an argument for the kinds of characters Tier Four produces. It's an argument for having some class called a Barbarian that people can play. I suspect that a great deal of Tier preference comes down to "the concept I like is in this Tier, so this is the best Tier". And while that's a fine reason to like some particular Tier in the existing game, it's not a good reason to pick that Tier as a balance point for future content.

I may not like Batman as a fanwank character, but I will fight for the right of anyone to play that kind of superhero alongside others with superpowers so that they may have their awesomeness in a superhero game.

But you have to admit there are characters more powerful than Batman. Batman has some upper limits on his powers (for example, he can't punch through tanks or read minds), and if someone wants to play a character more powerful than that, clearly they both can't be in the same party. So who wins? Do we say Batman wins, and cut out anything better? Do we say not-Batman wins and eventually remove Batman from the supported archetypes at high level? Do we say Batman wins and scale everything down to Batman? Do we say not-Batman wins and force Batman to develop bigger and better powers as he levels?

Fair point, I mixed it up with something else. If you're just using to skip the intervening wilderness area, why does teleport have to be go anywhere and not to fixed locations?

Because then you wouldn't be able to skip wilderness adventures, because the DM would have to put a target anywhere you have to go. The point is to have abilities that allow you to act without having to first ask the DM "hey, can I do this".

in this scenario, we'd be condensing them, so that they would now be 6th level. Though I could advocate that we don't need them, I suspect I might be a bit biased to do so.

So just the same spells, but only six levels? I'm actually weakly in favor of that, though you'd have to change the classes to some degree.

Forgive me, but if you like Beguiler-type casters, and every is complaining about omni-specialized wizards, why do you never bring them up? It paints you as far less inflexible if you have a more balanced (at least in most perople's eyes) alternative.

I do. Like, a lot. For example, in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22359605&postcount=651) I list two different fixed list caster builds when discussing what builds I would consider appropriate. The example of a party I gave last post includes a Beguiler.

Except that if every class has the 70% of the answers, then a) they all start blending in to one another, and b) it only incentivizes working in parties of 2 at the most and the game is designed for 4-6.

Not quite. People shouldn't have 70% of "the answers" because "the answers" isn't a monolithic set. People should be able to effectively answer 70% of problems. As an example, consider a task like "spy on the inhabitants of a fortress". There are a bunch of ways you could plausibly do that. You could send in a familiar to poke around. You could use a battery of divinations to spy from afar. You could use form-changing magic to infiltrate the place. You could use stealth (possibly magically assisted) to infiltrate the place. You could capture someone in the know after they left the fortress. All of those have different risks and efficiencies. For example, divination is low risk, but it's vulnerable to local defenses and requires some amount of prior intel (or much higher resource expenditure). Going in yourself makes it easier to adapt to circumstances, but also increases risk. Different classes should have different options or combinations of options, and they can be tweaked so that specific classes are better suited to specific options (for example, making some classes disguise magic shorter duration makes it harder for them to use it for an infiltration). The reason to have a party is to have a variety of options. Sometimes the situation will be well suited to the Wizard casting teleport. Other times, you'll be better off with the Druid casting tree stride, or the Beguiler casting shadow walk.

If you want a martial to be it's equal without nerfing wizards (and therefore only having 4 of the 10 things), then Martials need to also 7 of the 10 things, Unless the martial also gets the exact same seven things, there has to be some thing they can do that the Wizard can't.

Again, it shouldn't be a binary where some people do A and some people don't do A. A should be some task like "find a ruined temple" or "rebuild a city's defenses" and different classes should have different levels of ability between 1 and 10 at those tasks. So if the challenge is "cross the desert quickly", the Wizard's travel power (teleport) is really good, and the Beguiler's (shadow walk) is pretty good, and while the Druid's (tree stride, which hypothetically is changed to work for the party) does something but is not itself going to solve the problem, given the time constraints.

The problem with that is that countermeasure can't stop it without shutting down the entire teleport mechanic. An effect that stops it has to have a long enough effect that you can cast it once and forget it, otherwise the "can strike at anytime" aspect bites you in the butt. And at that point it simply become tax that you always have to keep up.

Being able to strike at any time isn't necessarily a problem. The concern isn't that people can strike at any time per se. Attacker always picks time. The issue is that there are very few ways to benefit from the defender's advantage of picking ground, and attacker advantage is way too large. Oddly, more stuff like Sanctum Spell would help here. If there was a reason not to go after people in their bases (like if your base powered you up somehow), teleport would be less of a problem even if the spell didn't change. That does involving writing new content, so if you're averse to that you can always do what the Tomes did at have sufficiently think walls block it.

Cosi is against pretty much any nerf to Casters, and everyone else seems to be trying to explain why simply bringing everyone up to that level doesn't really work because then they become far too samey. And that it's thus much better to meet in the middle. Because the difference of two people who can do pretty much anything is basically zero.

This is incorrect. I've outlined several nerfs to casters I favor. The constraints given for the party in my discussion of other fictional characters that might be appropriate in a party with a Wizard, I list a number of them. Notably, I'm against extensive use of planar binding (or other minionmancy abilities), in favor of changing the form-changing rules (particularly with regard to inheritance), in favor of changing WBL so that wealth loops no longer make you win the game, and in favor of some other more minor nerfs.

I am wondering if you are willingly obtuse here. The promise is presenting Fighter, Bard and Fighter as equivalent choices. But they are not.

So without compromising the identity of 'badasss guy that doesn't need spells', which, again, the game promises us is a valid level 20 character concept regardless of whether you like it or not,

I agree that there is a promise (at least implicitly) that Fighter and Wizard will be balanced. But that promise doesn't say any particular Fighter concept will be allowed. It doesn't say that guy will or won't be a masterful general or will or won't be a grizzled non-magical badass. It just says some class called Fighter will be. That's it.

Knowing all existing spells seems like more work.

But in this model you don't have to know all existing spells. The idea is that you have a list of challenges that are appropriate at each level, and people's spell lists (ability lists) are designed to match up appropriately against those lists. You don't have to know every blasting spell to design an appropriate combat encounter, and we should try to make that true of non-combat spells as well.

Has the power but not versatility. I pointed out earlier that many fictional characters can Match or exceed Wizards in power, but generally can't do everything a Wizard can. Also sounds to have god-like power. I would rate level to be 20+ in terms of d&d.

It is not fundamentally impossible to balance power and options. If a character's individual options are good enough, they can still contribute even if they don't have as many of them (case in point: martials are fine at low levels in 3e).

So your argument is that only character concepts that become gods (or very close) are appropriate for level 20? While it isn't an impossible concept, it clearly isn't what D&D is meant to do. Ergo it shouldn't be a design goal either. My suggestion of compromise here would be to tack on a subsystem that basically puts everything over-the-top. So you can have your Wizard hang about with gods without enforcing it on everyone.

D&D has had people ascending to become gods since Clinton was president, and possibly earlier. The idea that the game is not supposed to cover that is just not correct.

This is an example of interaction that The designers didn't think of. Probably. Could be easily fixed by saying that Teleport leaves all buffs behind. Or that scrying creates a visible sensor that needs to use stealth. Probably both, why not?

Because those abilities aren't the problem. The problem is the incentive short duration buffs create, so the thing that should be changed is short duration buffs. You shouldn't change WBL to make Fighters better, or PrCs to make casters less good, or feats to make planar binding less good.

Satinavian

2017-09-26, 10:05 AM

Because those abilities aren't the problem. The problem is the incentive short duration buffs create, so the thing that should be changed is short duration buffs. You shouldn't change WBL to make Fighters better, or PrCs to make casters less good, or feats to make planar binding less good.Personally i think short duration buffs are fine. I might argue against abilities to extend them to always on (persistence, items), but otherwise i would leave them be.
What i would severely nerf is the Scying instead. It should be hard to get reliable informations about your enemies. Teleport seems also okish. Maybe one could add a bit summoning sickness to the long range versions which would make teleport ambushes riskier.

Kallimakus

2017-09-26, 11:09 AM

D&D has had people ascending to become gods since Clinton was president, and possibly earlier. The idea that the game is not supposed to cover that is just not correct.

I have never strictly argued against this. I argued that 'ascending to godhood' should not be a mechanical requirement of a 1-20 class. I'd also argue that rather few of the characters do so with a list of standard abilities. Rather, I'd imagine they have some plot tokens or macguffins to help them bring that about.

Because those abilities aren't the problem. The problem is the incentive short duration buffs create, so the thing that should be changed is short duration buffs. You shouldn't change WBL to make Fighters better, or PrCs to make casters less good, or feats to make planar binding less good.[/QUOTE]

Personally i think short duration buffs are fine. I might argue against abilities to extend them to always on (persistence, items), but otherwise i would leave them be.
What i would severely nerf is the Scying instead. It should be hard to get reliable informations about your enemies. Teleport seems also okish. Maybe one could add a bit summoning sickness to the long range versions which would make teleport ambushes riskier.

I agree with Satinavian here. Short-term buffs are based on a tradeoff of duration for power. So in order to change this, what is the solution Cosi?

Have you run tests? Because when people do, it doesn't usually look good for the Fighter.

I agree that there is a promise (at least implicitly) that Fighter and Wizard will be balanced. But that promise doesn't say any particular Fighter concept will be allowed. It doesn't say that guy will or won't be a masterful general or will or won't be a grizzled non-magical badass. It just says some class called Fighter will be. That's it.

I have not, so my evidence is 100% anecdotal and like 95% limited to level 10 or less because the game becomes unplayable for me at around that stage. Because of casters, in case the implication is not there.

But the fighter's class concept is a non-magic badass warrior guy. I'd redefine that as 'no active magical powers badass warrior guy'. So magic is OK, but it should not come with 'like Spell X, but this guy swings a sword instead of waving their hand". We've been asking you to give examples of martial concepts that are a fit for your casters, but I don't recall seeing anything but evading the question.

If I have understood Cosu's argument on the martial v caster correctly, his argument is that classes like 'purely martial' fighter or barbarian or rogue should be considered classes that don't run for 20 levels. They might go from 1-10 or something?? Dunno. But at the same time, I suggested a similar paradigm shift long ago. Comdense present martials to levels 1-10, add new fantastic abilities for 11-20. I don't recall if he ever noticed that. It was, after all, pretty much in support of his view.

But reconsidering, I realized that this would still require complete reshuffling of bestiaries, so I switched my stance to 'look at the monsters, then scale all PC classes appropriately'. Once we've got the scale right, we can balance the classes. I'll not open the can of worms that is versatility at this juncture.

digiman619

2017-09-26, 11:24 AM

Ah, but what specifically do they prefer about those tiers? Saying "I like Tier Four because I like Barbarians and the Barbarian is in Tier Four" is, really, an argument for the kinds of characters Tier Four produces. It's an argument for having some class called a Barbarian that people can play. I suspect that a great deal of Tier preference comes down to "the concept I like is in this Tier, so this is the best Tier". And while that's a fine reason to like some particular Tier in the existing game, it's not a good reason to pick that Tier as a balance point for future content.
Except the tiers were descriptive, not prescriptive. They didn't go in thinking about having character tiers. They intended for them to be on par with each other. They failed miserably, of course, And there can be reasons to like a specific tier that has nothing to do with "My favorite class is in it". I'm a fan of DSP's Soulknife, but it's T4 and I'll still play it.

Because then you wouldn't be able to skip wilderness adventures, because the DM would have to put a target anywhere you have to go. The point is to have abilities that allow you to act without having to first ask the DM "hey, can I do this".
I'm going to drop the teleport argument because it can be a ton more work for the GM, and the only apparent reason you're in favor of it is "I can do it and the GM can't stop me"

So just the same spells, but only six levels? I'm actually weakly in favor of that, though you'd have to change the classes to some degree.
Well, if nothing else it would have the benefit of fewer spell slots; if finger of death, polymorph any object and prismatic sphere all have the same slot, it makes choosing more important.

I do. Like, a lot. For example, in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22359605&postcount=651) I list two different fixed list caster builds when discussing what builds I would consider appropriate. The example of a party I gave last post includes a Beguiler.
Huh. So you do. Though I feel I should argue that all of your fixed-list caster build there either were about minionmancy or expanded their spell list and when I talked about the quick fix of "make martials also fixed list casters", you complained that they could add to their spell list. So is a fixed list caster adding to their list good or bad?

Not quite. People shouldn't have 70% of "the answers" because "the answers" isn't a monolithic set. People should be able to effectively answer 70% of problems. As an example, consider a task like "spy on the inhabitants of a fortress". There are a bunch of ways you could plausibly do that. You could send in a familiar to poke around. You could use a battery of divinations to spy from afar. You could use form-changing magic to infiltrate the place. You could use stealth (possibly magically assisted) to infiltrate the place. You could capture someone in the know after they left the fortress. All of those have different risks and efficiencies. For example, divination is low risk, but it's vulnerable to local defenses and requires some amount of prior intel (or much higher resource expenditure). Going in yourself makes it easier to adapt to circumstances, but also increases risk. Different classes should have different options or combinations of options, and they can be tweaked so that specific classes are better suited to specific options (for example, making some classes disguise magic shorter duration makes it harder for them to use it for an infiltration). The reason to have a party is to have a variety of options. Sometimes the situation will be well suited to the Wizard casting teleport. Other times, you'll be better off with the Druid casting tree stride, or the Beguiler casting shadow walk.
I'm actually in favor of this, but I have it brings up a question that I'll go into more deeply in the next bit.

Again, it shouldn't be a binary where some people do A and some people don't do A. A should be some task like "find a ruined temple" or "rebuild a city's defenses" and different classes should have different levels of ability between 1 and 10 at those tasks. So if the challenge is "cross the desert quickly", the Wizard's travel power (teleport) is really good, and the Beguiler's (shadow walk) is pretty good, and while the Druid's (tree stride, which hypothetically is changed to work for the party) does something but is not itself going to solve the problem, given the time constraints.
You can't have it both ways; if all PC classes "should be able to effectively answer 70% of problems", and the martial classes whould be boosted to be on par wih the Wizard, that leaves only 2 options. First is the 70% of problems the Wizard can solve is the exact 70% a fighter can solve, but that's clearly not the case because that makes them pretty much functionally identical, so why bother having two identical classes? The other, far more likely option, is that there is some sliver of the 30% a Wizard can't do that a Fighter (or at least the boosted fighter you claim to want) can.

Being able to strike at any time isn't necessarily a problem. The concern isn't that people can strike at any time per se. Attacker always picks time. The issue is that there are very few ways to benefit from the defender's advantage of picking ground, and attacker advantage is way too large. Oddly, more stuff like Sanctum Spell would help here. If there was a reason not to go after people in their bases (like if your base powered you up somehow), teleport would be less of a problem even if the spell didn't change. That does involving writing new content, so if you're averse to that you can always do what the Tomes did at have sufficiently think walls block it.
I'm actually with Satinvavian in thinking that it's more pracitical to hit the other half of Scry-and-Die.

This is incorrect. I've outlined several nerfs to casters I favor. The constraints given for the party in my discussion of other fictional characters that might be appropriate in a party with a Wizard, I list a number of them. Notably, I'm against extensive use of planar binding (or other minionmancy abilities), in favor of changing the form-changing rules (particularly with regard to inheritance), in favor of changing WBL so that wealth loops no longer make you win the game, and in favor of some other more minor nerfs.
While I agree that will help, It doesn't solve the major gripe about T1 casters; them being a "univeral specialist".

I agree that there is a promise (at least implicitly) that Fighter and Wizard will be balanced. But that promise doesn't say any particular Fighter concept will be allowed. It doesn't say that guy will or won't be a masterful general or will or won't be a grizzled non-magical badass. It just says some class called Fighter will be. That's it.
That's actually fair. Too bad that in order to play in your games, that concept needs to include "can also cast spells"

But in this model you don't have to know all existing spells. The idea is that you have a list of challenges that are appropriate at each level, and people's spell lists (ability lists) are designed to match up appropriately against those lists. You don't have to know every blasting spell to design an appropriate combat encounter, and we should try to make that true of non-combat spells as well.
I agre with this to a point; the point is that under a milestone spell paradigm, a) once again it's "spells or GTFO", and b) it shoots the bard and the sorcerer in the foot as they have to waste not-insignificant chunks of their spells known into madatory milestones.

D&D has had people ascending to become gods since Clinton was president, and possibly earlier. The idea that the game is not supposed to cover that is just not correct.
Again, examples, please.

dascarletm

2017-09-26, 12:07 PM

Wait, do you mean "PCs don't have the ability" or "PCs have the ability, but it doesn't work"?

They have the ability, in a colloquial sense that it is possible to overcome the challenge, but they don't "need" a specific class ability that solves said problem.

Suppose we are playing Kiki's Delivery Service the game. Game starts, players have to travel on land. They level, and then they can fly. Eventually they can teleport. Nothing is amiss. That canyon which was a challenge to cross at level 1 isn't mid-game. The storm in-between the shop and your destination is only a problem before they can bypass it. The thing is, once the obstacles are instantly overcome by a player ability, it is no longer an interesting feature. Prior to flight, bandits on the road would be something to overcome. After flight (a "win button" for this specific challenge) it is no longer worth writing into the story. The players need not interact with it. Is this bad? No. We need greater challenges, something that cannot be "win buttoned" currently. The game would be dreadfully boring if the delivery job our player(s) get is: deliver this across the street. This is because standard movement is a "win button" for this scenario. There is no challenge, there is no creative thinking or planning or anything required by the characters other than saying, "I cross the street and give the package to Mr. Dent." This follows that at higher levels the DM needs to give challenges that are not instantly overcome by player abilities. Otherwise there is not point in the challenge in the first place.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-26, 02:01 PM

This is incorrect. I've outlined several nerfs to casters I favor. The constraints given for the party in my discussion of other fictional characters that might be appropriate in a party with a Wizard, I list a number of them. Notably, I'm against extensive use of planar binding (or other minionmancy abilities), in favor of changing the form-changing rules (particularly with regard to inheritance), in favor of changing WBL so that wealth loops no longer make you win the game, and in favor of some other more minor nerfs.

Your nerfs are very minor, and mostly just prevent the game from shattering entirely. It doesn't do anything to fix the disparity between martials and full casters.

Also the other fictional characters were mostly full out gods. The last is a soul shattering dragon with an army of dragons. Those characters wouldn't be out of place in an Exalted or Nobilis game.

Segev

2017-09-26, 04:10 PM

Yes, class abilities, or non-class abilities. If you need to read an inscription on the royal jewels and no one for example has the skill to sneak in and steal it, you can always hire a thief to do the job for you for example. This isn't for every obstacle, but lacking the ability to overcome something in a specific party is not a game-breaker is my point.

By the same token, HAVING the ability to solve it in one easy step isn't necessarily a game-breaker. It might be a signal to the DM that he needs to plan a bit better if he wants things to be a challenge, but even that's usually handle-able by considering the resources at the disposal of the foes behind the encounters appropriate for a given level.

Lord Raziere

2017-09-26, 04:19 PM

But you have to admit there are characters more powerful than Batman. Batman has some upper limits on his powers (for example, he can't punch through tanks or read minds), and if someone wants to play a character more powerful than that, clearly they both can't be in the same party. So who wins? Do we say Batman wins, and cut out anything better? Do we say not-Batman wins and eventually remove Batman from the supported archetypes at high level? Do we say Batman wins and scale everything down to Batman? Do we say not-Batman wins and force Batman to develop bigger and better powers as he levels?

.....Is this a real question? You can't be serious. This is Batman we're talking about. Like, you do know that he is like meme'd to godlike levels and back three boards up in Media Discussions right? the famous 3.5 wizard build is even called Batman wizard, and the wizard has to use MAGIC to do what Batman does just by being him. He is in the Justice League regardless of how weak or strong he is and an important member of that.

Regardless, the questions you ask don't actually matter. Because they are not scaled to each other, they are scaled to the campaign. M&M does this by simply having a level of power called PL 10, and you build your characters regardless of the concept around that. Superman or Batman can be built at PL 8, Pl 10 or Pl 12 or whatever, he isn't always the exact same superman, but he is the Superman or Batman needed to be in this campaign, without compromising what either of those people actually are. maybe its not consistent, who cares? I find more and more that trying to care about consistencies like this only get in the way of my fun because some people keep insisting on being a jerk who can't just roll with action time being action time and epic battle time being epic battle time, and so on. there is a time and place for consistency and rules-lawyering your fellow players power levels to be weaker than yours is never that time, we are PCs first before our characters and thus are equal, and thus we should treat and use them equally. I'd rather come up with handwaves to explain why they are all on the same level without compromising their character concepts then getting on with the game to have fun, its what everyone does when Batman is useful when he is with the Justice League and surrounded by gods, aliens, robots and so on, who if consistency and real life had anything to do with what was happening, he'd be already dead long ago.

It doesn't matter who wins. I'd rather have the person who thinks such questions are important just be quiet and get on with the game. I don't argue for any of this because of a mechanical pissing match of "my character can CLEARLY beat yours", because screw mechanical pissing matches, I argue it because I don't want some massive imbalance thinking one person is entitled to different treatment because they figured out a few video-game like tricks and thus justified in making the entire game bend around them simply because they don't agree with the GM. how can I know any of the examples of an optimizer "derailing" a campaign as truly "just" and that the GM was truly "bad"? your the ones telling it. of course you'd tell the story in your favor. and how convenient that its the internet and that we'll probably never find those GMs who roused your ire, so we'll never hear their side of the story.

Those questions? are just mechanical pissing match starters. they're useless, and not fit for actually making a game work.

Talakeal

2017-09-26, 04:24 PM

Cosi

2017-09-27, 08:29 AM

I agree with Satinavian here. Short-term buffs are based on a tradeoff of duration for power. So in order to change this, what is the solution Cosi?

You can't really "fix" it, because the problem is inherent in that tradeoff. If there are abilities that make you much more powerful some of the time, you have a very strong incentive to ensure that conflicts occur during that time, and if possible that they do not occur during the corresponding time for your opponent. If it's not teleport ambushes, it's dimension door ambushes, or whatever else allows you to get surprise. The alternative is that you don't have short term buffs you can cast before combat.

But the fighter's class concept is a non-magic badass warrior guy. I'd redefine that as 'no active magical powers badass warrior guy'. So magic is OK, but it should not come with 'like Spell X, but this guy swings a sword instead of waving their hand". We've been asking you to give examples of martial concepts that are a fit for your casters, but I don't recall seeing anything but evading the question.

The problem is that you're asking me for things that fit your definition of "martial" that are as powerful as I want characters to be, but you've constructed your definition of "martial" to exclude the powers I think characters should have. I think there are plenty of viable characters I would consider martial that would compete with casters. For example, a Beastmaster class that got pets that ranged from "a wolf" to "the tarrasque", and also got some Totemist style powers based on those animals (so your pet wolf gives you a howl that does something, and also claws). Resource management wise, my preferred setup for that would be that you have a series of totems/aspects that grant you abilities, then you focus one (or maybe more at high levels), to get better abilities and also summon its pets. I like that because it avoids both the problem of being wolf guy when the party goes to an underwater city and the problem of sticking thirty different minions on the minimap, but I've been told that would qualify as a caster according to at least Digiman's definition of the term.

I suggested a similar paradigm shift long ago. Comdense present martials to levels 1-10, add new fantastic abilities for 11-20. I don't recall if he ever noticed that. It was, after all, pretty much in support of his view.

That's something I've definitely supported, but I missed it in this thread (it's also worth pointing out I haven't been posting for the whole thread, so that may have been posted earlier).

Your nerfs are very minor, and mostly just prevent the game from shattering entirely. It doesn't do anything to fix the disparity between martials and full casters.

Which is why I also suggest buffing martials. If the nerfs I want make the game not break, then either we can balance martials to the balance point they imply, or there is something inherent in the conception of "martial" that puts a cap on its power level and we should stop trying to make "martial" run the whole length of the game.

.....Is this a real question? You can't be serious. This is Batman we're talking about. Like, you do know that he is like meme'd to godlike levels and back three boards up in Media Discussions right?

That's just scaling Batman up. As it happens, that's the solution that is typically implemented for Batman, and it's the solution I support as well.

2: As 3.X went on the official classes got closer and closer to the T3 balance point, indicating that the outliers were unintended by the designers.

Except for the casters, which are with a few exceptions (Healer, Warmage) Tier Two or higher. Oddly, that's exactly like core. Insofar as you can draw any conclusion from class distribution later in the game, I'm pretty sure it's actually that casters are supposed to be better than martials.

3: Going by the definitions given for the tiers, T1-2 repeatedly use terms like "breaking the game," and T4-5 keep using terms like "useless outside of a very narrow field," neither of which are descriptions I would apply to a well made class.

Well, yeah, that's the problem with using the Tiers as a balance point. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. Wizards can break the game, but they also have other qualities (like "learning fabricate" or "having solutions to a variety of problems") that are good.

4: It seems to adhere closest to the CR guidelines presented in the Monster Manual and the DMG, meaning you have to do the least work rebalancing published challenges.

This is not true. The tiers don't check against CR at all, and the classes that preform properly are largely not Tier Three ones. Feel free to run some actual tests.

I'm going to drop the teleport argument because it can be a ton more work for the GM, and the only apparent reason you're in favor of it is "I can do it and the GM can't stop me"

And this is different from the alternative of the DM saying "you have to do it, and you have no choice" how? Oh, right, the DM puts in more work. Except that's not the real reason, because optimization is still badwrongfun. teleport allows players to make decisions about what to engage with. The fact that you think this is something that needs to be stopped makes me really sorry for anyone you DM for.

While I agree that will help, It doesn't solve the major gripe about T1 casters; them being a "univeral specialist".

Except they're not. They're simply more powerful. They aren't any less specialized than a Warblade. A Warblade has competences outside his niche, they're just less. That's exactly how a Wizard behaves, she's simply more competent both inside her niche and outside it.

That's actually fair. Too bad that in order to play in your games, that concept needs to include "can also cast spells"

Remember to translate that back though. Where you're saying "cast spells", what you mean is "make selections from a list of abilities which can be different on different days". That's deeply weird to me because it makes Warblades, but not Warlocks or Warmages, spellcasters. That seems very off to me, but I can't tell you your definition is not how you divide spells from non-spells. Also, if we're talking about using only published content, there is no ability that does stuff on par with teleport that isn't a spell because of existing imbalance. It seems unfair to blame me for that -- I've repeatedly said that if I wrote the game, it would be better suited to facilitating everyone having the kinds of abilities I value.

I agre with this to a point; the point is that under a milestone spell paradigm, a) once again it's "spells or GTFO", and b) it shoots the bard and the sorcerer in the foot as they have to waste not-insignificant chunks of their spells known into madatory milestones.

Well, again, I'm using "spells" as a shorthand. I would be perfectly happy with the Rogue getting a ... is it "talents" they have in PF? Anyway, some kind of ability, that let them walk through walls or read minds or something. As it happens, the existing examples of abilities like that are spells (or psionic powers), so that's what I refer to, but they should be offered to every class.

Again, examples, please.

Die Vecna Die! is about stopping Vecna's ascension, though admittedly newer than I claimed. The Dragon Kings sourcebook also has rules for becoming, if not gods, at least something passably close. The Immortals rules for BECMI seem close.

Kallimakus

2017-09-27, 01:30 PM

That's something I've definitely supported, but I missed it in this thread (it's also worth pointing out I haven't been posting for the whole thread, so that may have been posted earlier).

I'll suggest another compromise then. I'll begin at elaborating my point vs your point (As I see it). You say that high-level characters should have powers that allow them to select when, where and how to interact with the world. Equally, high-level characters need personal abilities that can make their mark on the world (like Fabricate) and change it. In my view (which isn't strictly in conflict with this, as I'll get to), A non-magical character should be able to fight Dragons and demons and devils and demigods (with magic only being used to facilitate the encounter, meaning that an ally could do it).

So my suggestion is that levels 1-10 increase Power and levels 11-20 increase Versatility, or the ability to affect the world. Some overlap may be present. This would require condensing martial classes to the 1-10 range, and rebalancing monsters accordingly. So essentially a level 10 character is about as strong as a level 20 character is currently. A level 20 character is not significantly stronger than at level 1, but has a far greater scope of ability. This means that no part of the game is 'locked' behind 'must be spellcaster to play' tier. Because monsters wouldn't really get more powerful past level 10, you could choose to advance Versatility and Power at the same time, ending up with 10 level classes. Or something like this idea.

Unfortunately, like most compromises, it tends to be clumsy, potentially unsatisfactory for everyone involved and too much work to implement.

Which is why I also suggest buffing martials. If the nerfs I want make the game not break, then either we can balance martials to the balance point they imply, or there is something inherent in the conception of "martial" that puts a cap on its power level and we should stop trying to make "martial" run the whole length of the game.

As implied above, in terms of power martials should be capable of handling everything statted in the game given a high enough level. So a 'pure martial' should be viable for the entire power-scale, but not necessarily other scales.

Well, yeah, that's the problem with using the Tiers as a balance point. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. Wizards can break the game, but they also have other qualities (like "learning fabricate" or "having solutions to a variety of problems") that are good.

I think that most people here in the 'Down with T1' group agree that Socerer is already better than a wizard. They have access to each and every Wizard button, but not at the same time. As has been iterated to the point of boredom, the problem isn't in the abilities themselves, it is the ability to have any ability.

This is not true. The tiers don't check against CR at all, and the classes that preform properly are largely not Tier Three ones. Feel free to run some actual tests.

I'd like to shove the burden of proof your way. I'd be rather willing to bet real money (though not a large sum) that T1 casters can and do quite well outperform their CR

And this is different from the alternative of the DM saying "you have to do it, and you have no choice" how? Oh, right, the DM puts in more work. Except that's not the real reason, because optimization is still badwrongfun. teleport allows players to make decisions about what to engage with. The fact that you think this is something that needs to be stopped makes me really sorry for anyone you DM for[/QUOTE]

As I said earlier, optimization doesn't add to the game, and doesn't fundamentally change anything. Optimization is generally just numbers. And numbers are ultimately arbitrary. And as also mentioned, optimization adds work to the GM (as they need to optimize everything, while a PC only optimizes one. Of course the GM is free to not do that, but I consider balance (calculated imbalance) a point of pride.

digiman619

2017-09-27, 03:44 PM

You can't really "fix" it, because the problem is inherent in that tradeoff. If there are abilities that make you much more powerful some of the time, you have a very strong incentive to ensure that conflicts occur during that time, and if possible that they do not occur during the corresponding time for your opponent. If it's not teleport ambushes, it's dimension door ambushes, or whatever else allows you to get surprise. The alternative is that you don't have short term buffs you can cast before combat.
Which is why Satinavian was suggesting nerfing scrying instead.

Which is why I also suggest buffing martials. If the nerfs I want make the game not break, then either we can balance martials to the balance point they imply, or there is something inherent in the conception of "martial" that puts a cap on its power level and we should stop trying to make "martial" run the whole length of the game.
Which would hold more water if you had any idea on how to do that; with the exception of "also make them fixed-list casters", you've had no real idea how to do that. That in and of itself would be fine, but you then complained that fixed-list casters are a problem because they can expand their spells known, despite using fixed casters with expanded spells known in previous examples.

So I ask for a third time: Is fixed-list casters who expand their spell lists a good or bad thing?

Well, yeah, that's the problem with using the Tiers as a balance point. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. Wizards can break the game, but they also have other qualities (like "learning fabricate" or "having solutions to a variety of problems") that are good.
If part of your solution to "underpowered" martials is to make fixed list casters, why can't one of them have fabricate?

And this is different from the alternative of the DM saying "you have to do it, and you have no choice" how? Oh, right, the DM puts in more work. Except that's not the real reason, because optimization is still badwrongfun. teleport allows players to make decisions about what to engage with. The fact that you think this is something that needs to be stopped makes me really sorry for anyone you DM for.
I'm not saying you can't have choice, and I'm not in favor of railroads. If you don't want to take a given adventuring hook, you don't have to. If you decide you don't want to delve to Tomb of Horrors and would rather go east and fight the djinn of Anauroch Desert (I admit, I googled it), you can. There are two reasons I'm against teleport. First, is that it demands either supreme improvisational skill (something that only the really good GMs are good at), or much more meticulous notes. The second reason is that, once again, the choice to go to wherever isn't up to the GM or the party as a whole. Only the Wizard* has that power. If their player feels like, they have carte blanche to @#$% up your game whenever they want.

Except they're not. They're simply more powerful. They aren't any less specialized than a Warblade. A Warblade has competences outside his niche, they're just less. That's exactly how a Wizard behaves, she's simply more competent both inside her niche and outside it.
Really? You're going to say that it's okay that a core Wizard can do a Rogue's job better than a Rogue (alter self, knock, passwall, etc.) and a fighter's better than a Fighter (polymorph, shapechange, the summon monster line) because the Warblade has Diplomacy as a class skill? You honestly expect me to believe that a class that was written in 2006 justifies the Wizard being (at least comparatively) OP since 2000? How dumb do you think I am? Especially since the ToB classes were written as "Fighters 2.0" and "has nothing to do outside of combat" is one of the primary failings Fighters have.

Remember to translate that back though. Where you're saying "cast spells", what you mean is "make selections from a list of abilities which can be different on different days". That's deeply weird to me because it makes Warblades, but not Warlocks or Warmages, spellcasters. That seems very off to me, but I can't tell you your definition is not how you divide spells from non-spells. Also, if we're talking about using only published content, there is no ability that does stuff on par with teleport that isn't a spell because of existing imbalance. It seems unfair to blame me for that -- I've repeatedly said that if I wrote the game, it would be better suited to facilitating everyone having the kinds of abilities I value.
With respect, Warlocks were explicitly never casters. Though I admit, my definition didn't take fixed-list casters in account. As for "blaming" you for the imbalance, it's not only because you are advocating for a power level that the game cannot handle and doing everything you can to justify that position; it's because you only rarely give positive feedback for anything other 3.X D&D, and the only time I've seen you give said positive feedback was as a defense against a claim that you do only care about stuff that was written by WotC.

Well, again, I'm using "spells" as a shorthand. I would be perfectly happy with the Rogue getting a ... is it "talents" they have in PF? Anyway, some kind of ability, that let them walk through walls or read minds or something. As it happens, the existing examples of abilities like that are spells (or psionic powers), so that's what I refer to, but they should be offered to every class.
Using spells as shorthand is fair, I suppose (though using them in quotations might help people remember that you're using it as shorthand), but you still didn't answer the second half of the question: What about the Bard and the Sorcerer? What about the non-fixed list spontaneous casters? What are they supposed to do?

Die Vecna Die! is about stopping Vecna's ascension, though admittedly newer than I claimed. The Dragon Kings sourcebook also has rules for becoming, if not gods, at least something passably close. The Immortals rules for BECMI seem close.
Looks like I've got more homework.

Technically a Sorcerer or a Cleric with the Travel Domain can do it too, but more likely than not it's going to be the Wizard

Max_Killjoy

2017-09-27, 03:49 PM

If nothing else, this thread has made me less trepidatious about the "power level" of a couple WIP protagonists... sheesh.

Cosi

2017-09-27, 05:12 PM

So my suggestion is that levels 1-10 increase Power and levels 11-20 increase Versatility, or the ability to affect the world.

That's a radical departure from how the level system is normally thought of as working, and it means that you don't get any options until 11th, which is dumb. Also, you would probably like monsters with strategic abilities, which necessitate strategic counters, which means there is still going to be content in the "versatility" levels. Also, this means you can't have any kind of trade off spectrum between power and options. Overall, this seems like another suggestion that demands that the game bend over backwards so you can get your underpowered character.

I'd like to shove the burden of proof your way. I'd be rather willing to bet real money (though not a large sum) that T1 casters can and do quite well outperform their CR

How could I possibly prove the Wizard can't do something? The way to do that is to fail in an earnest effort to prove he can.

Which is why Satinavian was suggesting nerfing scrying instead.

Which also doesn't really work. You can still find stuff out, and people will still try to. I suppose after a certain number of hoops it technically becomes balanced, but I'd rather just fix the problem at its root.

Which would hold more water if you had any idea on how to do that; with the exception of "also make them fixed-list casters", you've had no real idea how to do that. That in and of itself would be fine, but you then complained that fixed-list casters are a problem because they can expand their spells known, despite using fixed casters with expanded spells known in previous examples.

I think you are misremembering the incident. I've never had a problem with fixed-list casters expanding their lists.

If part of your solution to "underpowered" martials is to make fixed list casters, why can't one of them have fabricate?

Yes, that would be combining traits of multiple tiers. Which is what I said you should do.

First, is that it demands either supreme improvisational skill (something that only the really good GMs are good at), or much more meticulous notes.

Well, that's why I'm suggesting adding things like expected non-combat encounters to make improvisation easier.

The second reason is that, once again, the choice to go to wherever isn't up to the GM or the party as a whole. Only the Wizard* has that power. If their player feels like, they have carte blanche to @#$% up your game whenever they want.

I still fundamentally disagree that you should deal with disruptive players by changing the game. The way to deal with disruptive people is to not play with them, not to add increasingly bizarre restrictions on the options available to other players.

Really? You're going to say that it's okay that a core Wizard can do a Rogue's job better than a Rogue (alter self, knock, passwall, etc.) and a fighter's better than a Fighter (polymorph, shapechange, the summon monster line) because the Warblade has Diplomacy as a class skill?

I don't think the imbalance is good, I just think the imbalance isn't proof the Wizard is not a specialist. Consider a simpler analogy. Presumably, the Rogue is whatever level of specialist it is throughout the whole game. So a 11th level Rogue isn't any less of a specialist than a 1st level one. But if you dropped that 11th level Rogue into a 1st level party, it would out-perform every character in that party in their niche, not because it isn't a specialist but because it's simply much more powerful. To be clear, you shouldn't do that, and the fact that the game does something similar with the Wizard (claiming power equivalence between imbalanced characters) is bad, but it's bad because of power level concerns, not anything about specialization.

With respect, Warlocks were explicitly never casters.

Well that depends on what you mean by "caster", doesn't it? Is it a mechanical definition, or a conceptual one? Personally, I'm not entirely convinced I would call a Warlock a caster, but it's certainly debatable (incidentally, I think if you do claim it's not a caster, you have much weaker grounds to object to the Cleric being a martial because point I don't think you have a clear binary anymore).

As for "blaming" you for the imbalance, it's not only because you are advocating for a power level that the game cannot handle and doing everything you can to justify that position;

I don't think there's anything about casters, particularly less infinite loops, that the game can't handle. Also, I think it's super weird that you consider me making a variety of arguments in favor of my position a problem. Do you not do everything you can to justify the things you believe? Are there arguments in favor of Spheres of Power you're just not trotting out because you don't want to seem like you care too much?

Using spells as shorthand is fair, I suppose (though using them in quotations might help people remember that you're using it as shorthand), but you still didn't answer the second half of the question: What about the Bard and the Sorcerer? What about the non-fixed list spontaneous casters? What are they supposed to do?

I would think that much is obvious -- just give them more spells known. The Sorcerer's premise, trading off a smaller set of overall options for a larger set of ones at any given time is viable, it's just skewed too low (and it gets even worse from various splat content eating away at other niches -- hey, it's another nerf-ish thing I want).