Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, because screw people who want to play Fighters at high levels. Why should they have any fun?

What you have described is a character that is gaining levels (the Wizard) and one who is not (the Fighter). You know how you implement that? By not having one character gain levels.
Not at all. The fighter, warrior, barbarian et al are swinging that sword harder, faster, more often... but their paradigm is still, at it's core, swinging a pointed metal stick while the paradigm of spell casters is utilizing the very forces of the universe.

That pointed stick is swung hard enough and fast enough to be a threat to powerful rampaging monsters. But it doesn't threaten a high end spell caster unless under extreme conditions. And I see nothing wrong with that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Supply & demand is hard! (I'm serious. Look at real world examples - such as how no one realized that flooding Haiti with rice would put the rice farmers there out of business. :smalleek:)


So very difficult. :smallamused:

In a world where food is literally superpower fuel, it takes a serious amount of handwavium to brush off considerations and concerns about increased demand versus the relative scarcity of supply through most of human history.




Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.


(skipping some stuff between)



Ok, You want my honest advice for this sort of thing?

go into your head, find your nagging inner physicist and beat them brutally with a golf club until they beg for mercy and leave you have fun without needing to jump through meaningless worldbuilding hoops. your the one in control and make all the decisions. not whatever is telling you that you need to follow physics. people convinced themselves just because you put all this work into understanding physics and can apply this work to the game, that you "have" to apply it. that you "have" to hold yourself to it, because you invested so much into it, and can't recognize when to compartmentalize this, when to control yourself and recognize that just because its your interest, doesn't mean its always appropriate for the situation.


I wouldn't consider lesser_minion's comment on the weight and strength of objects that the super-strong character interacts to be a "full physics dissertation". It's more at a "I thought about this for five minutes" level.




because currently the standard in this thread for "put a little more thought into wordbuilding" is "full physics dissertation about every single aspect of reality and how its different." thats ridiculous and no one should be held to that standard. thats strictly "going way above and beyond what is expected of a world-builder" levels of thought. a world-builder is only obligated to build as much as they need to, to make the world work they way they WANT for the focus they desire. Nothing more.


Especially when it comes to gaming where a GM needs to have answers ready combined with a framework to improvise answers from, I'm a firm advocate of the "iceberg principle" -- that 90% of the worldbuilding won't be immediately visible to the players.

When I'm reading setting sections or supplements for RPGs, there's often a sense that there's information missing or unfinished or unsaid, and it's very frustrating. I want to know what it's like for the people who live in that world and those cultures, to have a better sense of what characters would know and think and feel, and that's often not there. Instead, it feels like I'm looking at an old western movie set, with the building facades propped up by boards from behind, their hollowness hidden on film by window curtains, lighting, and camera angles.

[Max_Killjoy]

Food is a literal superpower enabler, not superpower fuel. You also need to train hard, consistently and for the rest of your life, something the vast majority of people on this planet would rather not do since it's a lot of extra work. You're also unlikely to get it by accident.
And if you mess up your diet, you die. Not everyone is an hypernutritionist, especialy not before modern time.
I can even establish that the possibility of growing superstrong wasn't common knowledge for most of human history due to how restrictive the diet and training are. Like for electricity; harnessing the power of Lighting? Witchcraft ! Yet here we are.
Having to rebuy hyperdensity models of all your everyday things for twenty times the price because you constantly break regular ones by accident is also a deterrent for everyone who isn't a multimillionaire.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned another major drawback early on. Something about sinking in dirt. Having to rebuild your home and rethink your lifestyle is only a minor setback when compared to being confined to hyperdensity streets built for the likes of you.


Now why don't you tell me what the major changes I overlooked are and how they make that world incoherent. I'm pretty sure I can do more worldbuilding to erase more problems.

You're already blowing off a major issue because it's inconvenient, I don't expect any more than that level of effort.

[Max_Killjoy]

Low levels:
I am beginning to learn the arcane mysteries that shape the universe and can cast the most vasic of spells. You swing a pointed metal stick. My basic spells are no match.

Lower mid levels:
I can cast lightly powered spells and can maybe avoid your pointed stick.. but if your pointed stick finds me, I am still no match. You still swing a pointed metal stick.

Mid levels:
My magic can start doing some pretty neat stuff. You now need magic items to reach me, but magic items are readilly available. Your pointed stick is a threat, but less of one.

High levels:
I wield the forces of the universe with great precision. You swing a pointed metal stick. I laugh at your pointed metal stick.

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

I do. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But then I'm also looking at the entire concept of levels and classes as part of the problem.

[Cosi]

That pointed stick is swung hard enough and fast enough to be a threat to powerful rampaging monsters. But it doesn't threaten a high end spell caster unless under extreme conditions. And I see nothing wrong with that.

That's stupid. You're asking that anyone who play a sword character only contribute in combat. That's a very obviously bad design, because it fails the basic test of game design -- ensuring that everyone at the table is actually playing the game. If you give some characters abilities that make other characters not matter, that isn't possible.

[Cazero]

You're already blowing off a major issue because it's inconvenient, I don't expect any more than that level of effort.Say what? I'm restating my starting assertion with more details. The core idea didn't change a bit. It's not my fault you assumed I screwed up.

[Calthropstu]

That's stupid. You're asking that anyone who play a sword character only contribute in combat. That's a very obviously bad design, because it fails the basic test of game design -- ensuring that everyone at the table is actually playing the game. If you give some characters abilities that make other characters not matter, that isn't possible.

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.
Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.
You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.
Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.
You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

So why require the fighter to be an "ordinary person"? One option to deal with this is to allow all character types access to the extraordinary via concept-appropriate means. You resolve the "guy at the gym" issue by not clinging to the notion that the fighter is "a guy at the gym".

[Cosi]

Not at all. I wasn't talking about out of combat, I was talking about in combat for both the caster and the martial.

So in combat, the Fighter is competent, but the Wizard has way more abilities than the Fighter. So is the Wizard defined as broken, or are his abilities irrelevant?


Even out of combat though, the caster is going to have options the martial simply can't because magic, by its very definition, is doing something ordinary people CAN'T.

20th level characters are not ordinary. If the most powerful martial you can conceive of is an "ordinary person", you do not want martial classes to go to 20th level.


You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...

I'm complaining that you are demanding that the game not be balanced. That's stupid. It makes the game worse for everyone because of your personal tastes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Say what? I'm restating my starting assertion with more details. The core idea didn't change a bit. It's not my fault you assumed I screwed up.

You still haven't explained even the basics if how your core premise works, you just keep repeating that it does. You haven't given us any idea how human tissue could get so dense that peak performance increases by an order of magnitude or more.

If it walks like a magic duck, and quacks like a magic duck, and looks like a magic duck... it's very probably a magic duck.

Which is fine, I'm not knocking settings that rely on a magical conceit of some kind -- just the impossible notion that you can have everything at once, that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Sanderson does a pretty good job of integrating Allomancy and the other supernatural elements into his Mistborn setting and its history and cultures, and actually following through with it, but he never pretends it's anything other than magic.

[Calthropstu]

So in combat, the Fighter is competent, but the Wizard has way more abilities than the Fighter. So is the Wizard defined as broken, or are his abilities irrelevant?



20th level characters are not ordinary. If the most powerful martial you can conceive of is an "ordinary person", you do not want martial classes to go to 20th level.



I'm complaining that you are demanding that the game not be balanced. That's stupid. It makes the game worse for everyone because of your personal tastes.

I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.

The pinnacle of martial combat should be a huge threat... to other martial creatures. But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.

[Cosi]

I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.

You and Psyren need to stop pretending this proves your point. 4e isn't what happens when you balance the game (you can tell because it isn't actually balanced). 4e is what happens when you decide that "Fighters shouldn't have real abilities" is an acceptable choice, and design the whole game from there. 4e is your baby. From top to bottom.


But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.

This is also a terrible design decision. "Sometimes, your powers kill you because reasons*." is stupid and bad for the game. Just make things balanced. This is not a hard problem.

*: Specifically, because the designers are too incompetent to actually balance the game, so they decided that screwing everyone would somehow be the same.

[Max_Killjoy]

I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.

The pinnacle of martial combat should be a huge threat... to other martial creatures. But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.

If you're willing to set the game up that way and all the players are on board with the divergence between "guy at the gym" fighters and "worldbreaker" casters, then there's nothing wrong with that setup.

There's also room for games where all the characters are worldbreakers. There's also room for games where all the characters are balanced around the ultra-peak-normal-human level for fighters and casters.

In each case, just be honest and up-front about what the game is and is not, and about which element you've given up.


(Also, 4e isn't an example of balance, it's an example of balance done badly resulting in a kinda samey and bland game.)

[Cazero]

You still haven't explained how your core premise works, you just keep repeating that it does.It's a premise. I selected it for the consequences I could derive from it, mentioned how some fundamental laws of the universe would probably need to be different to enable it, then asserted it as true without need for further justification in the confined environment of worldbuilding I was doing. Isn't that how premises work?

And I don't understand what you're asking for anyway. Equations that I would need to rewrite the entire laws of physics to get?

Cross edit :
Sanderson does a pretty good job of integrating Allomancy and the other supernatural elements into his Mistborn setting and its history and cultures, and actually following through with it, but he never pretends it's anything other than magic.So you pretty much gave him a pass because he put the word "magic" in it. But rewriting the laws of physics in such a way that specific consequences naturaly occur once society is reaching post-scarcity like I'm trying to do apparently can't be valid.

[Calthropstu]

You and Psyren need to stop pretending this proves your point. 4e isn't what happens when you balance the game (you can tell because it isn't actually balanced). 4e is what happens when you decide that "Fighters shouldn't have real abilities" is an acceptable choice, and design the whole game from there. 4e is your baby. From top to bottom.



This is also a terrible design decision. "Sometimes, your powers kill you because reasons*." is stupid and bad for the game. Just make things balanced. This is not a hard problem.

*: Specifically, because the designers are too incompetent to actually balance the game, so they decided that screwing everyone would somehow be the same.

Game design isn't just about character abilities. It's not just combat either.

It's about believability and a world that makes sense. D&D did this very well. Mages have ALWAYS dominated at high levels, and my argument is IT MAKES SENSE. Your calls for balance sounds like a petulant child crying because his brother got all A's and he can't.
Balance is a nonissue compared to believability and essential sensibility.

[death390]

ok haven't read through everything yet this is a damn large forum. here is what i got from OP and will reply again at later point. note that the majority of my play experience is with the dnd d20 system, rifts (and a couple other palladium games), and a session or two of misc systems.

1) if you can only do as good as the best mundanes then why are you a caster? if you can only do as good as the best mundanes but are not as specialized, meaning you are more versatile than one. then you are inherently better than the standard mundane. the only reason to be a caster in that case would be for highly specialized concepts like a warrior priest, a traveling scribe, ect. or highly versatile ones that do everything a mundane does. note that doing this eliminates ALL forms of extraordinary magic. the magical weapons from dnd would be gone for example. so throwing out magic missile with an attack roll attached would be about the best damage you could do. to emulate a craftsman magecraft (+5 to a check). hmm now that i think about it the only point that magic in dnd 3.5 matches mundane (maybe even slightly behind) is lvl 1, possibly lvl 2. the idea of basic alchemy in this would be king i suppose.

2) you see this one alot in some great high fantasy books. a limited quantity of magic that you must spend time regaining. a good example of this would be the lightbringer series by brent weeks (amazing series!). basic chomaturgy is the ability to absorb reflected light and use each color in its own way. (sub-red flames, red= tar, blue = tempered glass, ect) however in order for them to get their magic they have to spend time drawing (read staring) at surface that is that color. for example a red drafter (name of the caster class) has to either stare at something red (brick wall, blood, ect) or something light colored with red lenses, in order to power their magic. even then they only have a limited quantity of the color to work with untill they refresh. they have other problems associated with this magic (makes you insane if used to much) but ill talk about that if anyone wants to chat about it later.

another variation of this is Dresden files books by Jim Butcher. Dresden is a modern wizard who has a extremely limited repertoire of spells and relies on his gear overall HOWEVER the part i am thinking of with this is the fact that he often wears himself thin and is running on fumes as the book goes on. that said he still can throw a mean punch, uses a gun, and without his focuses can still torch you. the problem with using this as a comparison is the fact that he is closer to a mana based sorcerer who never really gets time to get his mana back rather than the magic being limited. his limiting factor is his focus wears thin as the books go on.


3) this one is a personal peeve of mine, turning magic into a straight possibility of failure. the ONLY way i could ever see playing something like this is that this would be the ONLY limiting factor. due to the fact that if magic has a decent chance to fail outright it needs to be balanced by unlimited tries (just takes time basically) otherwise you are giving up major resources for nothing.

4) i personally love this option for all its glory one of my favorite dnd books is tome of battle (even though i love casters). unfortunately people seem to have a bad reaction to this calling it "anime" or "wuxai" and don't want to touch it with a 10' pole.

5) see i kinda like this one myself. dnd beguiler, duskblade, pathfinder magus, spheres of power, ect. those are quite fun to me. the idea of a mage who is good a subset of magic above all things is great. honestly i think this is part of the problem with dnd. a dnd wizard can do ANYthing, but should he? there should be basic blaster spells in the generalist category in my opinion but all the major damage spells should be either in evocation or conjuration, enchantment is straight at what it does, as are illusion and divination. abjuration and transmutation are a little tied together. but think about it having only access to at most 2 schools + general (includes a few blasty spells) and divination wouldn't be bad.

beguiler is basically divination, illusion, enchantment. duskblade is basically evocation, abjuration, transmutation. after finding a way to get SOME kind of blasty ability i love the beguiler as probably my favorite class played (haven't had a chance to play SptP Erudite yet though)

6) this one is basically where it is now to be honest. you have your standard dnd party, wizard, cleric, rouge, fighter. but at the same time i would play a game with a wizard, favored soul, beguiler, and duskblade and probably have more fun (that kinda like option 5). the only difference is the fact that the players now HAVE to play more than 1 character, and to be honest i dislike this option. one character is enough for me, i would rather try and find a compelling story for my single character than juggle 3, 4, or 5.

havent read past vox yet as i was replying to this but i kinda like the idea he had. whelp off to programming class l8r.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's a premise. I selected it for the consequences I could derive from it, mentioned how some fundamental laws of the universe would probably need to be different to enable it, then asserted it as true without need for further justification in the confined environment of worldbuilding I was doing. Isn't that how premises work?

And I don't understand what you're asking for anyway. Equations that I would need to rewrite the entire laws of physics to get?


Explain how it's even remotely possible, show you've actually looked at the chemistry and physics and biology involved.




Cross edit :So you pretty much gave him a pass because he put the word "magic" in it. But rewriting the laws of physics to enlarge mundane possibilities like I'm trying to do apparently can't be valid.


Actually, I don't think he ever uses the word "magic" in the fiction, at least through the first two books. He lays out details of how the magic works, however. But if you listen to his podcast or read his commentary, it's clear he's not pretending it's anything but "magic" in the broad sense.

In contrast, you're just saying "I changed the laws of physics" and openly rejecting the notion that there's any magic (in the broad sense) involved -- but not explaining which laws you've changed or how.

And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient.

"In 1922, it was discovered that lions can bite you." :smallconfused:

[death390]

~snip

I've got an old RPG system called Heroes of Olympus, where followers of Hermes and Hecate can get magic, but learn new spells based on this system. I haven't decided quite how I feel about it yet. It fits the setting very well--magic comes from the gods directly, and they do not simply hand it out freely to everyone who asks--but it takes away a large degree of player agency. You want to play a blasting caster? Too bad, you rolled nothing but illusion spells. Still, though, with player buy in it'd work. Would still require balancing magic in other ways, I'd imagine. Even if your wizard had to roll for their spells, if the table is full of 8th and 9th level spells (in D&D terms), they're still going to be able to outclass the fighter, even if they don't get to pick.
~snip

honestly to give back player agency why not just alter the list to contain things they would eventually like to have and give it to them randomly? for example a 1st level dnd wizard wants to know: sleep, color spray, magic missile, shield, mage armor, and lets say magecraft. if they only get 3 at lvl 1 roll randomly and that;s what they get. or instead of only getting magic missile, roll for evocation spell school when wanting something blasty.


sorry had to read 1 more post :p

[Cosi]

It's about believability and a world that makes sense. D&D did this very well. Mages have ALWAYS dominated at high levels, and my argument is IT MAKES SENSE. Your calls for balance sounds like a petulant child crying because his brother got all A's and he can't.

I mean, if someone got all As, and you were specifically told you weren't supposed to be able to get As because of your major, would you not be pissed?

That said, none of what you are calling for requires class imbalance. If you want Wizards to dominate, just say they are higher level.


Balance is a nonissue compared to believability and essential sensibility.

Yes, and you can have believable settings with balanced martials. What you are asking for is the game only supporting exactly the setting you want, which is a non-starter in kitchen sink fantasy.

[Cazero]

Explain how it's even remotely possible, show you've actually looked at the chemistry and physics and biology involved.I don't know. And until you demonstrated that you know how gravity is even remotely possible, I don't see why I should need to do that much effort.


In contrast, you're just saying "I changed the laws of physics" and openly rejecting the notion that there's any magic (in the broad sense) involved -- but not explaining which laws you've changed or how.Well obviously, if you start from the assertion that changing the laws of physics in any way creates magic in the broad sense, I necessarily created magic in the broad sense. But it's circular reasoning.


And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient. Fun fact : there were steam-powered machines in ancient Egypt. It took a looooong time before a convenient coincidence allowed steam power to find an industrial scale use.


"In 1922, it was discovered that lions can bite you." :smallconfused:
Domesticating lightning is an accurate metaphor. You wrote a strawman.

[Calthropstu]

I mean, if someone got all As, and you were specifically told you weren't supposed to be able to get As because of your major, would you not be pissed?

That said, none of what you are calling for requires class imbalance. If you want Wizards to dominate, just say they are higher level.



Yes, and you can have believable settings with balanced martials. What you are asking for is the game only supporting exactly the setting you want, which is a non-starter in kitchen sink fantasy.

Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

Edit: Also, maybe I need a better analogy. A professional in the modern age vs an uneducated laborer. The professional commands greater respect, makes more money and has more cool stuff. That gap only widens as higher and higher skill levels are achieved though both go up.

Same paradigm here, the higher in level the caster gets, the wider that power gap becomes... because it makes sense. Wizards, clerics druids etc... At high lvls they are irreplaceable. The high level martial? Easily replaced.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

That's a bit like saying no one would ever become a professional athlete if other people could become physicists...

Talents and passions differ.

[Cosi]

Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

Why? The game says that learning to be 20th level by swinging a sword is just as hard as learning to be 20th level by doing magic. You aren't doing extra work for the same effect.

[Calthropstu]

Why? The game says that learning to be 20th level by swinging a sword is just as hard as learning to be 20th level by doing magic. You aren't doing extra work for the same effect.

You are, however, taking far far greater risks.

[Tanarii]

The problem with talking about early power Fighters and later power Wizards, which is clearly a reference to early D&D, is it isn't actually accurate. Late power wizards have incredible offense power, but that's not the only measure of "power". Unless they've either got the jump on their enemies, or they have "Line Grunts" between them and the enemy, they're in trouble. They're still vulnerable "Heavy Artillery" units, and hard to play well to boot, even at high levels.

Of course, people often house-ruled out all the stuff that makes Wizards vulnerable and hard to play, but leave them with that massive offensive power at higher levels. And this trend eventually became the standard for official design as well, which became a problem in 3e.

[Cosi]

You are, however, taking far far greater risks.

Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.

[Calthropstu]

Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.

Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.

Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?

[Max_Killjoy]

Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.

Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?

Fair. It can be the same.

On the other hand, why should or must it be the same?

Seems like either same or not-same are both valid options.

[Anymage]

And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient.

Some did. That's where various demihumans and humanoids came from, from elves to giants.

Although in practice, I find the line between "the laws of physics are different in such specific ways that humans can become superheroes" and "the laws of physics are the same as earth's, except there's also a mana field that, among other things, allows humans who learn to properly harness it to become superheroes" to be impossibly thin. So I guess I'm with you in that saying "because magic" really is the answer most conducive to actually getting everyone's butts in their seats and actually telling the story/playing the game.


Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

Define "guy swinging a sword". If you're talking about someone you might actually meet in real-life earth, you should be comparing real-life fencers to real-life stage magicians. If you're comparing fantasy to fantasy, anime level swordsmanship and anime level casting can coexist quite happily.

And in this case, I think an exalted sorcerer vs. an exalted swordsman is indeed a fair comparison. The former can indeed cause more dramatic effects than the latter, up to and including minor alterations that affect the whole world. For various reasons, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the sword guy. (Off the top of my head: individual spells cost as much to learn as individual sword powers, sword powers are much more immediately applicable, and that plot-device level powers require plot-device level work.) D&D omni-casters are not and should not be the gold standard.

[Cosi]

Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.

Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?

They aren't dangerous for the people studying them. Or at least no more so than boxing or football are for the people playing them.

[Calthropstu]

They aren't dangerous for the people studying them. Or at least no more so than boxing or football are for the people playing them.

Oh really? So working with radioactive material is no more dangerous than playing football? Is that your assertion?
I doubt many will feel the same.

[Cosi]

Oh really? So working with radioactive material is no more dangerous than playing football? Is that your assertion?
I doubt many will feel the same.

Compare the injury rates among professional football players and nuclear physicists, then come back with a new strawman.

[lesser_minion]

Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.

I don't see how that's true on either count.

If it's a D&D-esque game where players make wizards for the express purpose of being able to cast spells, it's a bad idea to have Cthulhu show up and bite someone's face off for casting a spell, sure.

If it's understood from the start that magic is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable, that's a whole different ball game.


Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

Different people have different talents. Not everyone has the talent to study martial arts.

And I think most people want to upgrade fighters to far beyond "guy swinging a sword" territory -- think more along the lines of the fight scenes from something like Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, or House of Flying Daggers.

Although someone will probably be along shortly to tell me that those examples are tame compared with what fighters "should be".

[Calthropstu]

Compare the injury rates among professional football players and nuclear physicists, then come back with a new strawman.
So yeah... how many cities has a football accident wiped out? That's what I mean by bigger risks. Nukes could quite literally wipe out the entire planet. A football player can't even come close to matching that power.



Define "guy swinging a sword". If you're talking about someone you might actually meet in real-life earth, you should be comparing real-life fencers to real-life stage magicians. If you're comparing fantasy to fantasy, anime level swordsmanship and anime level casting can coexist quite happily.

And in this case, I think an exalted sorcerer vs. an exalted swordsman is indeed a fair comparison. The former can indeed cause more dramatic effects than the latter, up to and including minor alterations that affect the whole world. For various reasons, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the sword guy. (Off the top of my head: individual spells cost as much to learn as individual sword powers, sword powers are much more immediately applicable, and that plot-device level powers require plot-device level work.) D&D omni-casters are not and should not be the gold standard.

See above. I compare it more to scientists vs football players than street magicians. Street magicians use fake magic... sleight of hand etc. Wizards are fluffed as exploring the secrets of the universe while clerics are given power by beings who already know those secrets... similar to how scientists function. A more accurate comparison would be comparing Michael Jordan to Albert Einstein or Moses.

[Cosi]

So yeah... how many cities has a football accident wiped out? That's what I mean by bigger risks. Nukes could quite literally wipe out the entire planet. A football player can't even come close to matching that power.

So because in the real world, physicists developed more dangerous weapons than football players do, magic should be more dangerous that swordplay in fantasy?

[Calthropstu]

So because in the real world, physicists developed more dangerous weapons than football players do, magic should be more dangerous that swordplay in fantasy?

In a word: Yes.

If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.

[Tanarii]

In a word: Yes.

If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.
And yet in the game that established the precedent of weak at first to ultimately powerful wizards, a high level guy swinging a sword is deadly to a high level wizard if they get in close.

Clearly they weren't doing it right.

[Max_Killjoy]

In a word: Yes.

If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.


Or that's all the more that reality will allow itself to be bent in that setting.

If someone's only metric for measuring the impact of "bending reality" is whether the person can do more damage than a guy with a sword, then maybe the imagination issue isn't where you're saying it is.

[Cosi]

In a word: Yes.

If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.

If you think "has a weapon" stops you from being a high level character, you are confused. See: Thor.

[Talakeal]

3) this one is a personal peeve of mine, turning magic into a straight possibility of failure. the ONLY way i could ever see playing something like this is that this would be the ONLY limiting factor. due to the fact that if magic has a decent chance to fail outright it needs to be balanced by unlimited tries (just takes time basically) otherwise you are giving up major resources for nothing.

I hear this one a lot and it always kind of mystifies me.

If you are allowed to attempt something as often as you like then there really isn't any possibility of failure, is there?

The only time this would be an issue is if you are in a very time sensitive situation, which is, outside of combat, a very rare occurrence.

Ironically the one place where time actually matters, in combat, is where spells already have a chance to fail; you can take damage and lose the spell, you could fail a spell resistance or ray attack roll, you could flub the damage roll, or your enemy could make their saving throw. Heck, you could even misread the situation and cast a spell to which your enemy is immune or even cast a buff spell which never comes up.

[Anymage]

See above. I compare it more to scientists vs football players than street magicians. Street magicians use fake magic... sleight of hand etc. Wizards are fluffed as exploring the secrets of the universe while clerics are given power by beings who already know those secrets... similar to how scientists function. A more accurate comparison would be comparing Michael Jordan to Albert Einstein or Moses.

Think of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or pretty much any other famous scientist who's still with us. Now think of some hobo with a gun. The scientist is absolutely still getting mugged.

If you want to get close to real-life scientists, fine. Casters have very little personal mojo, but can cause dramatically interesting effects through labwork. (Including, but not limited to, making magic items.) The guy who can pull off some astounding feats through plenty of downtime and spent cash is hard to balance against the guy who can do something cool right this instant, because you can never tell precisely how much money or downtime a specific campaign will offer. There's still plenty of reason to be the sword guy who doesn't need as much buildup.

[Calthropstu]

Think of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or pretty much any other famous scientist who's still with us. Now think of some hobo with a gun. The scientist is absolutely still getting mugged.

If you want to get close to real-life scientists, fine. Casters have very little personal mojo, but can cause dramatically interesting effects through labwork. (Including, but not limited to, making magic items.) The guy who can pull off some astounding feats through plenty of downtime and spent cash is hard to balance against the guy who can do something cool right this instant, because you can never tell precisely how much money or downtime a specific campaign will offer. There's still plenty of reason to be the sword guy who doesn't need as much buildup.

See, now this I have no problem at all with. If magic had little in the way of battle application, but huge gains in other ways that would be different. But if magic becomes practical for in person battle, if it's not better than swinging a sword and carrying a shield, wth is the point? Pay a soldier to protect you would be far more cost effective so you could direct your studies elsewhere for more practical purposes a la developing nukes.

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

[Tanarii]

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.Capable doesn't have to mean always superior. That holds true for non-magical solutions too. Sometimes a Heavy Crossbow is a better solution than a Longsword and Shield, and sometimes it's the other way around.

Magic doesn't have to be a Modern Machine Gun to the enemies wooden spears. It can be Artillery (magic) and Tanks (mundane).

[Cosi]

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Specializing in swinging a sword is specializing in something that is as useful as swinging as sword. At least, I should hope it is.

You're asking "if A isn't better than B, why would I pay more for A" without first establishing that A should cost more (or for that matter, that it even does).

[lesser_minion]

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

An army with access to working magic will typically be more effective than one without. Imagine all the delicious stuff you can do with an illusionist on your side, for example. And don't forget the "force in being" principle, either. If the enemy is constantly on guard for what your wizards might try to do to him, he's already far less effective even before your wizards have done anything to him.

[Anymage]

There are ways to resolve the caster/noncaster disparity in combat. Two off the top of my head are the wargaming style where the artillery needs front lines to be used effectively, and the 4e style where crowd control, DPS, and tank are all distinct jobs.

The real problem in D&D and most other systems inspired by it is the fundamental difference between caster powers and noncaster powers outside of combat, though. Noncaster powers are usually vague, scale poorly, rarely see sufficient expansion, and often rely on GM adjudication which often does assume a baseline of "some guy with a pointy stick". (3.x's skills being one example; slow innate scaling, few new skills added over the life of the expansion, intrinsically limited number of skill points, and good luck hitting impressive DCs without a magic assist. AD&D's proficiencies worked on basically a straight roll against your base stat, gave few clarifications about the breadth of their use, and while more were added over the life of the product, proficiency slots were never increased to encourage more niche picks.) Casters, meanwhile, picked up explicit and impressive powers throughout their career. They also overwhelmingly continued to gain new abilities as the game progressed. (Sorcerers could commiserate with noncasters about having a limited number of slots for an increasing number of potential powers. Wizards, meanwhile, just had to spend a bit more gold on top picks. Clerics and druids just happily got more whenever someone bought a new book.)

I don't just want Conan to be able to eventually beat up Thulsa Doom. I want the knight-captain of the realm or Sherlock Holmes to have a role, instead of some caster being able to find some way to do the same or better by just casting a couple of spells. That's where "warps reality with a thought vs. guy with a pointy stick" really rears its head, and needs to be stomped down hard.

[Talakeal]

See, now this I have no problem at all with. If magic had little in the way of battle application, but huge gains in other ways that would be different. But if magic becomes practical for in person battle, if it's not better than swinging a sword and carrying a shield, wth is the point? Pay a soldier to protect you would be far more cost effective so you could direct your studies elsewhere for more practical purposes a la developing nukes.

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

Things can be different without being better. If a balanced army with a mix of mages and martials is best then they both have their uses, and if one is rarer than the other they will receive more pay even if they are individual no more useful than the other.

For example, a real army needs all sorts of support rolls, mechanics, medics, radio operators, even cooks and janitors. None of these people kick as much but as soldiers, but they are still needed to win the war, and if it is an obscure field or requires a fancy degree they will still be paid more than the grunts.

[Calthropstu]

Things can be different without being better. If a balanced army with a mix of mages and martials is best then they both have their uses, and if one is rarer than the other they will receive more pay even if they are individual no more useful than the other.

For example, a real army needs all sorts of support rolls, mechanics, medics, radio operators, even cooks and janitors. None of these people kick as much but as soldiers, but they are still needed to win the war, and if it is an obscure field or requires a fancy degree they will still be paid more than the grunts.

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

[Pex]

The problem with talking about early power Fighters and later power Wizards, which is clearly a reference to early D&D, is it isn't actually accurate. Late power wizards have incredible offense power, but that's not the only measure of "power". Unless they've either got the jump on their enemies, or they have "Line Grunts" between them and the enemy, they're in trouble. They're still vulnerable "Heavy Artillery" units, and hard to play well to boot, even at high levels.

Of course, people often house-ruled out all the stuff that makes Wizards vulnerable and hard to play, but leave them with that massive offensive power at higher levels. And this trend eventually became the standard for official design as well, which became a problem in 3e.

Depends on what the vulnerabilities are. Any vulnerability of percentage chance to die is not balance. A vulnerability of percentage chance to go insane is not balance. A vulnerability of screwing over the character for doing what it's supposed to do is not balance.

[Talakeal]

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

So you are honestly saying that every person in the armed forces is equally good at combat?

The techie who sits in a bunker in Nebraska keeping the missile silo in order would be just as effective on a highly lethal midnight raid on a heavilly guarded enemy compound as a member of Seal Time Six?

[Max_Killjoy]

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

Depends on the service in question -- the US Marines are far more dedicated to the "every Marine a rifleman" creed than the other US services. If you're a computer technician in the USAF, you're VERY unlikely to ever see combat even in a way zone, and if you're one in the US Army, odds are still pretty slim even in a war zone.

[Cluedrew]

To Cosi: You know, thinking back to earlier rounds of this topic, I sometimes have felt you have slipped from "I like casters better" to "I think casters should just be better no questions asked" and that may have tinted my opinion of you. I feel a sudden urge to apologize for that.


Sanderson does a pretty good job of integrating Allomancy and the other supernatural elements into his Mistborn setting and its history and cultures, and actually following through with it, but he never pretends it's anything other than magic.Great, the big example. Follow up questions:
How does it work?
What is the fallout of Allomancy and the other supernatural parts of the story?
Are there any times you felt he slipped up?

[Tanarii]

Depends on what the vulnerabilities are. Any vulnerability of percentage chance to die is not balance. A vulnerability of percentage chance to go insane is not balance. A vulnerability of screwing over the character for doing what it's supposed to do is not balance.I very intentionally didn't use the word balance, because too many people think as you do. You're wrong, but only because what you actually mean is: X is not a fun way to balance. Restated that way it's a personal opinion, and one am fine with.

The specific vulnerabilities in question were, however, balancing factors, using the term traditionally and not in common gamer jargon. And those factors counter-balanced the raw offensive power. There's a reason the term glass cannon is commonly used.

[Cluedrew]

One thing that can lead to that not being a balancing factor is a "restart loop" where a character burns twice as bright for half as long and the player then restarts with a new character. In the end being twice as bright as the players who (for some reason) act like their character's don't want to die.

But for the most part yes, it is not so much a matter of it doesn't fix the problem as it introduces other problems.

[Tanarii]

One thing that can lead to that not being a balancing factor is a "restart loop" where a character burns twice as bright for half as long and the player then restarts with a new character.More a balancing factor for the balancing factor. So to speak.

And it depends how it works. If we're letting someone bring in a new character at power (or character) level N, which is the same one they left at, then it's not a balancing factor at all in long term. Only in the specific battle/adventure in which they are removed.

OTOH if you're having to start over again a level 1 each time while the other player continues to gain levels that adds a whole new thing. Of course with exponential XP curve where it's possible to go from 1 to N in the time the other guy goes from N to N+1, and when the 1-->N guy is getting help from the N-->N+1 guy the entire time, it's a complicated thing. :smallwink:

[Duff]

1) Magic is extremely limited. Generally, magic can only duplicate mundane feats. So you can hit me with a bolt of force, but it won't be any more damaging than an arrow. You can use magic to help you jump, but no more than the best Olympic jumper (perhaps there are diminishing returns as you get to higher "jump checks", for lack of a better term again). Could still run into the problems above when your caster can shoot as well as the best archer, jump as well as the best jumper, etc. when mundanes must specialize to achieve the same thing. Either that, or magic is so limited that it's basically a false choice; it doesn't matter if you can jump well because magic or because you trained yourself to do it physically, it takes the same amount of effort and training time and gives the same result. Neither case is particularly appealing to me.


This is kind of like 4th ed D&D (aside from rituals) - Aesthetically displeasing because whats the point of having magic in the game? May as well just have abilities and it's up to the player to explain (or not bother) whether it's magic or skill



2) Magic is limited not in effect, but in use. Either in how often it is used, or with some kind of associated, permanent cost. Maybe you can cast your big spell, but it will drain some of your life force which you cannot recover (or can only recover very, very slowly). It would be as if every single spell had an XP cost. Might be an interesting paradigm to try; casters would necessarily limit their casting or fall well behind in level. Perhaps this could be made to work with a system similar to 3.5 where they naturally get more xp if they're behind the party, not putting them permanently behind the level track of everyone else assuming they keep their casting reasonable. Alternatively, although in many ways I hate Vancian casting, what if you had a certain number of spell levels to cast from, generally equal or only slightly more than your highest spell level, but must wait some amount of time before using them again? So your wizard is capable of doing things that the mundane simply cannot, such as suddenly being able to fly, but then is out of magic completely for hours or days and is simply a particularly squishy and unskilled stick-wielder. I think it could be an interesting concept, but there are several reasons why permanent costs for magic don't lend themselves that well to roleplaying games and in either case would probably just exacerbate the "fifteen minute adventuring day" syndrome. Which is largely another discussion, and not wholly related to how magic works.


The trick with this one is to have your spell slinger still relevant when they're out of magic/on cooldown/the situation doesn't rate use of limited resources.
Weather you do that by giving them enough from option 1 or something else is a flavour choice. Maybe instead of waking the monster with her stick, the mage shoots magic bolts which aren't as good as the archer.
Or the mage's bolts are as good as the archer and the GM makes sure that everyone gets time in the limelight - the mage gets their moment when they have a reason to use the precious resource, the priest gets a divine intervention, the rogue picks the lock, the bard talks the townsfolk into helping, the warrior ... is often harder to give the limelight too.



3) Magic is unreliable. Either in effect or in usability. Perhaps every spell has a failure chance; or perhaps every spell has a chance to operate at reduced effect or even backfire. But this seems overly RNG-dependent in many ways, and again, works better for writing a story than playing a game. "Roll a die to see if your character can be effective this round" doesn't strike me as particularly good game design. One could argue that martials work that way with attack rolls, but the fighter with a greatsword (even moreso the fighter with a glaive and combat reflexes) will still restrict enemy movement and act as a damage sink, something that casters are generally bad at (short of spells). Seems tough to fine-tune so that it's not just a formality that's easily bypassed or something that makes casters basically unusable. But then again... "roll to see if you can do X" is basically the core mechanic of D&D, and most (if not all) dice based RPGs. So maybe there is something to this.


Roll to see if you succeed is part of most RPGs. The biggest problem with a high chance of failing is it make the plot less predictable for the GM. GMs will need to make sure that each problem can be solved interestingly or quickly both with and without magic. If the fly the party up the cliff spell succeeds, any effort to make the climb interesting is wasted. If the "Banish BBEG" spell works, the climax of the adventure is anticlimactic.
Less of a problem if the party have some sort of fate points to make the unlikely come off if really needed.



4) Boost mundanes instead of nerfing casters. "You can raise up a wall of stone from the ground? That's cool. I can punch the ground and make the same thing happen." Mundanes can do similar things as casters, if not the same things, but via non-magical means. I'm particularly thinking some of the extraordinary abilities that Monks can get in Pathfinder (though the fluff of several of those is still fairly magical in nature) or some of the Mythic abilities. You're breaking out of what is humanly possible, to what is superhumanly possible. I kind of like this, and I believe high-level D&D makes a lot more sense if you think of ~level 5 as the max for "normal" human beings, but it kind of runs afoul of the same issues as 1. Namely, it restricts the type of story you can tell with your game (arguably true of any system) and it possibly makes the choice moot by rendering mundane and martial equivalent.


This is actually a better description of what 4th ed does, and does well. Also Feng Shui. Makes for a more cinematic style game, but effectively everyone's magic - Do you want magic to be special? If the answer for the game you're running is "Yes", this is not the answer you're looking for. Move along.



5) Hyper-specialized casters. Perhaps, using magic, you can learn nifty tricks that no one without magic can replicate. Sure, you can learn to teleport, which no one without magic can replicate--but in that time the fighter has learned a whole repertoire of tricks. I kind of like this as well, as it encourages mixing the two approaches. If the mundanes are the generalists, capable of responding to a wide variety of situations, it encourages the caster to have their one or two tricks, but also train mundane skills to cover other options. Likewise, perhaps mundanes can dabble a bit to get small skills in magic, or simply continue to improve a wider variety of abilities. It'd require some pretty tight balancing, but I think it could work.


I share your interest. Haven't seen it done better than the ancient "Dragonquest" game. Each individual spell required work. Tended to encourage most if not all characters to have some magic to cover a range of situations. Some were more magic oriented than others. In that system, each type of magic was quite limited (about 20 spells total) as well as each spell needing work



6) Magic is just better, change the "one character" paradigm. I've never played Ars Magicka (sp?), but I've read the book and if I recall correctly this is how they do it. Everyone controls one magic user, plus a handful of mundanes. Sure, the magic users are simply better... but the mundanes still fill their roles, and no one's left out in terms of power level because everyone switches between controlling their casters and their non-casters, depending on the situation. Again, I haven't played it to see how it works in practice, but I like the idea in theory.


Works well in practice with the right group. Lots of room for everyone to have their "Thing". Also benefits from either some solo sessions/online play or a GM who can make solo scenes fun to watch

[Pex]

I very intentionally didn't use the word balance, because too many people think as you do. You're wrong, but only because what you actually mean is: X is not a fun way to balance. Restated that way it's a personal opinion, and one am fine with.

The specific vulnerabilities in question were, however, balancing factors, using the term traditionally and not in common gamer jargon. And those factors counter-balanced the raw offensive power. There's a reason the term glass cannon is commonly used.

By that logic everything is acceptable because it's fun for someone. There has to be some standard. Things that were done in the past are not automatically wrong nor automatically right. If they were wrong they should not come back because what replaced them didn't work either. They remain wrong.

[Cluedrew]

the mage gets their moment when they have a reason to use the precious resource, the priest gets a divine intervention, the rogue picks the lock, the bard talks the townsfolk into helping, the warrior ... is often harder to give the limelight too.It is trivially easy, if there is "the warrior" in the party and not "everyone is a warrior, but this one guy, this one guy is only a warrior".

My single most glorious moment in any campaign was: the party is being chased by monsters, and we are trying to make our way to the plane. My character, realizing that although we might make it to the plane in time there is no way we would be able to take off in time, stops, turns around and draws her weapons. As the only warrior in the group, she was able to fend off the monsters from reaching the rest of the party who would not be able to survive fighting them directly.

Of course, I don't think they are every going to be making the fighter flat out better at combat than the other classes in D&D. But in less combat focused games, I fully recommend it.

To Pex: I don't follow. Could you break the point, and its relation to Tanarii's comment, down in more detail?

[Duff]

Other options would be:
a - Have some problem types which mages can deal with better while in other areas they are worse than mundanes. Magic techniques counter magical problems.
For example, a mage can learn a lock picking spell. It would be a good idea if the mage lacks the manual dexterity to learn lock picking, but someone with any sort of natural ability (appropriate stats) could easily be more effective at undoing locks than the mage with spell. OTOH, the rogue will struggle (or be unable to) open the magically locked door while the mage can. The mage can hide from magical scrying but the scout can hide from a sentry looking around. The mage's spells are good against spirits but less so against mundane threats. Or for an amusing twist, the best counter to a magical problem is mundane technique while the best counter to mundane situation is magical methods.

b - Magic ability adds to mundane, not replaces.
So the mage with a sneaking spell is harder to find if they also have stealth. Magic might conjure a magic spear, but the mage still needs to throw it. Makes a focused Gish the most specialised character. Differs from option 1 in the OP in that magic is clearly different to mundane because it stacks with mundane skill.

c- make spells very specific but powerful. Magic missile spell which will only hit an opponent who is 25 meters away. Spell of hiding scent from dogs. Unlock locks made of brass. Tweak the specificity up or down along with the access to spells to suit flavour and balance. This is another one where you should consider what the mage will do when they don't have the right spell for the job:
Do they have some magical talents which are more versatile such as a fall back "Mages arrow" which would be less effective than a capable archer but not a waste of time.
Do you make available some spells which will specifically affect other party members? For this one, when the mage can't cast "Set goblins on fire" because you are fighting kobolds, he can cast "Make human warrior fly" to move the fighter around the battlefield or "Guide the rogues dagger"

d- Make magic more effective as a boost than an effect. Turn the mage into a buffer. Rogue backed by mage is sneakier than rogue or mage alone. Weather the mage can self buff or not being a flavour choice.

[Pex]

To Pex: I don't follow. Could you break the point, and its relation to Tanarii's comment, down in more detail?

Tanarii's point is limitations that were placed on spellcasters in earlier editions of D&D were taken away giving us the situation we're in. My point is taking away those limitations is not a bad thing because those limitations were bad to have in the first place.

That is not the same thing as saying there should be no limitations at all to give spellcasters absolute power. The limitations I object to are those that make the spellcaster The Suck for doing what it's supposed to do, namely cast a spell.

Edit: I equally apply the same standard for warriors. I do hate it that 3E/Pathfinder/5E berserker barbarians becomes fatigue after a rage. I also hate when 3E/Pathfinder barbarians end their rage and their CO returns to normal they lose the hit points from their current total and could actually die. I was happy Pathfinder offered an alternative to give them a temporary hit point bonus when raging.

[Calthropstu]

Depends on the service in question -- the US Marines are far more dedicated to the "every Marine a rifleman" creed than the other US services. If you're a computer technician in the USAF, you're VERY unlikely to ever see combat even in a way zone, and if you're one in the US Army, odds are still pretty slim even in a war zone.

Maybe, maybe not. But every person is combat trained regardless, and has to maintain a set standard. As an ET in the navy, I still had to stand watch, guarding the bridge just like anyone else. Yeah, there are higher standard soldiers such as the master at arms or the elite seal teams, but everyone in the military, from the lowest deck swabbing seaman to the seal teams and delta force is trained to kill people. We all had to stand watch, we all had to maintain a high level of preparedness, and whether an attack was likely or not, we were still prepared for one if it came.
Also, to be fair... we did see "combat" on a fairly regular basis. Drunken sailors tend to get into fights. Go figure.

[Arbane]

You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

The problem being when magic ALSO does everything the snivelling peasants non-magicians _can_ do.


It's about believability and a world that makes sense. D&D did this very well. Mages have ALWAYS dominated at high levels, and my argument is IT MAKES SENSE. Your calls for balance sounds like a petulant child crying because his brother got all A's and he can't.
Balance is a nonissue compared to believability and essential sensibility.

Circular reasoning. Wizzards must be the best because Wizzards have always been the best.


Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.

Dood, people study magic in THIS world, and it doesn't even seem to give level 2 spells here.


Same paradigm here, the higher in level the caster gets, the wider that power gap becomes... because it makes sense. Wizards, clerics druids etc... At high lvls they are irreplaceable. The high level martial? Easily replaced.

Are you seriously arguing, with a straight face, that there isn't/shouldn't be a qualitative difference between a level 3 Fighter and a level 20 one?
Welp, there's your problem. Part of it, anyway.



Although in practice, I find the line between "the laws of physics are different in such specific ways that humans can become superheroes" and "the laws of physics are the same as earth's, except there's also a mana field that, among other things, allows humans who learn to properly harness it to become superheroes" to be impossibly thin. So I guess I'm with you in that saying "because magic" really is the answer most conducive to actually getting everyone's butts in their seats and actually telling the story/playing the game.

Works for me. But some people seem to have a lot of personal baggage checked on the Fighters MUST BE NONMAGICAL train.



And in this case, I think an exalted sorcerer vs. an exalted swordsman is indeed a fair comparison. The former can indeed cause more dramatic effects than the latter, up to and including minor alterations that affect the whole world. For various reasons, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the sword guy. (Off the top of my head: individual spells cost as much to learn as individual sword powers, sword powers are much more immediately applicable, and that plot-device level powers require plot-device level work.) D&D omni-casters are not and should not be the gold standard.

Also, casting a spell in combat is a good way to get killed - IIRC, Sorcerers can't use defense Charms while casting spells.


And I think most people want to upgrade fighters to far beyond "guy swinging a sword" territory -- think more along the lines of the fight scenes from something like Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, or House of Flying Daggers.

Although someone will probably be along shortly to tell me that those examples are tame compared with what fighters "should be".

I'm OK with the Wuxia stuff, but... that's STILL not ludicrously overpowered enough to keep up with high-level D&D spells.


If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.

D&D Wizards DO NOT 'Bend reality to their whim', that's Mage: the Ascension. D&D spellcasters laboriously memorize pre-existing formulae to produce a relatively small number of pre-set effects. :smallconfused:

[Lord Raziere]

D&D Wizards DO NOT 'Bend reality to their whim', that's Mage: the Ascension. D&D spellcasters laboriously memorize pre-existing formulae to produce a relatively small number of pre-set effects. :smallconfused:

Technically Mage: The Ascension is BETTER about this issue because there is a tradition to be a fighter who bends reality by punching it. Akashic Brotherhood laughs at peoples presumptions.

now sure, one can argue that everyone is a mage in Mage the Ascension. but the entire point of mage the ascension is that its all subjective. there is after all five factions who completely deny that magic even exists, call themselves enlightened and their powers nothing but really powerful science. these factions are the people who rule the world and therefore are the ones who get to say whether their power is magic or not. so, who is really correct about whether their powers are magic or not? according to the consensus of the setting, its not magic, even though its the same underlying force at work.

If a gritty horror game set in the modern day can have reality-bending martials, really DnD has no excuse.

[Tanarii]

By that logic everything is acceptable because it's fun for someone. There has to be some standard. Things that were done in the past are not automatically wrong nor automatically right. If they were wrong they should not come back because what replaced them didn't work either. They remain wrong.Thats right, it is acceptable because it's fun for quite a lot of people. It's not wrong. The way old editions of D&D did things were fun for a lot of people. Still are for that matter, lots of people still play them. And lots of other systems still do them similarly, and people still have fun playing those.

However, I don't think it's common enough fun for enough people, that current main stream RPGs, like the current editions of D&D, should go back to it.

[Calthropstu]

Thats right, it is acceptable because it's fun for quite a lot of people. It's not wrong. The way old editions of D&D did things were fun for a lot of people. Still are for that matter, lots of people still play them. And lots of other systems still do them similarly, and people still have fun playing those.

However, I don't think it's common enough fun for enough people, that current main stream RPGs, like the current editions of D&D, should go back to it.

Pathfinder DID go back to it, and supplanted D&D as the most popular rpg in the process. So clearly there is definitely something quite popular about it.
If you think there's something better, by all means play it. If you think you can build something better, by all means build it.
But the tens of thousands of us who enjoy it will continue to do so.

[Mutazoia]

An army with access to working magic will typically be more effective than one without. Imagine all the delicious stuff you can do with an illusionist on your side, for example. And don't forget the "force in being" principle, either. If the enemy is constantly on guard for what your wizards might try to do to him, he's already far less effective even before your wizards have done anything to him.

And this sums up the entire issue in a nutshell. When one caster can effectively counter a large group of "mundane" soldiers, with little to no effort and/or personal risk, there is an issue.

[Frozen_Feet]

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

How did you miss the obvious in-between of "magic is as good as, and is paid the same, and is used alongside of, other weapons"?

Sheesh.


In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

No, it's a great analogy.

If magic is usefull for some supplementary role in war, you can expect all magicians employed in war to have basic warrior training. Hence, Fighter-Magic-users.

By contrast, if magic is usefull as weapon, you will see warriors train with basic of weaponizable magic, even if it will not be their primary weapon. Just like a tank driver will train in using a rifle alongside their vehicle, and a infantry will learn to use grenades, pistols, knives, bayonettes and machineguns alongside an assault rifle.

[lesser_minion]

And this sums up the entire issue in a nutshell. When one caster can effectively counter a large group of "mundane" soldiers, with little to no effort and/or personal risk, there is an issue.

It does.

One would expect a fighter of the same level to have a similar effect on an enemy army -- it's just that the nature of the threat they pose is different. But that hinges on them having relevant out-of-combat utility.

I've said it before: the problem with fighters is that people make stipulations about what they should or shouldn't be able to do, that don't flow from the concept. That happens because there are lots of incredibly specialised non-casters, and people complain when there's any significant overlap. Ultimately, the entire 'mundane' concept in D&D needs to be re-examined, and it's not just about balance.

[Mutazoia]

One would assume that a fighter of the same level would have a similar effect, it's just that the nature of the threat they pose is different.

A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

[lesser_minion]

A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

I said more about it in my edit to the post you quoted, but I was generally assuming that this was low-mid level stuff.

[digiman619]

To Cosi: You know, thinking back to earlier rounds of this topic, I sometimes have felt you have slipped from "I like casters better" to "I think casters should just be better no questions asked" and that may have tinted my opinion of you. I feel a sudden urge to apologize for that.

Yeah, that's the source of my love/hate relationship with him. We both very much agree that the huge gap between weapon-types and spell-types should be gotten rid of. We basically just argue about whether they should meet in the middle or if they should all have T1 power and versatility.

[Florian]

Going back to the OP, the option that s missing is "Magic is an extreme extension of the mundane".
That would, for example, cover Wuxia when someone must first learn to jump, bevor he can glide through the air and actually fly later on or first shoot an arrow, then a magic missile, the a fireball, and so on. Basically, there´s next to no way to start with a "Wizard" and also no way to end with a "Fighter" because sooner or later, you´d have to make the transition between those two.

[Darth Ultron]

So if character A has a Magic +1 to hit.

And character B has a Mundane +1 to hit.

Where is the difference?


And ok wizard can say make a fireball...and that can't be done in the Real World (maybe).......but if such people are so focused on playing a game ''like the Real World'', then why not play d20 Modern or any of the other ''close'' to the Real World games with no magic?

[Calthropstu]

So if character A has a Magic +1 to hit.

And character B has a Mundane +1 to hit.

Where is the difference?


And ok wizard can say make a fireball...and that can't be done in the Real World (maybe).......but if such people are so focused on playing a game ''like the Real World'', then why not play d20 Modern or any of the other ''close'' to the Real World games with no magic?

Because they don't like the fact that there is a HUGE section of people who switched to Pathfinder after 4e became a thing, and maybe dislike the 5e paradigm as well.
Yeah, there are plenty of systems where there is "balance," but no one, or not enough, want to play them. So they want to rain on our parade.

In short, they're throwing temper tantrums.

[CharonsHelper]

So if character A has a Magic +1 to hit.

And character B has a Mundane +1 to hit.

Where is the difference?



There isn't one. That's why symmetrical balance is boring.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because they don't like the fact that there is a HUGE section of people who switched to Pathfinder after 4e became a thing, and maybe dislike the 5e paradigm as well.
Yeah, there are plenty of systems where there is "balance," but no one, or not enough, want to play them. So they want to rain on our parade.

In short, they're throwing temper tantrums.

And what of those people who left D&D well before Pathfinder was even a thing?

[Anymage]

So if character A has a Magic +1 to hit.

And character B has a Mundane +1 to hit.

Where is the difference?

And ok wizard can say make a fireball...and that can't be done in the Real World (maybe).......but if such people are so focused on playing a game ''like the Real World'', then why not play d20 Modern or any of the other ''close'' to the Real World games with no magic?

In a wargame, mages as artillery makes sense. So do dragons as air support, and all sorts of other thin veneers on modern tools. (Keeping in mind, of course, that you're going to want to impose some sort of balance while modern militaries put a lot of effort into creating imbalances in their favor.)

In an RPG, mages as glass cannons in battle is fine. The issue is when mages can also fly, see the past or the future, summon up extradimensional help, mislead enemies with illusions, bend the minds of others, or anything else in the thousands of pages of published spells out there. Meanwhile, the warrior has little to no mechanical support for having eagle eyes, a deft touch, or a nose for BS. He's just the guy with a pointy stick.

[Max_Killjoy]

In a wargame, mages as artillery makes sense. So do dragons as air support, and all sorts of other thin veneers on modern tools. (Keeping in mind, of course, that you're going to want to impose some sort of balance while modern militaries put a lot of effort into creating imbalances in their favor.)

In an RPG, mages as glass cannons in battle is fine. The issue is when mages can also fly, see the past or the future, summon up extradimensional help, mislead enemies with illusions, bend the minds of others, or anything else in the thousands of pages of published spells out there. Meanwhile, the warrior has little to no mechanical support for having eagle eyes, a deft touch, or a nose for BS. He's just the guy with a pointy stick.

Part of the problem in a system like D&D/d20 is that so much of what a character can do is tied up in their class, even skills are limited (by forbiddance or by cost) on a class basis in many D&D-like systems.

So a Fighter finds it harder to also be a scholar, or a trader, or anything else, who happens to be great with weapons.

[Florian]

Part of the problem in a system like D&D/d20 is that so much of what a character can do is tied up in their class, even skills are limited (by forbiddance or by cost) on a class basis in many D&D-like systems.

Other class-based systems avoid that, by having a class give a discount on tied abilities, specials or skills. For example, the WH40K systems use class and level, but use a reverse process when compared to d20, as feats and skills have an XP cost and you level up when you´ve "bought" enough stuff wort XP. Classes either give a discount on certain things, or move feats up and down the requirement scale (Example: "Assassin Strike" costs 500 XP and is a level 5 feat. Guardmen and Assassins can get it at level 2, tho, due to class discount)

[Anymage]

Part of the problem in a system like D&D/d20 is that so much of what a character can do is tied up in their class, even skills are limited (by forbiddance or by cost) on a class basis in many D&D-like systems.

So a Fighter finds it harder to also be a scholar, or a trader, or anything else, who happens to be great with weapons.

To go a little deeper, explicit abilities tend to be easier for both players and GMs to wrap their heads around. A power that lets you fly, lets you fly. A power that lets you control animals, allows you to control animals. It's all pretty straightforwards and evocative. Meanwhile, with the exception of 3.x, nonexplicit powers were much vaguer and you couldn't necessarily guess what you could reliably do with a given score. (3.x did a bit better with all the example DCs they gave, but then kind of blew that up with rigidly defined class skills and scaling that could only reach significant numbers with a magic boost.)

It's just that for a variety of reasons, throughout D&D's history, "explicit abilities" and "spells" tended to be synonymous. 5e's backgrounds allow a fighter-merchant without too much inefficiency. It's just that aside from a vaguely defined background power, all the fighter-merchant gets is a super vague suggested DC table and +1/4 levels proficiency bonus boost. (Okay. He can also sink ASIs into off-stats and/or flavor feats. That's grossly inefficient, though.) There's a lot less ambiguity about what the wizard's spells are able to do.

[Pleh]

There isn't one. That's why symmetrical balance is boring.

Yes, I believe what we are looking for (in regards to changing "Caster Beats Mundane" paradigm) is Perfect Imbalance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w). We want Combat in RPGs to have that Rock-Paper-Scissors/LoL feel where a Fighter and Wizard duel for characters of equal level should be an even match, not because they have symmetrical balance (where they just both have the same bonuses of different types), but because they have perfect imbalance where they utilize almost completely different strategies and it comes down to Luck (dice rolls), Strategy (player choices), and Skill (being familiar enough with the challenger to anticipate threats and consequences to navigate while making spontaneous changes to Strategy).

Anime Swordman vs Anime Caster where one uses magic with their sword and one uses magic with their mind is fine. What most people want out of D&D is the sense that the Fighter didn't essentially need magic to beat the spellcaster. Part of what skews the thought experiment is definitely the influence of Schrodinger's Wizard, who gets to benefit from having whatever potential abilities would be most useful in any given scenario, rather than having the more realistic expectation that the Wizard might not have been perfectly prepared for this exact scenario.

As much fun as it can be to watch a story of a Guy With A Sword try to outmaneuver the Perfectly Prepared Wizard (see Wolverine Vs Magneto), we also have some delightful fictions and fantasies about the Underprepared Wizard trying to survive an encounter with the Guy With A Sword Who Never Has To Stop Swinging. The Perfectly Unprepared Wizard turns into the ultimate Science Survivalist, retreating to avoid direct conflict until they've managed to take whatever resources available to construct an improvised advantage.

Thing of it all is, in either scenario, we tend to root for the underdog. We want there to actually be a hope for winning, even when Magneto only has to grab Wolverine by the metal skeleton and he's basically won. We want the poor, nerdy scientist wizard who took fluffy, NPC spells and has no viable tactical magic against the fighter to find a clever use for that Mage Hand spell he happens to have prepared and turn the tables.

We want a game that acknowledges first that power disparity occasionally happens (something that Symmetrical Balance intrinsically prevents), but gives players some hope that making a few creative choices can overcome the disparity. We want Perfect Imbalance.

[CharonsHelper]

Yes, I believe what we are looking for (in regards to changing "Caster Beats Mundane" paradigm) is Perfect Imbalance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w). We want Combat in RPGs to have that Rock-Paper-Scissors/LoL feel where a Fighter and Wizard duel for characters of equal level should be an even match, not because they have symmetrical balance (where they just both have the same bonuses of different types), but because they have perfect imbalance where they utilize almost completely different strategies and it comes down to Luck (dice rolls), Strategy (player choices), and Skill (being familiar enough with the challenger to anticipate threats and consequences to navigate while making spontaneous changes to Strategy).


There would be ways to do this within a D&D style game - but it would require a level of designer discipline to avoid giving wizards spells which break it.

It would be fine if in a prepared duel the caster beats the martial 99% of the time IF the caster had TWO flaws - both of which D&D's fluff implies but aren't true mechanically.

1. If caught off guard the caster is totally screwed. (This is something which D&D's fluff implies, but especially in 3.x there are too many ways to escape the ambush/grapple/etc. Or spells to keep from being ambushed. All of these couldn't ever exist to make flaw #1 do its job.) This would allow there to be a R/P/S of Caster/Assassin/Martial - where the standard martial could beat stealthers, but stealthers could beat casters.

2. If casters could disrupt each-other more easily. If a level 5 caster could hold back a level 8 caster for a couple of rounds, then it would give the martial time to go up and get in their face - reverting to flaw #1. Two level 8s might counter each-other for some time, making the fight be about who had better martial support. 3.x even added counter-spelling to the game mechanics - but while very cool in fluff, mechanically they're too weak to be a viable tactic.

With the above two flaws added to casters the D&D style caster/martial could work fine.

[Arbane]

I've said it before: the problem with fighters is that people make stipulations about what they should or shouldn't be able to do, that don't flow from the concept. That happens because there are lots of incredibly specialised non-casters, and people complain when there's any significant overlap. Ultimately, the entire 'mundane' concept in D&D needs to be re-examined, and it's not just about balance.

Agreed. Part of the problem is that the Tier One casters can essentially reroll their entire character with a good night's sleep, since their spell selection is 90% of their abilities. Meanwhile, a Fighter who picked a bad feat at level 3 is stuck with it FOREVAR (barring retraining), and 3.5 at least has an obnoxious habit of requiring Feats for the peasantry to do anything more interesting than swording the hitpoints out of targets.


A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

....And you see no reason why this is a problem?


In an RPG, mages as glass cannons in battle is fine. The issue is when mages can also fly, see the past or the future, summon up extradimensional help, mislead enemies with illusions, bend the minds of others, or anything else in the thousands of pages of published spells out there. Meanwhile, the warrior has little to no mechanical support for having eagle eyes, a deft touch, or a nose for BS. He's just the guy with a pointy stick.

What he said. Again, the basic unit of Doing Cool Stuff As a Mundane being Feats doesn't help at all - Pathfinder has a lot of feats that in a saner system would barely qualify as stunts, but you're expected to spend your once-a-level (or less) feat on being able to.... pick up a fallen weapon quicker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/kick-up-combat), or flash light in your enemies' eyes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/blinding-flash-combat) IF you're in a place with bright light AND you have a shiny weapon AND they don't make their save.

[Florian]

What he said. Again, the basic unit of Doing Cool Stuff As a Mundane being Feats doesn't help at all - Pathfinder has a lot of feats that in a saner system would barely qualify as stunts, but you're expected to spend your once-a-level (or less) feat on being able to.... pick up a fallen weapon quicker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/kick-up-combat), or flash light in your enemies' eyes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/blinding-flash-combat) IF you're in a place with bright light AND you have a shiny weapon AND they don't make their save.

Honestly, comparing what PF as a system could possibly do and what fraction of the system is actually used in official modules, APs and PFS gives a strong hint why a lot of regular groups (you know, the kind that don´t participate in discussions here...) don´t have any balancing problems at all.

[Tanarii]

Pathfinder DID go back to it, and supplanted D&D as the most popular rpg in the process. So clearly there is definitely something quite popular about it.
If you think there's something better, by all means play it. If you think you can build something better, by all means build it.
But the tens of thousands of us who enjoy it will continue to do so.:smallconfused: No, pathfinder did not go back to it. Pathfinder is based off 3e, which is the system that broke it in the first place, when it moved away from the oD&D/AD&D model. Pathfinder is just as broken in this regard, and MORE broken in plenty of others.

And 5e outstrips pathfinder popularity by spades. It also fixed a lot of the stuff 3.P broke in trying to move away from the oD&D/AD&D model in regards to casters, but did so without going back to the old model. In fact, it moved even further away from the old model in many regards.

So far your posts in this thread show a distinct lack of understanding of what's really going on in a variety of fields, from your comments on science/football, to the military, to the evolution of D&D/pathfinder.

[Florian]

And 5e outstrips pathfinder popularity by spades.

Before you start berating others for their lack of understanding, maybe stop and think about why D&D stopped being significant outside of english speaking countries, while PF is going strong as a RPG export: There is no localized 5E as WotC pulled the plug on that. You can´t get it in spanish, french, german or japanese and you never will and frankly, gaming in a foreign language flat sucks. So, if you want, D&D outside the US is dead for quite some time now, with Paizo having taken over that role with solid contracts and good partner support.

[Tanarii]

So, if you want, D&D outside the US is dead for quite some time now, with Paizo having taken over that role with solid contracts and good partner support.
That won't last much longer:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/localization

Edit: don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with enjoying Pathfinder, and at least (unlike AD&D or BECMI) it's a live system with active support. And much easier to find games in to boot.

But the idea that it the d20 system or its Piazo derivative somehow "went back" to AD&D way of wizards is ludicrous.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside, it would be nice if these discussions in the general RPG forum could avoid turning into D&D editions wars with some posters presuming that all disagreement comes from D&D edition preference, or from D&D-vs-their-pet-not-D&D-system.

[Tanarii]

As an aside, it would be nice if these discussions in the general RPG forum could avoid turning into D&D editions wars with some posters presuming that all disagreement comes from D&D edition preference, or from D&D-vs-their-pet-not-D&D-system.
Bound to happen when the discussion is mundane vs caster.

Because D&D established some original ground rules for a certain kind of 'balance' when it came to Wizards (specifically, as a sub-set of casters), which were frequently disliked. 3e shattered them by removing said balancing factors without compensating, in a way that's widely regarded as broken. So the following two editions had to deal with that legacy.

Alternative takes on magic are very interesting, because they aren't forced to deal with sacred cows and edition wars.

For example, I love the Warhammer universe magic/psyker stuff. Dangerous to the user and even the party to use. It fits the system's flavor. I'm not fond of the Rifts/Palladium way of doing it, but that's because Sembieda doesn't believe in a system. He believes in tossing together a dozen mini-systems and ignoring or papering over the cracks, and bases his mini-systems on whatever feels right. (Which is kinda how we ended up with D&D magic. I know, that's hypocritical of me to like one and not the other.)

[Cosi]

There are ways to resolve the caster/noncaster disparity in combat. Two off the top of my head are the wargaming style where the artillery needs front lines to be used effectively, and the 4e style where crowd control, DPS, and tank are all distinct jobs.

I think this kind of hard power source based role division is unsatisfying. Yes, generally martial characters will tend more towards the front line than magical ones will, but that's far from universal. For example, if "martial" means "goes into melee", you've basically forsworn having archers in the game, which seems dumb. Similarly, gishes are definitely a concept people want to play, which means that there are going to be some mage-ish people on the front lines. Having required roles also means that people are going to be (or at least feel) forced into being "the Controller" or "the DPS". We've tried to move away from that kind of thing for the Cleric, I don't think we want it to be a general default.


Pathfinder DID go back to it, and supplanted D&D as the most popular rpg in the process. So clearly there is definitely something quite popular about it.

Note the slight of hand here. "Pathfinder succeeded, therefore Pathfinder is doing something right, therefore Pathfinder doing the thing I want is the reason for its success." Pathfinder does a lot of things, and there's not inherently more reason to think "give mundanes the shaft" is the reason for its success rather than "have a Summoner class" or "have nice art" or (as I think is probably most likely) "capture the existing market for 3e by capitalizing on sunk costs and network effects".


A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

I think you're confusing is and ought here. People aren't contenting that the characters are equally effective, just that they should be.


To Cosi: You know, thinking back to earlier rounds of this topic, I sometimes have felt you have slipped from "I like casters better" to "I think casters should just be better no questions asked" and that may have tinted my opinion of you. I feel a sudden urge to apologize for that.

I hope I haven't come across that way. It's certainly not my intention. My position has always been that the game should be balanced, and that for that to be accomplished at high levels, characters in general need to receive some kind of supernatural powers. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to cast spells, or even that they need to stop using swords.

I think there are a few things that contribute to this communication problem. At a high level, the problem is that I (and the people I'm arguing with) don't define terms properly, and often have several conversations on different topics either serially or in parallel.

First, there are certain kinds of abilities I think the game should support. Broadly, I support the game changing dramatically as levels increase (meaning I think of teleport obsoleting long trips as challenge as a feature rather than a bug) and I support characters having abilities that work on the strategic scale (like fabricate). As it happens, those abilities are concentrated among casters, particularly in D&D, so I often end up as coming across as promoting casters because I cite those abilities. But that's not the intention. The intention is that characters in general would have abilities like that, not necessarily that everyone would literally be a caster who has literally those abilities.

Second, there's a tendency for people to mean different things by "magic" and "caster" and "martial" and "mundane". I generally think those as meaning roughly "abilities that don't exist in reality", "characters that get spells in D&D", "character who contributes by fighting with a weapon", and "character who doesn't have magic". Other people define those terms differently, so you get things like Talakeal vehemently objecting to "making Fighters into Wizards" when I suggest that Fighters should pick up magical abilities at high levels.

Third, there are sometimes discussions about fixing 3e specifically, and in this case I tend to be bullish on "give people casting". This is not because I think that everyone should be a Sorcerer with some minor abilities, but because I think making everyone a caster is a low-effort, high-reward solution to imbalance.

Fourth, my view is that the forum as a whole is more hostile towards casters than it should be, so I tend to sometimes be more aggressive in my positions than is strictly justified.

Hopefully that explains some part of what I believe, and how that was (unintentionally) coming across as "everyone needs to be a Wizard".


Yeah, that's the source of my love/hate relationship with him. We both very much agree that the huge gap between weapon-types and spell-types should be gotten rid of. We basically just argue about whether they should meet in the middle or if they should all have T1 power and versatility.

To pick up an issue from another thread, this is where describing me as being pro-Tier One breaks down. In general, I think trying to describe people's goals for the game in terms of the Tiers is just a bad idea. Because they aren't, and were never intended to be, design targets. They're descriptions of how the system works. And that means that they're necessarily skewed based on the contingent design decisions that exist in 3.5. For example, it happens that the class that gets rage (the Barbarian) is in Tier Four. Does that mean that wanting the game to have a character with Rage is wanting a "Tier Four game"? Does thinking the Crusader's delayed damage pool is a cool mechanic mean you want a "Tier Three game"?

I think most people would (quite reasonably) argue that those things are not what the Tier System is talking about. There's nothing about having Sneak Attack that inherently makes you Tier Four, it just happens that the class that gets Sneak Attack is in Tier Four. If you gave the Sorcerer Sneak Attack, it wouldn't magically become a Tier Four class. So let's compare the definition of Tier One to what it is I actually want:


(1) Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. (2) Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. (3) Has world changing powers at high levels. (4) These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, (5) especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
(numbering mine)

Before getting into the details it's worth point out how sparse those details actually are. None of these terms are well defined. What does "doing absolutely everything" mean? Does it mean "use any ability in the game" or "solve any challenge"? Does "break the campaign" mean infinite loops or going off the DM's rails? How you think those answers fall out is going to heavily determine what exactly you think "Tier One" means, and as a result what you think wanting a "Tier One game" means. That said, I'll attempt to outline what I think these things mean, or are taken as meaning, and how that is similar to and different from what I think the game should look like.

Explanations spoilered for length.

This is an example of the warped perspective the Tiers have as a result of being descriptive. This is defined in the context of other classes that are, admittedly, weaker than the Wizards and Clerics of the world. As a result, I think you can basically throw out the "better than specialists" part of this when considering what a new game, or a rework of the game would look like. A Tier One generalist isn't better than a Tier One specialist at the specialist's field, any more than Tier Four characters are (for reference, consider the damage output of an optimized blaster Wizard versus a Wizard who doesn't have that investment).

When you scrape out the relative portion of this, I think it's saying "characters have a wide range of powers". I think this is basically a good thing, because it allows abstraction.

To explain what I mean, consider the effect of CR. CR is an abstraction -- it reduces all of the attributes of the monster that contribute to the danger it poses into a single number that measures when it's an appropriate challenge. This means that when a DM needs to compose an encounter, rather than looking at every monster to see if it's appropriate, he can pull out a CR = APL monster, pop it down in an encounter, and be reasonably confident he'll have a level-appropriate challenge. The reason you can do this is because the game assumes that characters will have a roughly standard level of power at any given character level. Note that this is different from having the same abilities. What CR does is that, in exchange for standardizing character power progression, it is now easier for DMs to prepare combat encounters.

Back to the notion at hand -- give characters lots of powers. I would like to be able to have an abstraction similar to CR for non-combat encounters. That is, I would like for DMs to have a tool that they can use to pick non-combat encounters without having to check if the specific abilities their PCs have are able to resolve that encounter*. Right now, if you add a non-combat obstacle like "the enemy is on another plane" it's entirely possible that the party won't be able to solve that, and there's no consistent way of predicting if they can without looking at their specific abilities (or giving them a DM-provided solution, which I think is unsatisfying). I would like that to change. I would like the game to be able to say that "the castle is in hell" is a 10th level (or 5th level or 15th level) non-combat obstacle in the same way that it says that a Fire Giant is a 10th level combat obstacle.

But to do that, you need characters to have a fairly wide range of abilities. Because if they don't, you're going to have cases where players don't have a solution to some problem that the game says they should. In the same way that the Rogue's combat abilities allow them to solve a variety of combat problems, the Rogue's non-combat abilities need to allow them to solve a variety of non-combat problems. At first approximation, it's reasonable to assume that players' selections of non-combat abilities will be distributed randomly. Assuming you have 10 benchmark non-combat abilities and a 4-person party, you get the following chances of not having a solution to a given problem in the party for a given number of problems a player has a solution to:

3: 24%
4: 13%
5: 6%
6: 3%
7: .8%

I think that the party should have at least a 95% chance of having a solution to a level-appropriate problem, which means that you're looking at characters having solutions to six out of ten problems at minimum, and seven out of ten wouldn't be unreasonable.

One final point: solution shouldn't be binary. People should have abilities that have a range of effectiveness for solving a given problem, which means that they will be differentially effective in different situations. Maybe the Wizard has teleport, which is long range and (largely) unlimited but limited use and the Druid has tree stride which is short range and limited but unlimited use. But they're both travel powers. Sometimes they'll be fairly close in utility (like if the party needs to cross a forest). Sometimes the Wizard will be clearly ahead (like if the party needs to cross a desert). Sometimes the Druid will be clearly ahead (like if the party needs to search a forest). But they both have a solution available to the problem "we need to go a long distance quickly".

The ultimate goal is to make it easier for DMs to craft worlds that are dynamic by reducing the effort needed to come up with a level appropriate challenge when the PCs go "off the rails" in some fashion by increasing the degree of standardization in PC abilities so that more standardized challenges can be dropped in dynamically.

*: When I say "without", I don't necessarily mean in absolute terms. I just mean with less effort.
This is flawed, but I think it is essentially saying "encounters are scaled poorly to Tier One abilities". Which I agree with to some degree, but substantially less than most people do. That said, you clearly can challenge such characters, so I think this is largely a matter of moving things around. Obviously, "characters trivialize encounters" is failure, and something I don't think the game should do (let alone try for).
I think this is just an obviously good thing. Part of the point of gaining levels is changing the sorts of encounters you contend with, and I think going from having abilities that are personal in scale to those that are national in scale is an obvious way of achieving that. This is also I think the thing that is most caught up in the nature of the Tiers as a description of the system. "Has teleport" is, I think pretty clearly not inherently related to "can break the game", it just happens that the classes that do get teleport also get game breakers. As a result, advocating for teleport can be (intentionally or accidentally, and on both sides) conflated with advocating for game breakers. I want the first, but not the second.
There are several things going on here.

First, there are the game breaking abilities. Like polymorph abuse. Those are bad and should go, though in many cases the underlying abilities are important and need to be preserved. You should be able to shapeshift. That should not give you Real Ultimate Power because it was poorly specified.

Second, there are abilities that go off the rails. I think these are an important part of what makes TTRPGs worth playing, and the game should lead towards providing advice for dealing with them rather than removing them entirely. I also think, as pointed out in 1, that making these more common would (somewhat paradoxically) make them easier to deal with. If teleport is an ability people sometimes have, you can't really plot around it, so it often ends up breaking the story. But if teleport is an expected ability, stories will tend to be written with it in mind.

Third, there are the abilities that point to subsystems that are not implemented. The game does not have a good economics engine. As a result, spells like fabricate or wall of iron are "overpowered" because the system they interact with doesn't have the mechanisms it should for responding to the shocks they create (also, how 3e deals with magic items is wrong). The game doesn't deal with with having armies of minions, or kindgoms, because it doesn't have rules for those things. But it should, and if it did, abilities like animate dead that interact with those things would be less dangerous.
This is purely an observation of imbalance. If all characters were, hypothetically, Tier One, you would no longer define Tier One as being particularly problematic in the context of Tier Three characters.

[Pleh]

There would be ways to do this within a D&D style game - but it would require a level of designer discipline to avoid giving wizards spells which break it.

It would be fine if in a prepared duel the caster beats the martial 99% of the time IF the caster had TWO flaws - both of which D&D's fluff implies but aren't true mechanically.

1. If caught off guard the caster is totally screwed. (This is something which D&D's fluff implies, but especially in 3.x there are too many ways to escape the ambush/grapple/etc. Or spells to keep from being ambushed. All of these couldn't ever exist to make flaw #1 do its job.) This would allow there to be a R/P/S of Caster/Assassin/Martial - where the standard martial could beat stealthers, but stealthers could beat casters.

2. If casters could disrupt each-other more easily. If a level 5 caster could hold back a level 8 caster for a couple of rounds, then it would give the martial time to go up and get in their face - reverting to flaw #1. Two level 8s might counter each-other for some time, making the fight be about who had better martial support. 3.x even added counter-spelling to the game mechanics - but while very cool in fluff, mechanically they're too weak to be a viable tactic.

With the above two flaws added to casters the D&D style caster/martial could work fine.

Yes, and I think the real problem here is the designers shied away from Assassins. Maybe my perspective is too limited to judge (I've played mostly 3.5 for about 10 years, but I haven't dug into system mastery until fairly recently), but as a player who would tend to prefer playing in the Assassin spectrum of D&D over Casters or Martials, my experience tells me that if Fighter's can't have nice things, then Assassins just need to get out right now.

I mean, Sneak Attack? Sure, if the enemy is vulnerable to precision damage (basically, if they're animals or humanoids) and they don't see it coming (so just the dim witted humanoids then). Feint? Sure, but your enemy adds BAB to their Sense Motive, so good luck beating their opposed check and we'll just be taxing your turn in combat for making the attempt. Death Attack? Oooo, that'll cost you 3 turns.

I get the other side of it, too. No one wants the DM sending a party of imperceptible assassins out to murder their party while they sleep, but if Rocks Fall is the concern, the DM only has to use Casters or Uberchargers (or just plain ROCKS) instead. The bias towards casters in 3.5 was pretty palpable.

I mean, the spells required to Cover The 2 Meter Port on the Caster's Death Star would even be okay if doing so were some significant detriment to their other abilities. Like if getting a tip that Assassin(s) were coming for you, you had magical options to guard yourself against unforeseen attacks, but at the cost of switching from Offense/Utility to Total Defense. Now the Wizard has to rely on their Martial buddy to do his thing of being the Anti-Assassin and the game turns into a form of Siege Combat, where the Wizard has pulled back into a fortified posture and the Assassin stands outside reach forcing an attrition of resources for the Caster.

And the whole point of all this is that if D&D had been designed to Perfectly Imbalance Martials, Assassins, and Casters, tactics like this might be a lot more interesting and diverse a subject than it is. You can completely remove a Wizard's defenses against Assassins, but all you really had to do was make such defenses an either/or choice pitted against doing anything else. Act and place yourself in jeopardy, or defend yourself and leave your team in jeopardy without your assistance.

This could force the Caster to actually rely on having a team with diverse abilities and skill sets! Gasp!

[CharonsHelper]

I mean, Sneak Attack? Sure, if the enemy is vulnerable to precision damage (basically, if they're animals or humanoids) and they don't see it coming (so just the dim witted humanoids then). Feint? Sure, but your enemy adds BAB to their Sense Motive, so good luck beating their opposed check and we'll just be taxing your turn in combat for making the attempt. Death Attack? Oooo, that'll cost you 3 turns.

I will say - eventually Pathfinder fixed those. Feint is useful & SA works against nearly everything. But besides skills, even Urogues are mostly another flavour of martial rather than filling the "scissors" slot to the martial's rock & casters' paper.


I get the other side of it, too. No one wants the DM sending a party of imperceptible assassins out to murder their party while they sleep, but if Rocks Fall is the concern, the DM only has to use Casters or Uberchargers (or just plain ROCKS) instead. The bias towards casters in 3.5 was pretty palpable.

That gets into one of the trickiest aspects of game design - where abilities don't only have to be fun to use, but they have to be fun to have used against you. (most important for PvP games - but still a good rule in tabletop games where NPCs might have your same abilities)

The stealth system would have to go in a different direction to fulfil that goal. (Quite a few individual spells actually do fulfil that, but unfortunately many of the most potent do not.)

Generally D&D monsters actually do the latter quite well - and it's one of the major strengths of the system.

[Pex]

That won't last much longer:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/localization

Edit: don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with enjoying Pathfinder, and at least (unlike AD&D or BECMI) it's a live system with active support. And much easier to find games in to boot.

But the idea that it the d20 system or its Piazo derivative somehow "went back" to AD&D way of wizards is ludicrous.

Instead of "went back", "kept" then, but the main point remains that the popularity of Pathfinder shows that those who complained about the magic system of 3E do not speak for everyone nor most players. There was not a problem in the first place.

[Calthropstu]

There would be ways to do this within a D&D style game - but it would require a level of designer discipline to avoid giving wizards spells which break it.

It would be fine if in a prepared duel the caster beats the martial 99% of the time IF the caster had TWO flaws - both of which D&D's fluff implies but aren't true mechanically.

1. If caught off guard the caster is totally screwed. (This is something which D&D's fluff implies, but especially in 3.x there are too many ways to escape the ambush/grapple/etc. Or spells to keep from being ambushed. All of these couldn't ever exist to make flaw #1 do its job.) This would allow there to be a R/P/S of Caster/Assassin/Martial - where the standard martial could beat stealthers, but stealthers could beat casters.

2. If casters could disrupt each-other more easily. If a level 5 caster could hold back a level 8 caster for a couple of rounds, then it would give the martial time to go up and get in their face - reverting to flaw #1. Two level 8s might counter each-other for some time, making the fight be about who had better martial support. 3.x even added counter-spelling to the game mechanics - but while very cool in fluff, mechanically they're too weak to be a viable tactic.

With the above two flaws added to casters the D&D style caster/martial could work fine.

Pf fixed the counterspell mechanics.

[CharonsHelper]

Pf fixed the counterspell mechanics.

Not really.

Even if you burn a feat on Improved Counterspell it's AT BEST trading your action for a single foe's future action, and unless you have the same spell you're burning a more valuable resource. With Dispel Magic you have a 50% chance of failing (assuming equal caster level)

And they can negate your counterspell by just using an item that turn so that you totally wasted your turn.

The only time I've ever used counterspell was on a support bard who already had his buffs up and not much left to do - so he tried using Dispel Magic to counterspell.

[Tanarii]

Instead of "went back", "kept" then, but the main point remains that the popularity of Pathfinder shows that those who complained about the magic system of 3E do not speak for everyone nor most players. There was not a problem in the first place.
If we use that logic, just because people enjoy something and it's popular, it's okay. But that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.


Seriously though, I enjoyed the hell out of 3.X while it was a live game. And the editions before. And the editions after.

But the changes to the system in each edition, and the ramifications of them in various aspects of the game, both positive and negative, are fairly well known at this point. Which makes claiming something like 3.P "went back" or "kept" oD&D/AD&D-style balancing, with wizards that go from glass cannons to reinforced-glass howitzers as they (slowly) level, totally ludicrous. They're the system that removed most of the glass, turned the howitzer top end up to 11, and made getting there lightning fast.

[Calthropstu]

Not really.

Even if you burn a feat on Improved Counterspell it's AT BEST trading your action for a single foe's future action, and unless you have the same spell you're burning a more valuable resource. With Dispel Magic you have a 50% chance of failing (assuming equal caster level)

And they can negate your counterspell by just using an item that turn so that you totally wasted your turn.

The only time I've ever used counterspell was on a support bard who already had his buffs up and not much left to do - so he tried using Dispel Magic to counterspell.

Unless you are going up against a full caster as party vs single caster. At that point, counterspelling becomes absolutely the thing to do. Plus, there are ways of getting counters as immediate actions... so you're using your swift for the next round instead of standard for previous. I actually built an antimage wizard to do just that... and boy did it work well.

[CharonsHelper]

Unless you are going up against a full caster as party vs single caster. At that point, counterspelling becomes absolutely the thing to do.

Except... if he's higher level you can't. You're just wasting your action. If he's pulling out his high level spells then you can't counter-spell them without Dispel Magic - which will only work a small % of the time.

If he's the same or lower level, he shouldn't be much of a challenge anyway.

[Calthropstu]

Except... if he's higher level you can't. You're just wasting your action. If he's pulling out his high level spells then you can't counter-spell them without Dispel Magic - which will only work a small % of the time.

If he's the same or lower level, he shouldn't be much of a challenge anyway.

It's straight caster level checks, and the build I had was running a +8 bonus. I forget where all of them came from, but it was +4 from feats, +2 class and +2 item. Haven't played him in 2 years. So equal caster level, he succeeded on a 3. 5 levels higher it was 8+ which is still fairly significant.

[Knaight]

Before you start berating others for their lack of understanding, maybe stop and think about why D&D stopped being significant outside of english speaking countries, while PF is going strong as a RPG export: There is no localized 5E as WotC pulled the plug on that. You can´t get it in spanish, french, german or japanese and you never will and frankly, gaming in a foreign language flat sucks. So, if you want, D&D outside the US is dead for quite some time now, with Paizo having taken over that role with solid contracts and good partner support.
If you're looking at translation then you run into a whole host of smaller games in languages with fewer speakers than English clobbering D&D in whatever language they're primarily published in. Paizo's role is playing second fiddle (at best) in a number of places internationally, where things like DSA or Tenra Bansho Zero clobber it.


Instead of "went back", "kept" then, but the main point remains that the popularity of Pathfinder shows that those who complained about the magic system of 3E do not speak for everyone nor most players. There was not a problem in the first place.
All this shows is that Pathfinder benefits from advertising, network effects, etc. much the same way D&D does and that most players don't dislike it enough to go out of their way to find and learn at whole new system (probably more than one). This doesn't indicate that it isn't deeply flawed so much as that most of the audience doesn't have particularly high standards (which is totally fine).

[Pleh]

That gets into one of the trickiest aspects of game design - where abilities don't only have to be fun to use, but they have to be fun to have used against you. (most important for PvP games - but still a good rule in tabletop games where NPCs might have your same abilities)

The stealth system would have to go in a different direction to fulfil that goal. (Quite a few individual spells actually do fulfil that, but unfortunately many of the most potent do not.)

Generally D&D monsters actually do the latter quite well - and it's one of the major strengths of the system.

This is a subject I would be interested to explore further. Would you care to elaborate on how to make stealth more fun to be used against you?

[Pex]

If we use that logic, just because people enjoy something and it's popular, it's okay. But that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.


Touche


[COLOR="#0000FF"]Seriously though, I enjoyed the hell out of 3.X while it was a live game. And the editions before. And the editions after.

But the changes to the system in each edition, and the ramifications of them in various aspects of the game, both positive and negative, are fairly well known at this point. Which makes claiming something like 3.P "went back" or "kept" oD&D/AD&D-style balancing, with wizards that go from glass cannons to reinforced-glass howitzers as they (slowly) level, totally ludicrous. They're the system that removed most of the glass, turned the howitzer top end up to 11, and made getting there lightning fast.

Enough people liked that to make Pathfinder popular in refusal of those players to have switched to 4E at the time. If non-spellcasters fall behind then for these players the solution is to improve the non-spellcasters. Some of these players don't think there's a problem at all with the non-spellcasters to be solved.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think that the problem people had with 4e was that it was balanced. Instead, it was with how they balanced it (plus knee-jerk rejection of new things, plus bad marketing, plus...).

The following is invalid logic, even though the postulates (*) are generally true:

* PF doesn't have inter-class balance (although it's, from all reports, a little better than the worst of 3.5 was)
* PF is more popular than 4e (which is true)
* 4e has better martial/caster balance.
==> people rejected martial/caster balance.

There're many many many reasons why 4e failed commercially. There is very little evidence that the mere existence of balance is a substantial participant in that failure.

[death390]

i'm still here, just on page 7 right now. so i haven't seen any replies to what i posted yet.

yet a thought came to me that the best wizard i have probably ever seen who was only a wizard (not a gish) might be zeddicus zul' zorander from the sword of truth series. his line from Faith of the Fallen where he says that in war a wizard should be counteracting other wizards magics, and that in the toughest wars no magic will really be seen due to the constant counters baring the few occasions when something slips though or one side gains the upperhand. later in that book he and the one other wizard in their group need to provide a distraction so instead of trying to counter enemy magic they just go balls to the wall evoker on the masses of soldiers.

that is true magecraft. honestly magic in sword of truth is often underplayed (main character has no control over his magic) but when you do see it do things it is awe inspiring.

basically in war time all the magicians load up on dispel magic, specific counters, and their own tricks and go to town, but by the gods when they drop all pretenses magic is just a giant middle finger to mundanes.

[death390]

~snip

ok on page 7 still but damn you and the following posts are why i always take eidectic spellcaster ACF on wizard. god damn man, killer GM much? i don't mind having my funds bled but team-mates getting pissed because i'm the only one left alive AGAIN tends to be a bit much after the 8th time in as many sessions. hell i always have a reserve feat to emulate a at-will damage spell (sometimes 2 to make sure i can do something!).

[Pex]

I don't think that the problem people had with 4e was that it was balanced. Instead, it was with how they balanced it (plus knee-jerk rejection of new things, plus bad marketing, plus...).

The following is invalid logic, even though the postulates (*) are generally true:

* PF doesn't have inter-class balance (although it's, from all reports, a little better than the worst of 3.5 was)
* PF is more popular than 4e (which is true)
* 4e has better martial/caster balance.
==> people rejected martial/caster balance.

There're many many many reasons why 4e failed commercially. There is very little evidence that the mere existence of balance is a substantial participant in that failure.

My most major gripe was almost everything is

X (Weapon/Spell die) damage of type (color) + Effect. Effect is a) target is inconvenienced, save ends or b) someone heals or c) someone moves. X can be 0. Severity of inconvenience gets worse as levels increase.

Daily Powers are Encounter Powers with a bigger X. Magic Items are a Daily Power or change the color of the damage. For example, a flaming sword is a sword in every single way but changes the damage type to fire. Unless the opponent you are fighting is resistant or vulnerable to fire, it has absolutely no distinguishable effect than using a regular sword. No plus to hit. No extra damage. It only changes the color of the damage of whatever Encounter or Daily power you do to fire.

Everything was balanced because everything was the same.

I do acknowledge there is a significance of difference to the powers based on shape. Whether the power affects a single target, multiple targets, a line, cone, circle, etc., matters.

[Tanarii]

Everything was balanced because everything was the same.
Interesting. I always felt everything was okay balanced, but there was wild variation between powers, far more than anyone except wizards (specifically) had previously. All those things coming together did that, plus splats added even more variety to the way powers worked.

OTOH what I didn't like was combat basically came down to using your encounter abilities one after the other, then falling back on at-wills. That's what made it feel 'same-y' for any one given character.

Also, 4e vs 3e misses the point as far as I am concerned. 4e went in totally new and different directions, and as a result it broke as many things as it fixed. Just like 3e before it. And 2e before that. And definitely Dragon Magazine before that. :smallbiggrin: Regardless, 4e has nothing to do with 3e breaking the things that kept casters in check prior to it.

[CharonsHelper]

This is a subject I would be interested to explore further. Would you care to elaborate on how to make stealth more fun to be used against you?

It would vary depending upon how much of the game is based around being stealthy and how much you want to streamline it.

I made an attempt in the system I'm working on here - Space Dogs (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ux8xmimtncylem0lfx1n0/AADbfNgKy7DZifc6TFKZaB7za?dl=0&oref=wn&r=AAa9kd48TlHt2Bmm8bA4GMVwgUwXfov2Wy-MLKXUREFe1BrtYYByOnJMZLiKdZoEar84wue_9SAT6V3DsncZx oFE_zbdoKlDC9XiAdl7g6uH-o640_9JgVmgMV8yD7wEL2tA0HhmvAAudeFdFqNrqMX9pNK3zCD dewPVmHiW2H9DiQ&sm=1) *blatant plug - I'm planning to run the Kickstarter in 2018*

I went with the streamlined route - where you make one roll (often per group) which is modified by environment (cover/light/etc.) against the target group's static Awareness score. They have a decent Awareness to spot you and a higher score to know there is something to investigate. It's almost impossible to sneak up very close to someone without really big modifiers or your target(s) being clueless.

Frankly - it wouldn't do the trick transferred directly into D&D - but it works since there is no stealth class (classes & skills aren't linked) and stealth attacks just lower defenses (basically a close range stealth is a guaranteed crit). I like it though - and in play-testing it is MUCH more streamlined than any D&D edition I've played - speeding up play and making them more likely to use them. (In 3.x especially most parties don't want to burn the time making 18 different stealth rolls when it rarely gets them much.) They also find it cool when it's used against them. Again - largely because it doesn't take 20 minutes of rolling, and it isn't insta-death if they fail. It adds a curve-ball to play and some added tension rather than annoyance (at the time spent) combined with a feeling of being cheated.

In addition to being steamlined - it makes strategizing your approach important and adds risk/reward for how close you get. Defensively you make sure to limit approaches using said environmental factors. (plus - that's REALLY steamlined since there is no defensive rolling until you notice something)

For a more in-depth stealth system I would probably add more about using the environment and perhaps using tricks to get them to investigate in the wrong direction. Perhaps add mechanics for smoke bombs to get away. Defensively, you might need to decide if something is a distraction or something real. Various counter-strategies in place without being too complex. All about risk/reward. It would really depend upon the rest of the system and how abstract you want to go.

If you want insta-gibs, you would have to have more counter-tactics.

[Pex]

Interesting. I always felt everything was okay balanced, but there was wild variation between powers, far more than anyone except wizards (specifically) had previously. All those things coming together did that, plus splats added even more variety to the way powers worked.

OTOH what I didn't like was combat basically came down to using your encounter abilities one after the other, then falling back on at-wills. That's what made it feel 'same-y' for any one given character.

Also, 4e vs 3e misses the point as far as I am concerned. 4e went in totally new and different directions, and as a result it broke as many things as it fixed. Just like 3e before it. And 2e before that. And definitely Dragon Magazine before that. :smallbiggrin: Regardless, 4e has nothing to do with 3e breaking the things that kept casters in check prior to it.

4E is philosophically linked. Not arguing whether 4E is D&D or not, but its system is a complete overhaul of what made the rules of D&D before. I view it as the designers misinterpreted what the complaints were for those who were complaining about 3E. Missing the forest for the trees is the perfect proverb for me to describe it. The designers thought everyone was complaining about the physical words on paper of what the rules said, the syntax of the game. That's what they changed, but that's not what people wanted. What people were complaining about was the game play, the discrepancies in affecting the game players can do among the classes, the semantics of the game.

To change the semantics requires changes in syntax, but the focus should remain on the semantics. 5E does that. I'll never know how I'd react had 5E been 4E and 4E never existed, but despite my gripes of the game's syntax the semantics addresses the complaints of 3E. It may not have satisfied everyone, but its popularity shows it satisfied enough. I can enjoy the game play, the semantics, of 5E enough that I get over myself in whatever complaints I have about 5E's syntax physical words on paper of rules (or lack there of vis a vis defined skill DCs :smallyuk:).

[Mutazoia]

....And you see no reason why this is a problem?

No...I'm pointing out that it IS a problem.


I think you're confusing is and ought here. People aren't contenting that the characters are equally effective, just that they should be.

No. We are contending that the Wizard should a few checks and balances. He should have to have a price to pay for all that power, and really shouldn't be able to replace the functions of a mundane class on top of everything else.


I don't think that the problem people had with 4e was that it was balanced. Instead, it was with how they balanced it (plus knee-jerk rejection of new things, plus bad marketing, plus...).

The following is invalid logic, even though the postulates (*) are generally true:

* PF doesn't have inter-class balance (although it's, from all reports, a little better than the worst of 3.5 was)
* PF is more popular than 4e (which is true)
* 4e has better martial/caster balance.
==> people rejected martial/caster balance.

There're many many many reasons why 4e failed commercially. There is very little evidence that the mere existence of balance is a substantial participant in that failure.

4e failed, in large part, because it was such a radical departure from what D&D had been up to that point. It removed standard races, added in new ones, gave every character MMO like abilities with MMO like cool downs, split your PHB into 4 separate books that you hand to shell out a ton of money to by, just to have all the basic info.... It's martial/caster balance had very little to do with it, honestly. It would have had a much better reception as it's own title, independent of the D&D franchise.

[lesser_minion]

I'm still not totally sure what to make of the combat-as-war vs. combat-as-sports essay (I don't have the link bookmarked), but I don't think there's much in this thread that would apply to the "combat-as-sport" paradigm, which seems to be the philosophy they were going for with 4th edition. In that sort of case, you've made a point of rejecting world-building in favour of just giving everyone a balanced deck that gives a rough broad-strokes impression of what they're about. You almost literally cannot be an illusionist in 4th edition without going into ad-hoc territory.

As we've seen, though, it may be a simple and easy way to fix the problem, but people don't like suddenly being handed a paradigm shift when they were expecting a more consistent and cleaned-up version of what they had before.


No...I'm pointing out that it IS a problem.

I was describing what it might look like in a hypothetical game with recognisably similar character archetypes, not necessarily D&D. The overall point is that fighters contribute very little if all they do is fight -- that doesn't mean that an army having a few elite champions can't use them as a sort of fleet-in-being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being) to decent effect, but compared to the strategic value of a mere rogue, they're a lot less impressive.

[Calthropstu]

If you're looking at translation then you run into a whole host of smaller games in languages with fewer speakers than English clobbering D&D in whatever language they're primarily published in. Paizo's role is playing second fiddle (at best) in a number of places internationally, where things like DSA or Tenra Bansho Zero clobber it.


All this shows is that Pathfinder benefits from advertising, network effects, etc. much the same way D&D does and that most players don't dislike it enough to go out of their way to find and learn at whole new system (probably more than one). This doesn't indicate that it isn't deeply flawed so much as that most of the audience doesn't have particularly high standards (which is totally fine).

..."Those who don't like what I like must have low standards."
Seriously dude?

Edit: Also, not only is Pathfinder more popular than 4e, it is also more popular than 5e as well, as evidenced by the fact that there are more PF games advertised on most game sites, PFS has higher turnout than adventurers league, and even in sales if any indication can be drawn from my local game store. The new smaller books Paizo released for the CRB can't even stay on the shelf.

PF is even more popular than it's parent, 3.5, was in its heyday. So they did something right. To say the most popular TTRPG of all time is crap? Yeah, I think something might be wrong here, and it's not PF.

[Lord Raziere]

..."Those who don't like what I like must have low standards."
Seriously dude?

Is it any better than you Mr. "people who don't like I like are throwing a temper tantrum"?

[Satinavian]

No. We are contending that the Wizard should a few checks and balances. He should have to have a price to pay for all that power, and really shouldn't be able to replace the functions of a mundane class on top of everything else.there are many ways to do this and most are realized more or less well in many other systems.

But you simply can't rebalance the wizard and still having him fill the all or even a significant amount of the traditional roles a D&D wizard occupies in D&D games. And whatever roles you cut you have people complaining about loosing their preferred roles (and taking it as well as erasing the wizard class altogether) and whatever role you leave to wizards it will be utterly uninteresting to most people.

[Calthropstu]

Is it any better than you Mr. "people who don't like I like are throwing a temper tantrum"?

Not what I said.
The fact that they are harping on and on about the imbalance of 3.x/PF and its popularity while there are literally hundreds of other systems for them to choose from... I don't know what else to call it. Temper tantrum literally fits the bill here.
It's like a crusade for them. To call for balance for 3.5, a system which has had zero support for over 10 years now, is ludicrous. And PF is what, 10 years old now? Their call for balance in this system is... silly. Switch to another system if you don't like 3.5 or PF. Why harp on it so much?

[Lord Raziere]

Not what I said.
The fact that they are harping on and on about the imbalance of 3.x/PF and its popularity while there are literally hundreds of other systems for them to choose from... I don't know what else to call it. Temper tantrum literally fits the bill here.
It's like a crusade for them. To call for balance for 3.5, a system which has had zero support for over 10 years now, is ludicrous. And PF is what, 10 years old now? Their call for balance in this system is... silly. Switch to another system if you don't like 3.5 or PF. Why harp on it so much?

Name a system we talk about just as often as 3.5 on this board that we can consistently discuss then.

[Calthropstu]

Name a system we talk about just as often as 3.5 on this board that we can consistently discuss then.

Lol... there is no system discussed as much as 3.x/pf. This board has more posts in it than the rest of the rpg board combined.

[Lord Raziere]

Lol... there is no system discussed as much as 3.x/pf. This board has more posts in it than the rest of the rpg board combined.

Well.

There's your answer.

[Mutazoia]

there are many ways to do this and most are realized more or less well in many other systems.

But you simply can't rebalance the wizard and still having him fill the all or even a significant amount of the traditional roles a D&D wizard occupies in D&D games. And whatever roles you cut you have people complaining about loosing their preferred roles (and taking it as well as erasing the wizard class altogether) and whatever role you leave to wizards it will be utterly uninteresting to most people.

You sure as hell can rebalance the wizard and still have him fill his traditional roll, because a huge chunk of the balance issues, came about after a lot of the balancing factors were nerf'd or removed entirely by 3.0, and wizards functioned pretty damned well before that, and managed to do so, with out stepping on the toes of the "mundane" classes.

[Calthropstu]

Well.

There's your answer.

Well yes, but it kind of proves my point. They dislike it, but it's so popular it can't be ignored. So... temper tantrum.

[Lord Raziere]

Well yes, but it kind of proves my point. They dislike it, but it's so popular it can't be ignored. So... temper tantrum.

No.

Its popular on THIS FORUM.

the sample is inherently biased.

there are forums that focus on other rpgs.

I assure you, the discussions are different but they don't get any less tiring. you'd honestly just be trading one set of tiring discussions that happen over and over again for another set of discussions that happen over and over again.

I'd hardly call it a tantrum, this is just tuesday. that you think this is a temper tantrum says more about you than the ones complaining about this.

[Mutazoia]

Well yes, but it kind of proves my point. They dislike it, but it's so popular it can't be ignored. So... temper tantrum.

Nope. Not even close.

5e is still new enough that not everybody plays it, and/or has figured out all the broken bits yet.
4e was a flop that only a (relatively) few die hard fans care to discuss.

This leaves 3.X as the king of the playground (pun intended)* when it comes to D&D RPG's. There is more material in existence for 3.X/Pf than the other two editions combined, and that's not counting the home brew and 3rd party material.

Ergo, if you don' want to play 4e's tactical skirmish battle system, thinly veneer with a dash of RPG, or are waiting to get in to 5e for what ever reason (maybe you don't want to spend $$ on a bunch of new books when you have shelves full of 3.x stuff, until 5e get's more real player exposure), you are stuck with 3.X/Pf.... and if your going to play it, you are going to discuss the issues that exist in it, and try to find ways of dealing with/fixing them, are you not?

Nothing "temper tantrum" related.

The only "temper tantrum" I see are the people complaining about people discussing balance issues and possible fixes.

* So, on a website run by a man who makes his living designing stuff for D&D, and authors a web comic about D&D, on a forum where the biggest bulk of thread categories are dedicated to D&D, you can bet your pimply ass that you are going to have a huge chunk of threads dedicated to the largest chunk of D&D gaming, post 2nd Ed.

[Knaight]

..."Those who don't like what I like must have low standards."
Seriously dude?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that standards tend to correlate with level of involvement (in basically anything), and familiarity with the more esoteric parts of a given field also tends to correlate with more involvement. This is particularly true when there's a high barrier to entry, which is the case for RPGs - the expected standard is learning at least one 300 page rule book at least decently to get in at all, and most people involved in the hobby are involved at the shallow end (again like basically everything) and don't have the sort of familiarity that standards tend to emerge from. On top of that there's the usual matter of visibility from a given point of knowledge, where the lay person is only likely to even know about the existence of D&D. D&D thus dominates the shallow end of the pool, and keeps a bunch of players because of it. These factors thus make any analysis trying to link quality to popularity deeply suspect.

To use a personal example from another media field, my standards for opera are basically as low as they get. I don't know the field well enough to have better standards, I don't particularly care about it, and what little knowledge I have is about the best known works (as in knowing about Wagner, knowing about the Ring Cycle, and that being close to it). I have an uncle that loves opera, and it would be pretty easy to get my hands on video recordings of opera of a wide variety of qualities - but because I'm largely outside the field, it's not like I'll be able to tell them apart by quality. If I got marginally more into it, watched a couple a year, and occasionally talked about opera with that uncle I would be the opera equivalent of the standard RPG player, because of another commonality between fields.

That is to say that there's a pretty standard level-of-involvement curve with some minor variation. There's a spike at and extremely near 0, for people who don't know about a field at all and then a very, very long tailed distribution with a fairly major bump just past the spike. Spike size to bump size is crazy variable, but beyond that the curves look basically the same, with the usual caveats around axis stretching, wobbliness of data, etc. In the context of fields with specific points of interest (artistic works, individual sports teams, individual food/beverage items, whatever) the set on the low end of this curve and thus the least esoteric parts of a field are going to be disproportionately well known. If commercialized they're generally pulling in disproportionate amounts of money. That doesn't mean that they're better, but it does generally indicate that what makes them worse isn't particularly perceptible for most people. I might like cheap white table wine, but when a sommelier has a cogent criticism of it I should probably assume that they're right, as my tastes represent those of someone right at the spike-bump boundary.

This is particularly relevant when trying to talk about theory. As a general rule examples are helpful to understand underlying criteria, with actually familiar examples being particularly helpful. In opera, this is probably Wagner's work (although I'm in the spike on that one, so this is a wild guess). In wine, it's general commentary on red vs. white, sweet vs. dry, and traits of major wine producing areas. In RPGs, it's D&D. When points of comparison are useful, it's multiple editions of D&D. This is why 3.5 still gets brought up so much - not because it's some masterpiece with a massive popularity that comes from sheer quality, but because it's well known enough to serve as an example when talking about general theory. Similarly the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing it because of it's quality. They're playing it because it's whats there and is easiest to get into, and system details are largely unimportant to them (much the same way that I don't particularly care about exactly which cheap white swill I'm drinking, wine wise). The people who know the system well, know RPGs in general well, and stick with it anyways are much rarer - which is to be expected regardless of quality, because that's how the spike-bump curve works.

[Mutazoia]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that standards tend to correlate with level of involvement (in basically anything), and familiarity with the more esoteric parts of a given field also tends to correlate with more involvement. This is particularly true when there's a high barrier to entry, which is the case for RPGs - the expected standard is learning at least one 300 page rule book at least decently to get in at all, and most people involved in the hobby are involved at the shallow end (again like basically everything) and don't have the sort of familiarity that standards tend to emerge from. On top of that there's the usual matter of visibility from a given point of knowledge, where the lay person is only likely to even know about the existence of D&D. D&D thus dominates the shallow end of the pool, and keeps a bunch of players because of it. These factors thus make any analysis trying to link quality to popularity deeply suspect.

To use a personal example from another media field, my standards for opera are basically as low as they get. I don't know the field well enough to have better standards, I don't particularly care about it, and what little knowledge I have is about the best known works (as in knowing about Wagner, knowing about the Ring Cycle, and that being close to it). I have an uncle that loves opera, and it would be pretty easy to get my hands on video recordings of opera of a wide variety of qualities - but because I'm largely outside the field, it's not like I'll be able to tell them apart by quality. If I got marginally more into it, watched a couple a year, and occasionally talked about opera with that uncle I would be the opera equivalent of the standard RPG player, because of another commonality between fields.

That is to say that there's a pretty standard level-of-involvement curve with some minor variation. There's a spike at and extremely near 0, for people who don't know about a field at all and then a very, very long tailed distribution with a fairly major bump just past the spike. Spike size to bump size is crazy variable, but beyond that the curves look basically the same, with the usual caveats around axis stretching, wobbliness of data, etc. In the context of fields with specific points of interest (artistic works, individual sports teams, individual food/beverage items, whatever) the set on the low end of this curve and thus the least esoteric parts of a field are going to be disproportionately well known. If commercialized they're generally pulling in disproportionate amounts of money. That doesn't mean that they're better, but it does generally indicate that what makes them worse isn't particularly perceptible for most people. I might like cheap white table wine, but when a sommelier has a cogent criticism of it I should probably assume that they're right, as my tastes represent those of someone right at the spike-bump boundary.

This is particularly relevant when trying to talk about theory. As a general rule examples are helpful to understand underlying criteria, with actually familiar examples being particularly helpful. In opera, this is probably Wagner's work (although I'm in the spike on that one, so this is a wild guess). In wine, it's general commentary on red vs. white, sweet vs. dry, and traits of major wine producing areas. In RPGs, it's D&D. When points of comparison are useful, it's multiple editions of D&D. This is why 3.5 still gets brought up so much - not because it's some masterpiece with a massive popularity that comes from sheer quality, but because it's well known enough to serve as an example when talking about general theory. Similarly the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing it because of it's quality. They're playing it because it's whats there and is easiest to get into, and system details are largely unimportant to them (much the same way that I don't particularly care about exactly which cheap white swill I'm drinking, wine wise). The people who know the system well, know RPGs in general well, and stick with it anyways are much rarer - which is to be expected regardless of quality, because that's how the spike-bump curve works.

Yup. Because, at the end of the day, all we are really discussing here is theory. WotC is not going to go back an release D&D 3.6, using any of what we discuss here. All of this is, really, just people who enjoy the game, pointing out things that WotC could have done better, and discussing various ways that said missteps could have been avoided and/or how they could be house-ruled in one's own game, if so desired. At best, we can hope that a few members of WotC's design team troll the board and read what we have to say, and take it into consideration when they next design a product...but don't hold your breath.

[Satinavian]

You sure as hell can rebalance the wizard and still have him fill his traditional roll, because a huge chunk of the balance issues, came about after a lot of the balancing factors were nerf'd or removed entirely by 3.0, and wizards functioned pretty damned well before that, and managed to do so, with out stepping on the toes of the "mundane" classes.
Not his traditional role. His traditional rolls, plural.

D&D has more than one way to play a wizard and has had for a very very long time now. Picking one of them won't help at all.

As for the reduced nerfs of especcially 3.0, well, most of those limits were not particularly good rules irregardless of power level. Let's look at them :

- cheap spell components : throwing boring busywork at a player keeping track of a hundread minor substances does not actually make the wizard weaker, only more boring. That stuff was never that hard to find and if you ever had a source, you also had enough for your whole adventuring career most of the time.
- spells needed to find, none free at level up : Having a class dependend on random loot is bad design. Having class abilities that only work when the DM allows it is also bad design. There were many reasonable DMs but more than enough jerk DMs that we nowadays don't give that kind of control over character development solely to the DM.
- Saves : being able to always target bad saves and guess well which are bad is indeed not an improvement. But the way saves worked in AD&D was unneccessarily convoluted.
- higher xp cost : As if "lagging one level behind" changes anything significantly. And dual class/multiclass was OP anyway.
- inflated monster HPs in 3E making characters doing damage less important : Yes, legitimate complaint. But if that would really be important, letting martials dish out bigger numbers would solve caster supremacy, which it really does not.

Did i forget anything important ? Spell slots filled up dayly already before 3E. None of the removed nerfs between AD&D2 and D&D3 is really important. What is important is that suppesedly PCs died before getting to high caster levels due to overall higher mortality and slow advancement. But even that was not necessarily how old D&D was played for real. There were always groups invested more in the characters preferring lower mortality and most groups reaching medium levels at least gave out far more xp than planned.

And casters ruled the old editions too. Very much in the same way for the same reasons.

This is particularly relevant when trying to talk about theory. As a general rule examples are helpful to understand underlying criteria, with actually familiar examples being particularly helpful. In opera, this is probably Wagner's work (although I'm in the spike on that one, so this is a wild guess). In wine, it's general commentary on red vs. white, sweet vs. dry, and traits of major wine producing areas. In RPGs, it's D&D. When points of comparison are useful, it's multiple editions of D&D. This is why 3.5 still gets brought up so much - not because it's some masterpiece with a massive popularity that comes from sheer quality, but because it's well known enough to serve as an example when talking about general theory. Similarly the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing it because of it's quality. They're playing it because it's whats there and is easiest to get into, and system details are largely unimportant to them (much the same way that I don't particularly care about exactly which cheap white swill I'm drinking, wine wise). The people who know the system well, know RPGs in general well, and stick with it anyways are much rarer - which is to be expected regardless of quality, because that's how the spike-bump curve works.Yes, it is good for examples as people know it.

But more than half of this thread is about pure D&D problems. D&D powers. D&D challanges. There are so many solutions to the caster/mundane problems, all of them widely deployed in other systems. But all of them only get the occasional mention without further discussion and people are back into arguing about changing D&D specifically while still keeping the very same D&D experience. Which can't be done as every such fundamental change to the core of the game won't result in such a similar game.

Useless.

[Mutazoia]

As for the reduced nerfs of especcially 3.0, well, most of those limits were not particularly good rules irregardless of power level. Let's look at them :

Sure!



- cheap spell components : throwing boring busywork at a player keeping track of a hundread minor substances does not actually make the wizard weaker, only more boring. That stuff was never that hard to find and if you ever had a source, you also had enough for your whole adventuring career most of the time.

Stuff that you could by between adventures, when you went to town to hock your loot? Material components were never really a nerf, unless it as something extravagant, such as the 5000 gp gem needed to cast "Resurrection". It was the verbal and somantic components that were more of a nerf. Can't speak? Can't cast spells that had a verbal component. Now days: just take "silent spell" meta magic feat, problem solved.


- spells needed to find, none free at level up : Having a class dependend on random loot is bad design. Having class abilities that only work when the DM allows it is also bad design. There were many reasonable DMs but more than enough jerk DMs that we nowadays don't give that kind of control over character development solely to the DM.

Spells that could be researched, while you were buying your material components in town between adventures? The nerf here was, you don't automatically have a new spell magically (lol) show up in your spell book, just because you hit one more goblin over the head. Sure...you had to roll your "Percent to know spell" check when you wanted a new spell, but a wizard with a decent Int score rarely had much of a problem there. And if he failed, try again next level.


- Saves : being able to always target bad saves and guess well which are bad is indeed not an improvement. But the way saves worked in AD&D was unneccessarily convoluted.

No argument there. But, again, saves were not a nerf...just badly designed across the board.


- higher xp cost : As if "lagging one level behind" changes anything significantly. And dual class/multiclass was OP anyway.

So a person studying to be a neuro surgeon, should gain said skills and knowledge, just as fast and easy as a person trying to be a pro football player? Some things are harder to learn that others. Bending the fundamental forces of the universe to your will is definitely on the higher end of that curve. Dual class/multiclass cost you XP...you had to split your XP between each class you took. Now, you hit a generic XP total and you take any class you like, no penalty what-so-ever...THAT is OP.


- inflated monster HPs in 3E making characters doing damage less important : Yes, legitimate complaint. But if that would really be important, letting martials dish out bigger numbers would solve caster supremacy, which it really does not.

So we boost every other class, to compensate for the fact that we boosted the rest of the world to compensate for the fact that we boosted one class? Or just...you know...NOT boost that class?



Spell slots filled up dayly already before 3E.

After 24 hours of rest, during which time, the DM made wandering monster checks. If a wandering monster showed up, your rest was interrupted and you had to start over again.


None of the removed nerfs between AD&D2 and D&D3 is really important.

Spells had casting times. Now all spells seem to be instantaneous (which kind of defeats the "quicked spell" meta-magic feat), which meant that your spell had a chance of being interrupted by taking damage, which is now practically impossible to achieve with such gems as "casting defensively" and taking a "5 foot step". You had to rely on your fighter to keep the monsters off of you while you cast.

Wizards had utility spells, but very few of them did anything that any of the other classes did... no batman wizards pre 3.X

Caster's didn't have their own special set of feats that they, and only they had access to, which managed to boost the power of already powerful spells to levels not originally designed into the framework of the game.

Unless you knew "Teleport with out error" you had a good chance to teleport off target (20' up, or in a wall) so you actually had to walk most places you've never been to before.....



What is important is that suppesedly PCs died before getting to high caster levels due to overall higher mortality and slow advancement. But even that was not necessarily how old D&D was played for real. There were always groups invested more in the characters preferring lower mortality and most groups reaching medium levels at least gave out far more xp than planned.

Mortality rate was dependent on whether or not you DM was douche-nozzle or not, just like today. OD&D had a level cap of 10. AD&D raised it to 18 and 2nd ed to 20. It usually took a LONG campaign to get to 18, and by then the characters were technically considered to be paragons in their field and too busy running their own baronies or what have you, to do any adventuring any more.


And casters ruled the old editions too. Very much in the same way for the same reasons.

Pre 3.X, I've never had a mage one-shot a dragon.....

[Lord Raziere]

Yup. Because, at the end of the day, all we are really discussing here is theory. WotC is not going to go back an release D&D 3.6, using any of what we discuss here. All of this is, really, just people who enjoy the game, pointing out things that WotC could have done better, and discussing various ways that said missteps could have been avoided and/or how they could be house-ruled in one's own game, of so desired. At best, we can hope that a few members of WotC's design team troll the board and read what we have to say, and take it into consideration when they next design a product...but don't hold your breath.

Yeah some discussions are just inherent to certain games:

Mage: the Ascension:
Is the Technocracy REALLY Evil? How does Magic REALLY work? Are the Traditions REALLY the Heroes? Would bringing magic back REALLY fix anything?

Exalted:
Solar/Other Exalted Disparity. How much Magitech Should Be In This Setting? How Grimdark edgelord should Abyssals Be? Should Alchemicals and Infernals Be Here? Are the new 3e Exalts legit? "from the dragons" or "of the dragons"? How should we fix Lunars? Does craft suck or not? Are the Primordials REALLY evil? Sidereal Death Squads. Is the setting really sandbox or is just a matter of time before you get stomped on by elder exalts?

Fate:
How does it work?

Eclipse Phase:
Is Firewall REALLY competent? are the Jovians REALLY evil? Only Mars Is Interesting. Is Project Ozma REALLY evil?

World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness
Which one is better? How bad is Beast: The Primordial? how do I make stuff crossover? What THIS splat a good idea? Fishmalks. Superheroes with Fangs.

Warhammer 40k:
Is the Imperium needed, or did it just create the very situation its fighting against? Is Chaos REALLY evil? Are the Tau better to live in than the Imperium? Ultramarine mary sues. Kaldor Draigo the mary sue-er. are the Imperial Guard disposable mooks or a competent military facing impossible odds? Was the 8th edition and thus bringing back Roboute Guilliman and the Primaris Marines really a good idea?

and so on and so forth. I bet there are tons more of discussions like this that I don't know about.

[Mutazoia]

But more than half of this thread is about pure D&D problems. D&D powers. D&D challanges. There are so many solutions to the caster/mundane problems, all of them widely deployed in other systems. But all of them only get the occasional mention without further discussion and people are back into arguing about changing D&D specifically while still keeping the very same D&D experience. Which can't be done as every such fundamental change to the core of the game won't result in such a similar game.

Useless.

(paraphrasing myself from earlier) So, on a website run by a man who makes his living designing stuff for D&D, and authors a web comic about D&D, on a forum where the biggest bulk of thread categories are dedicated to D&D, you can bet your pimply ass that you are going to have a huge chunk of examples dedicated to D&D (or use D&D as a base reference).

[Knaight]

Yes, it is good for examples as people know it.

But more than half of this thread is about pure D&D problems. D&D powers. D&D challanges. There are so many solutions to the caster/mundane problems, all of them widely deployed in other systems. But all of them only get the occasional mention without further discussion and people are back into arguing about changing D&D specifically while still keeping the very same D&D experience. Which can't be done as every such fundamental change to the core of the game won't result in such a similar game.

Useless.

I don't disagree, although this is another case where what we see here is emblematic of broader patterns - consider criticisms of the fantasy genre that are definitely just criticisms of Tolkien, Tolkien knockoffs, and D&D fiction.

[Pleh]

I'll try to have a look at your work when I have time.

Yee, I generally agree that streamlining for general use is a great idea. If you are only running a scenario where 4 adventurers are trying to stealth past or up to a hostile creature or likewise have the opportunity to notice an based threat, one roll for the party against a single static DC is just about the way to go.

I really liked the Star Wars Saga/4e concept of Passive Perception, which basically acted as, "your character is always taking 10 on perception until you declare you want to investigate something specific more closely."

I also like approximating your streamlining in my D&D games by having stealthy enemies roll stealth while I'm preparing encounters beforehand and just setting a static DC with the roll. This way, if players say nothing, their passive perception goes against my static prerolled stealth DC. If they get suspicious based on clues in the way I've set it up, they can declare investigation and roll against the static DC.

But 3.5 Core seems to have 1/3 stealth support from classes and races. What I mean is, 3 of 11 core classes seem to focus stealth: rogue, ranger, and monk. And 2 of 7 races get bonus to Dex (elf and halfling), the key stealth attribute. 1/3 of the fundamental archetypes are directly suited to stealth based play. This is another hint to me that at least some of the designers were trying to make 3.5 some kind of Caster/Martial/Assassin paradigm and just didn't follow through.

So the joy (to my understanding) of 3.5 was the wealth of complex builds through permutations of simple basic abilities. It was like a box of lego bricks to some degree. So while streamlining is a good idea, as a stealthy player myself, I'd say having a few Bethesda style stealth perks for "Assassin/Hunter" characters is critical for these characters playing their intended roles.

This is where I feel video games have way outpaced TTRPGs in capturing Assassin gameplay. Assassin's Creed, the Arkham Batman Games, and Shadow of Mordor series have done really phenomenal work in helping generate the stealth assassin fantasy. Some of the critical stealth abilities are common among these games:
Climbing and falling is normal movement to these characters.
This is a big one. Few environmental advantages to stealth are better than being somewhere people don't expect you to be or even be able to get to. Batman said it best, "no one ever looks up." For it to really work in a 3.5 style system, you need to cannibalize the Thief Acrobat class and make its benefits into standard Assassin archetype features that every "stealthy" class at least *could* get at some point without sacrificing levels of their own class. Pair this with a few freebie Skill Tricks around movement and/or detection and you're halfway home to dropping a smoke pellet and handcrosbow+grappling hook rope darting your way to a safe hiding place.
Perception is as big as stealth for stealth characters.
Part of the reason each of the games I'm drawing from had "night vision modes" to highlight enemies and where they are looking is because video games are a visual medium. But the principle still applies in TTRPGs. Batvision to identify targets is critical to timing your movements for the ideal moment (they turned the other way, got distracted, etc). Exactly how this gets implemented mechanically might be tricky, but I like the way warlock invocations work and feel for this purpose. At will spell like detection, but not impervous to someone blanketing an area against magic detection. Quoth the Batman, "I need to take out the jamming signal first."
Fear itself
Almost all these games imply the successful use of these tactics and skills are terrifying to behold. There should be incredible synergy with Fear based builds.
Hiding in Plain Sight
The ability itself is great, but most stealth builds should have situational, lesser versions accessible at low level. Disappear in a busy crowd, vanish in partial concealment, Ninja Ghost Step, etc. Retreating back into stealth shouldn't be automatic or even easy, but always an option (and reliably effective if you plan ahead by wearing nondescript clothing and keep a quick draw on smoke pellets).
Ghosting your enemies.
Clearly, the most difficult aspect to balance is the instant takedown, especially in a system with Greater Invisibility. But the games give us some advice there as well: it really doesn't work that well against enemies of equal or greater power than the Assassin (boss battles). You might get close enough to land a strike, but probably at some point you have to duke it out directly. Some really OP bosses may force you to make multiple stealth criticals to beat them. So the *real* problem with instant takedowns is that it's very situational. It's for taking down mooks. This is nice because it basically makes PCs almost automatically immune to it being used against them by their virtue of not being mooks. But then why do we need a special skill for doing that to begin with? Most of the games make sure even mooks are lethal at any level if you mishandle them, so it's typically most important to prevent them raising an alarm and turning a manageable stealth mission into an overwhelming brawl (this should be a matter of encounters per day resources, the reward is resolving an encounter with minimal resource loss against the risk of fighting a resource draining challenge). Then again, these games never scale to 9th level spell power. It feels like E6 is the most eloquent solution I've found, but I wish there was a better solution than level capping almost 3/4 of the character options. Ultimately, it seems to boil down to being really particular in how you construct your encounters, but it's also a byproduct of these video games being more or less linear encounters with solo protagonists. It doesn't work nearly as well to bring along party members. Batman works alone (except Alfred, Robin(s), Batgirl/Oracle, the justice league, etc).

I could probably go on, but those are the main points. My thing is that I, as a player, want layers of stealth. The "streamlined" basic layer applies when no one involved is trying to use advanced stealth like I described, then the advanced stealth specialists do gain some of these advanced abilities that let them capitalize on stealth's advantages, making them the perfect tool for specific problems (specifically problems that might not be doable any other way).

[CharonsHelper]

Clearly, the most difficult aspect to balance is the instant takedown, especially in a system with Greater Invisibility. But the games give us some advice there as well: it really doesn't work that well against enemies of equal or greater power than the Assassin (boss battles). You might get close enough to land a strike, but probably at some point you have to duke it out directly. Some really OP bosses may force you to make multiple stealth criticals to beat them. So the *real* problem with instant takedowns is that it's very situational. It's for taking down mooks. This is nice because it basically makes PCs almost automatically immune to it being used against them by their virtue of not being mooks.

While Space Dogs doesn't do a lot of what you're talking about - it actually does this very well. The bulk of foes are NPC classes against whom a single critical hit is generally lethal (so a stealth shot is inherently a take-down without extra special rules). There isn't the sort of scaling as in D&D - so that doesn't keep them from being threats. (I should have mentioned above.) Meanwhile - PCs have enough Vitality (it's a Vitality/Wound system) where a single crit hurts but isn't lethal.

I find that having most foes be NPC classes allows for the badass feel. (Especially with the morale system I have - where a group of sentients rarely fight to the death - instead running off and/or surrendering.)


I could probably go on, but those are the main points. My thing is that I, as a player, want layers of stealth. The "streamlined" basic layer applies when no one involved is trying to use advanced stealth like I described, then the advanced stealth specialists do gain some of these advanced abilities that let them capitalize on stealth's advantages, making them the perfect tool for specific problems (specifically problems that might not be doable any other way).

While I agree with you that those games do stealth well - I don't see how they make defending against stealth enjoyable too. In fact - they generally work largely because NPCs are kinda dumb. "What - a dead body? I guess it was just the wind..."

In addition - they tend to be solo sorts of things rather than fitting for a group.

[Darth Ultron]

Name a system we talk about just as often as 3.5 on this board that we can consistently discuss then.

Well, everyone has played D&D, at least once. So it is a common ground.

Some people that played Some of the other popular games.

And very few games match D&D's 800 pounds of books and rules. I lot of other games have only a handful of rules, and are made that way....so there is not much to talk about in discussions like this.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't disagree, although this is another case where what we see here is emblematic of broader patterns - consider criticisms of the fantasy genre that are definitely just criticisms of Tolkien, Tolkien knockoffs, and D&D fiction.

I love fantasy literature... but damnit if finding the good stuff doesn't involve filtering through a ton of extruded fantasy product -- the paste made from combining a copy of a copy of a superficial grasp of Tolkein's material, and a grab-bag of D&D material with all its Kitchen Sink Syndrome issues, forced through a "what will sell the most copies the quickest" press.

E: and then there are those times when the you're reading something and you can almost hear the dice clatter and the levels tick over... ugh.

[Pleh]

While I agree with you that those games do stealth well - I don't see how they make defending against stealth enjoyable too. In fact - they generally work largely because NPCs are kinda dumb. "What - a dead body? I guess it was just the wind..."

In addition - they tend to be solo sorts of things rather than fitting for a group.

This is part of why I was leaning more heavily on Batman than the other games. In Batman particularly, mooks finding a "dead body" (*wink wink*) wasn't ignored. Rather, it could be used tactically. Finding a dead body would invoke a Will Save vs Fear, even if the condition only lasts a few seconds. If they keep finding bodies every few rounds with no explanation as to how its happening, the fear effects keep stacking. It even gets so bad the NPCs start shooting wildly at phantom terrors their own mind conjures or making bad tactical decisions like "split up the group."

Furthermore, when they find a body, they call attention to it, which summons other Mooks to come investigate. This means Dead Bodies are now functional bait as well as Terrorist Attacks. You can leave a splash trap on the body to hit them when they cluster up around the body or use the consolidation of people to move more freely around the level without attracting attention, setting yourself up for the next takedown. In Assassin's Creed, you could pick up bodies to hide them to prevent their detection, which would increase Guard Alertness for a few seconds and cause them to begin searching for you, or you could intentionally drop a body where it would be seen to terrorize guards and break up their search pattern hoping to open a particular path to get past them (either bypassing them entirely or gaining a strategic vantage point to continue ravaging their population).

The other reason I picked on Batman so much was the Justice League scenario. We don't play that side of Batman in the Arkham games (although that would be wicked awesome to see), but that side of Batman much more closely matches the D&D Party of Heroes scenario that typically pops up in gameplay. It gives us context for how a character capable of the Arkham games playstyle would apply those same skills to challenges that require cooperation with other powerful heroes. In a lot of Justice League battles, Batman uses vehicles to up his power level, tons of magic items to throw on some battlefield control with misdirection/concealment/rope restraints/etc, and only getting close to deliver a finishing blow when the enemy is vulnerable.

D&D seems to mostly handle the last part, where the Rogue just has to try to flank the enemy, not aggro its attention, and keep dealing sucker punches to hasten its defeat. It'd be neat to give them a wider range of strategies to employ, like Death From Above, Charging Sucker Punch, Tag Team Feint/Fake Out, Hit You With My Car, and other Roguish Batman tropes.

But as for defending against it, Assassin's Creed deserves some credit for implementing some of this. In Revelations, Ezio occasionally had Templar Assassins randomly try to shank him. A quick reaction time countered it against the mook. Assassin's Creed: Rogue took it a step further when you became a Templar Assassin and hunted other Assassins. You got a little warning when your Spider Sense told you there was a hidden Assassin nearby. If you stop to investigate with magical detection, you could spot them hiding and turn the tables. If you were moving too fast and didn't notice the game warning you of the nearby assassin, they got a chance to attack you, which lowered your healthbar considerably, but not an instant-kill, and you still got a second chance to counter the attack to mitigate the damage somewhat.

If a DM really wanted to "intimidate" the PCs with an assassin effective at Ghosting enemies, they should pair the heroes up with their own posse of Redshirt Minions for the Assassin to waste one by one. None of the PCs themselves should be in danger of it happening to them (that would require an Assassin of substantially higher level than the party, which isn't any more of a jerk DM move than a Barbarian or Wizard of substantially higher level, since any of them could insta-kill party members). After all, if the PC Assassin can't Drop a Boss all at once, only mooks, then it should work the same in reverse: NPC Assassins can't just auto slay a PC, though their non-heroic allies/followers may be fair game.

My point is that it's doable. Not too many people have really tried to work it out, from what I've seen.

[Calthropstu]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that standards tend to correlate with level of involvement (in basically anything), and familiarity with the more esoteric parts of a given field also tends to correlate with more involvement. This is particularly true when there's a high barrier to entry, which is the case for RPGs - the expected standard is learning at least one 300 page rule book at least decently to get in at all, and most people involved in the hobby are involved at the shallow end (again like basically everything) and don't have the sort of familiarity that standards tend to emerge from. On top of that there's the usual matter of visibility from a given point of knowledge, where the lay person is only likely to even know about the existence of D&D. D&D thus dominates the shallow end of the pool, and keeps a bunch of players because of it. These factors thus make any analysis trying to link quality to popularity deeply suspect.

To use a personal example from another media field, my standards for opera are basically as low as they get. I don't know the field well enough to have better standards, I don't particularly care about it, and what little knowledge I have is about the best known works (as in knowing about Wagner, knowing about the Ring Cycle, and that being close to it). I have an uncle that loves opera, and it would be pretty easy to get my hands on video recordings of opera of a wide variety of qualities - but because I'm largely outside the field, it's not like I'll be able to tell them apart by quality. If I got marginally more into it, watched a couple a year, and occasionally talked about opera with that uncle I would be the opera equivalent of the standard RPG player, because of another commonality between fields.

That is to say that there's a pretty standard level-of-involvement curve with some minor variation. There's a spike at and extremely near 0, for people who don't know about a field at all and then a very, very long tailed distribution with a fairly major bump just past the spike. Spike size to bump size is crazy variable, but beyond that the curves look basically the same, with the usual caveats around axis stretching, wobbliness of data, etc. In the context of fields with specific points of interest (artistic works, individual sports teams, individual food/beverage items, whatever) the set on the low end of this curve and thus the least esoteric parts of a field are going to be disproportionately well known. If commercialized they're generally pulling in disproportionate amounts of money. That doesn't mean that they're better, but it does generally indicate that what makes them worse isn't particularly perceptible for most people. I might like cheap white table wine, but when a sommelier has a cogent criticism of it I should probably assume that they're right, as my tastes represent those of someone right at the spike-bump boundary.

This is particularly relevant when trying to talk about theory. As a general rule examples are helpful to understand underlying criteria, with actually familiar examples being particularly helpful. In opera, this is probably Wagner's work (although I'm in the spike on that one, so this is a wild guess). In wine, it's general commentary on red vs. white, sweet vs. dry, and traits of major wine producing areas. In RPGs, it's D&D. When points of comparison are useful, it's multiple editions of D&D. This is why 3.5 still gets brought up so much - not because it's some masterpiece with a massive popularity that comes from sheer quality, but because it's well known enough to serve as an example when talking about general theory. Similarly the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing it because of it's quality. They're playing it because it's whats there and is easiest to get into, and system details are largely unimportant to them (much the same way that I don't particularly care about exactly which cheap white swill I'm drinking, wine wise). The people who know the system well, know RPGs in general well, and stick with it anyways are much rarer - which is to be expected regardless of quality, because that's how the spike-bump curve works.
For one, that's not how it came across. For the second, the ones everyone knows so well is because it's the ones that struck a high cord amongst those who saw it that they convinced others to go watch it and even those who don't generally like opera liked it. So quite literally the ones in this so called spike are truly the best.

The goal of any production is to sell. D&D is no exception. And no franchise, until Pathfinder, came even close to challenging D&D. There were so many that tried though. The fact that D&D remained the king of RPGs for so long means they did it right... until 4th edition. Now we can discuss why that is all day every day. But when you insult the game, insult the mechanics and insult the players because the most popular game has things you don't like I will call it how I see it: A childish, though prettily worded in your case, tantrum.

Yup. Because, at the end of the day, all we are really discussing here is theory. WotC is not going to go back an release D&D 3.6, using any of what we discuss here. All of this is, really, just people who enjoy the game, pointing out things that WotC could have done better, and discussing various ways that said missteps could have been avoided and/or how they could be house-ruled in one's own game, if so desired. At best, we can hope that a few members of WotC's design team troll the board and read what we have to say, and take it into consideration when they next design a product...but don't hold your breath.

I have no problem with discussing how to make it better, theories on why things are the way they are, broken mechanics, houserules, build theory... I've been here for a while and enjoy it. I do take issue, though, with the huge number of insults thrown at the creators, the players at large, the core game concept...
I have no problem with people not liking the game, but this is beyond not liking the game. It has actually gotten disrespectful.

[Cosi]

No. We are contending that the Wizard should a few checks and balances. He should have to have a price to pay for all that power, and really shouldn't be able to replace the functions of a mundane class on top of everything else.

Yes. That price is that you get your power at high level, when other people also have power.


The goal of any production is to sell. D&D is no exception. And no franchise, until Pathfinder, came even close to challenging D&D.

This is false on both counts. Pathfinder isn't challenging D&D, it is D&D. And White Wolfs oWoD managed to beat D&D in the late nineties.


I have no problem with people not liking the game, but this is beyond not liking the game. It has actually gotten disrespectful.

If game designers do a bad job, you should not respect them. Because they are asking you to give them your actual money for a bad product.

[Calthropstu]

Yes. That price is that you get your power at high level, when other people also have power.



This is false on both counts. Pathfinder isn't challenging D&D, it is D&D. And White Wolfs oWoD managed to beat D&D in the late nineties.



If game designers do a bad job, you should not respect them. Because they are asking you to give them your actual money for a bad product.

To whit I respond: Why are you here?
Also, source on the WoD claim?

[Frozen_Feet]

At best, we can hope that a few members of WotC's design team troll the board and read what we have to say, and take it into consideration when they next design a product...but don't hold your breath.

It's not at all far-fetched for someone on these boards to go work for WotC, or Paizo, in the future. It's even less far-fetched for someone to publish indie games under smaller companies, or go hold games at conventions for hundreds of people. The hobby really is that small.

[Calthropstu]

It's not at all far-fetched for someone on these boards to go work for WotC, or Paizo, in the future. It's even less far-fetched for someone to publish indie games under smaller companies, or go hold games at conventions for hundreds of people. The hobby really is that small.

I encourage such thinking whole heartedly. More games means more variety, more variety means more fun. More fun means more happiness.
The world could use more happiness.
To get this convo back on target: I redirect this line of thinking. If you don't like the caster beats mundane paradigm, make one yourself. Come up with a concept, build the rules and present it here, at conventions etc.

I can support and respect that.

[Anymage]

Mid 90s was when TSR was in its death throes. You can look up articles from that time, or just notice that the fact that WotC wouldn't have had to step in if D&D was strong at the time. Meanwhile, 90s white wolf was where you got your "RPG fan goes crazy stories" from, had one explicit TV show when D&D had largely fallen out of pop culture references, and then there are all the unofficial but heavy nods in its direction. (E.G: A lot of Buffy's ideas for vampire concepts and teminology can be spotted easily in the V:tM book.) So yes, I'd say that a weak D&D vs. a competitor at its peak would give the advantage to WW.

Which comes back around to one of the main things that WW/OP has done well across its game lines. Everybody gets cool powers, you just have to chose what you want your cool powers to be concentrated on. Late stage 3.5 was very much moving towards this model. I haven't looked too much into PF, but from what I hear there's been some leaning in that direction too. The extremes of both "pointy stick" and "unlimited power" are both things that are being moved away from.

If I had the time and effort to make a 3.x hack instead of just moving on to something else, my starting point would involve giving everybody sorcererlike casting as a base. Everybody gets a nice power curve, nobody gets to redo most of their build just for waking up in the morning. I'd then rebalance at what levels certain abilities start to come on line, remove a lot of the more active plot devicey spells, and more heavily integrate incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm). You get to do your awesome stuff as you level, and can try to hunt down incantations if you really want to play the archivist type. But you have a smoother power curve, PCs don't feel so much like shifting grab-bags of power, and you don't have people popping off plot device level effects within the span of six seconds.

[Tanarii]

You sure as hell can rebalance the wizard and still have him fill his traditional roll, because a huge chunk of the balance issues, came about after a lot of the balancing factors were nerf'd or removed entirely by 3.0, and wizards functioned pretty damned well before that, and managed to do so, with out stepping on the toes of the "mundane" classes.
Yup. That's pretty much the problem, and what causes huge problems with all-powerful wizards at higher levels. The checks and balances were removed, but the power level wasn't reduced to compensate, nor were newer ones introduced.

I mean, even before 3e, many people ignored or intentionally house-ruled away the restrictions. Because a lot of people didn't like them anyway. But then surprise! They'd complain wizards were too powerful and overshadowed other classes.

I don't have a problem with people personally disliking the particular method of pre-3e checks and balances on casters in general nor Wizards in particular. Nor do I think they were some fine-tuned heavily playtested & perfectly balanced panacea. I just think that some people in this thread have a huge blind spot, ignoring or denying that 3e (and thus derivatives) stripped them away without either replacing them with something else or reducing power levels to compensate. With totally predictable results.

For my large player base games, I actually prefer easy casting. Because the majority of players seem to enjoy that, and that's what makes the game fun for me.

As a player, sometimes I want to relax and have a popcorn & slay orcs easy rules game, including easy casting that makes things go (a somewhat balanced) Boom! Other times I want a fun and interesting spin on casting that makes it feel special or even dangerous, to give the world flavor. And yet other times, I want it to be playing the game on hard mode ... choosing a Mage to take the most thought, careful planning, tactical acumen, but ultimately rewarding if done well.

The former most commonly and latter the least often, as I get older. :smallamused:

[death390]

I understand that this goes against any power-fantasies, but...

...in real combat? You risk injuring or killing yourself. Even with your own weapon. There's just so many variables...

You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...

...ok, maybe it's just my clumsiness :smallbiggrin:

...and while I agree the 1 in 20 chance is perhaps a bit high for veteran warrior, the chance is always there. And it should be part of the game.

Unless we are talking the anime/power-fantasy "I must be invincible or I'm not gonna enjoy myself" stuff (or "it should be possible to defeat my build only by things that have level X-2 or better!"). In that case, I'm outta here :smallbiggrin:


just had to say this about crit fumbles before i leave for class, that natural 1 on the die for a fumble does not mean automatic failure. the rules also state a DC 10 Dex check to confirm he failed (DMG p28) i personally like this version of crit fumbles because it makes so much more sense. it is still a possibility but not a 1/20 chance.

[Arbane]

I'm still not totally sure what to make of the combat-as-war vs. combat-as-sports essay

"That's easy. War is one of the most horrific things humans can do to each other, whereas sports can be fun to watch or play." - Some wiseguy on SA.

It always struck me as the same old "ROLEplaying vs ROLLplaying" gamer machismo, only applied to the part of the game that isn't all about nailing your hand to your forehead and angsting.

[Knaight]

For one, that's not how it came across. For the second, the ones everyone knows so well is because it's the ones that struck a high cord amongst those who saw it that they convinced others to go watch it and even those who don't generally like opera liked it. So quite literally the ones in this so called spike are truly the best.

By this reasoning we can assume that Avatar and the Transformers franchise are among the best movies of all time, that Harry Potter is one of the best book series ever written, and that when it comes to food you're not going to find better than McDonalds. Quality and popularity are not the same thing, and popularity is built by a host of things more important than quality. Marketing comes to mind.

In the case of D&D specifically, the big advantage it had was being there first. It was the only RPG for long enough to become known, and can pretty much coast on network effects and brand recognition indefinitely as long as some minimum quality is maintained.

[Duff]

It is trivially easy, if there is "the warrior" in the party and not "everyone is a warrior, but this one guy, this one guy is only a warrior".

My single most glorious moment in any campaign was: the party is being chased by monsters, and we are trying to make our way to the plane. My character, realizing that although we might make it to the plane in time there is no way we would be able to take off in time, stops, turns around and draws her weapons. As the only warrior in the group, she was able to fend off the monsters from reaching the rest of the party who would not be able to survive fighting them directly.


Glorious indeed!

[Corvus]

Yes. That price is that you get your power at high level, when other people also have power.



Wizards and other spell casters weren't getting their power at high level. They got it at very low levels. It just went to ludicrous power at high level.

A 1st level wizard or sorcerer was still more useful out of combat than most normals, and they weren't exactly useless in a fight either, if you knew what you were doing.

[Duff]

Pre 3.X, I've never had a mage one-shot a dragon.....

Disintegrate. Failed save. Done

[Pleh]

Disintegrate. Failed save. Done

To be fair, dragons failing their save tends to be the less likely outcome.

[Cluedrew]

I hope I haven't come across that way. It's certainly not my intention. My position has always been that the game should be balanced, and that for that to be accomplished at high levels, characters in general need to receive some kind of supernatural powers. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to cast spells, or even that they need to stop using swords.
[...]
Hopefully that explains some part of what I believe, and how that was (unintentionally) coming across as "everyone needs to be a Wizard".I now forget exactly what I said, but it was "on occasion", so it did happen but mostly you were clear on the power level stuff. Personally, because it is mildly related and I feel like doing it, I'm going to go on a bit about giving people non-magical powerful abilities.

I remember someone saying "Star Wars X-wings are basically magic". By which they mean that a craft smaller than many modern fighter jets* travelling at super-relativistic speeds with only a minimal level of fuel usage is completely infeasible and it is unlikely such a thing could ever exist. And I agree that it is effectively impossible. But I don't think that makes them magic, not in the aesthetic sense. Magic has a certain feel to it, a source beyond the physical realm (such as you spirit, the gods or the world itself), the hidden secrets of the universe and that sort of thing. The latter part sort of gets close to science, but tends to be less discoverable than with science (or perhaps merely, less has been discovered).

All of this is getting around to saying: I don't think we have to make the fighter magic to be awesome. How does she do all the things she does? Skill. It is like magic, but has to do with training instead of study. It has to do with conditioning instead of memorization. It requires no gift from a god, just enough luck to make it through life or death situations and learn for the next one. It requires a strong body over ancient blood. There are no secrets, just the long road to be able to do the common things so well they are almost unrecognizable. In other words, its nothing like magic except they both serve to explain who impossible things happen.

Wheew.

* I'm not actually sure about the average size of a fighter jet, but the few I have seen close enough to determine their size have all been bigger than an X-Wing.**

** Anyone else upset that A-Wings and B-Wings didn't show up in episode 7?


But more than half of this thread is about pure D&D problems. D&D powers. D&D challanges. There are so many solutions to the caster/mundane problems, all of them widely deployed in other systems.It's what people want to take about. I am personally more interested in the generic part of the conversation, such as the whole separation between magic and impossible I mentioned earlier.

I could also talk a bit about


Glorious indeed!Thank-you. And on of a series of moments that made me try and shift away from a combat focus in my homebrew system. Which is an odd thing, but letting a warrior be the warrior worked out here. The other moments mostly came down to: there is more to life than getting into fights.

[Quertus]

A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

A low level expert could make eerie noises and produce a similar effect. At higher levels, the explosives he hid under the battlefield could wipe out an entire army. These aren't unobtainable benchmarks for muggles.


Yeah, that's the source of my love/hate relationship with him. We both very much agree that the huge gap between weapon-types and spell-types should be gotten rid of. We basically just argue about whether they should meet in the middle or if they should all have T1 power and versatility.

Well, I believe it's fair to say that Cosi and I both want a system which enables us to tell / participate in stories that necessitate the existence of powerful PCs. Trying to put such PCs in the same party with "skilled normals", and asking for game balance is rather difficult. In D&D parlance, it's like asking can I play my level 50 wizard, and my friend's new level 1, in your level 10 game? Vastly divergent power levels and game balance just aren't compatible concepts. Vastly divergent power and balance of focus / play time / spotlight, however, can work.

But, IMO, versatility is a much more interesting conversation. Shadowrun did very hard niche protection. When it was time to talk, the Face did the talking, and everyone else - mechanically - sat there and twiddled their thumbs. When you were in a vehicle, the Rigger did the driving, and everyone else sat there and twiddled their thumbs. When you had to access the Matrix, the Hacker did the work, and everyone else sat there and twiddled their thumbs. When you had to deal with magical security, the Mage did the deed, and everyone else sat there and twiddled their thumbs. And, when it came time for combat, in good editions of Shadowrun, the Solo went first, and second, and probably third, and maybe forth, and then the rest of the PCs could try to clean up whatever was left (and, if there was anything left, then the Solo got to go a few more times...). Shadowrun had some of the hardest niche protection I've seen. And, in a game with X niches, you spent 1/x of the game in the spotlight, and (x-1)/x of the game not participating.

Personally, I'm not a fan of niche protection.

There are, IMO, 3 states: in the spotlight ("shining"), participating, and twiddling you thumbs / not participating. Personally, I believe the best design goal is for the majority of characters to be able to participate in the majority of encounters.

Thus, I'm clearly on the side of highly versatile characters.


2. If casters could disrupt each-other more easily. If a level 5 caster could hold back a level 8 caster for a couple of rounds, then it would give the martial time to go up and get in their face - reverting to flaw #1. Two level 8s might counter each-other for some time, making the fight be about who had better martial support. 3.x even added counter-spelling to the game mechanics - but while very cool in fluff, mechanically they're too weak to be a viable tactic.

I've played that game. In MtG. I called that deck of counters Ennui. It wasn't fun. For anyone.

If every time your fighter got to attack, the monster got to roll its 99% dodge skill to say, "lol, nope!", that isn't fun. While the rogue spends 20 rounds setting up his death attack. That's just not engaging gameplay. At least IMO.

[CharonsHelper]

If every time your fighter got to attack, the monster got to roll its 99% dodge skill to say, "lol, nope!", that isn't fun. While the rogue spends 20 rounds setting up his death attack. That's just not engaging gameplay. At least IMO.

It would have to be more involved than that of course. Perhaps chewing through spell slots or a "concentration" resource, possibly with lesser effects being too fast to counter, or larger spells still having minor effects when countered. etc.

[Talakeal]

There are, IMO, 3 states: in the spotlight ("shining"), participating, and twiddling you thumbs / not participating. Personally, I believe the best design goal is for the majority of characters to be able to participate in the majority of encounters.

Thus, I'm clearly on the side of highly versatile characters.

Counter-point, how do you force me to participate?

If everyone else can do what I can do, why don't I just sit back and twiddle my thumbs?

Heck, why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by any given individual?

[Corvus]

Counter-point, how do you force me to participate?

If everyone else can do what I can do, why don't I just sit back and twiddle my thumbs?

Heck, why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by any given individual?

Teamwork. Make it so that you need more than one person active to solve the problem.

And why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by the same, single individual?

[Talakeal]

Teamwork. Make it so that you need more than one person active to solve the problem.

Much easier said than done.

In my experience most people play RPGs for the felling of being special / independence, and if you are a group of interchangeable guys who are only able to accomplish things through weight of numbers that feeling is gone, and with it much of the enjoyment of the game.

Furthermore, requiring mundane tasks to have a bunch of people working together is a huge blow to verisimilitude.

One option is to have every situation require multiple people working on different tasks at the same time, but this gets very contrived, means people who don't have the required number of party members simply can't succeed (what if someone dies earlier in the night or their player doesn't show up for the session?) and can probably be circumvented with minionmancy anyway.

I suppose you could have spells require multiple people to cast and have their strength scale with the numbers, but I don't think the people who are wanting to play an omnicompetent wizard would like this very much, and it would actively cause a rift between them and people who want to play martial characters as people would play martial characters solely for the feeling of independence and the power of being able to act on their own and doing so would actually weaken the caster's power as they have one less body to help them cast.

[Mutazoia]

A low level expert could make eerie noises and produce a similar effect. At higher levels, the explosives he hid under the battlefield could wipe out an entire army. These aren't unobtainable benchmarks for muggles.

So...your contention is that a guy standing around going "ooooOOOOOOoooooo" is somehow going be just as effective as a guy who can make actual monsters (well, believable illusionary ones) appear out of thin air?

And when is our high level fighter suppose to have time to dig up an entire battle field, even if he did somehow manage to find/invent landmines to bury?

[Satinavian]

This is part of why I was leaning more heavily on Batman than the other games. In Batman particularly, mooks finding a "dead body" (*wink wink*) wasn't ignored. Rather, it could be used tactically. Finding a dead body would invoke a Will Save vs Fear, even if the condition only lasts a few seconds. If they keep finding bodies every few rounds with no explanation as to how its happening, the fear effects keep stacking. It even gets so bad the NPCs start shooting wildly at phantom terrors their own mind conjures or making bad tactical decisions like "split up the group."

Furthermore, when they find a body, they call attention to it, which summons other Mooks to come investigate. This means Dead Bodies are now functional bait as well as Terrorist Attacks. You can leave a splash trap on the body to hit them when they cluster up around the body or use the consolidation of people to move more freely around the level without attracting attention, setting yourself up for the next takedown. In Assassin's Creed, you could pick up bodies to hide them to prevent their detection, which would increase Guard Alertness for a few seconds and cause them to begin searching for you, or you could intentionally drop a body where it would be seen to terrorize guards and break up their search pattern hoping to open a particular path to get past them (either bypassing them entirely or gaining a strategic vantage point to continue ravaging their population).
I do a lot of stealth in RPGs as player or GM.

But honestly. I i have guards discover a body of another guard, their reaction wil be :

- raise alarm (and thus getting more people awake/let other guards pay more attention/make sure the commander is at hand)
- stay in groups now (as there is obviously a danger out there which can take out single guards)
- send a patrol group to search the area, but only if they have the manpower without weakening critical spots elsewhere and only if there is enough reason to assume that the patrol group can't be overcome the same way

[Frozen_Feet]

Counter-point, how do you force me to participate?

Quertus was arguing that people should be able to participate, noy that all people should participate. The former allows you to not participate just fine.


If everyone else can do what I can do, why don't I just sit back and twiddle my thumbs?

If you feel there's no imperative to act and are fine with not acting, then don't act. That's not an actual problem that needs solving.

If, instead, you have the ability to participate but don't because you don't think it's necessary, and then complain about your lack of participation, you are being annoying and daddy needs to spank you. :smalltongue:


Heck, why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by any given individual?

OBVIOUSLY for that 10% of situations which cannot be solved by an individual. Duh.

---

@Quertus: there are more than three states. Most importantly, those who aren't doing things can be divided into at least three distinct categories:

1) Observing and excited: people who have their eyes on the game because they think it's interesting to follow even if it's not their turn.
2) Observing and frustrated: people who have their eyes on the game because they have investment in the outcome and are frustrated by their inability to affect it.
3) Disinterested: people who are no longer invested in the game and have ceased to pay attention.

Only 2) is directly bothered by having to twiddle their thumbs, and only 2) is directly helped by simply making their play piece more able to affect the situation.

In a turn based game (which most RPGs are), it's impossible to secure that every player can participate all the time. Hence it's better to aspire towards making the game interesting enough to the players that they will fall under 1).

[Pleh]

I do a lot of stealth in RPGs as player or GM.

But honestly. I i have guards discover a body of another guard, their reaction wil be :

- raise alarm (and thus getting more people awake/let other guards pay more attention/make sure the commander is at hand)
- stay in groups now (as there is obviously a danger out there which can take out single guards)
- send a patrol group to search the area, but only if they have the manpower without weakening critical spots elsewhere and only if there is enough reason to assume that the patrol group can't be overcome the same way

Yes, that's the smart thing to do, but this is fantasy gaming. Only the smart, competent NPCs should be acting this rationally. Your setting and playstyle is more "gritty/realistic" since even common mooks are fairly adept at doing their jobs right.

Your guards probably all have Herioc classes to make them immune to instantly dropping them anyway.

It *is* largely dependent on the DM actually presenting the party with challenges where the party's chosen tools are actually applicable.

But half the subject of this thread is to talk about changing the rules to change the power paradigm. Along that line of thinking, some of my un-playtested homebrew includes giving Assassin/Batman type characters abilities to have some control over characters experiencing fear. For example, they find a body you left and it's no longer DM fiat: hard mechanic rule they make Will save or Shaken. If they find another body when they get back from investigating, it triggers again and guards failing both saves are Frightened. Creatures Frightened by the Assassin have a chance to have the effects of the Frightened state altered ("split up" is one possible effect).

Not that the guards don't know better, but that the effects of fear cloud a person's better judgment.

[Darth Ultron]

In my experience most people play RPGs for the felling of being special / independence, and if you are a group of interchangeable guys who are only able to accomplish things through weight of numbers that feeling is gone, and with it much of the enjoyment of the game.


I find this true as well.

Few guys ever want to be ''support'' or ''aid'' or anything except ''super big time hero in the Spotlight''.

Though I will say it is common in female groups.

[Satinavian]

Yes, that's the smart thing to do, but this is fantasy gaming. Only the smart, competent NPCs should be acting this rationally. Your setting and playstyle is more "gritty/realistic" since even common mooks are fairly adept at doing their jobs right.

Your guards probably all have Herioc classes to make them immune to instantly dropping them anyway.I really hate giving my NPCs the idiot ball and i don't like it as player either as it really hurts versimilitude.

But no, i don't make my guards particularly tough or competent. I still want players to usually succed and when NPCs are not idiots that means they need to have sufficiently inferior stats.

Also i am not actually playing D&D, mostly point buy systems, which renders the "Heroic class" question moot.

It *is* largely dependent on the DM actually presenting the party with challenges where the party's chosen tools are actually applicable.I already said i have lots of stealth in my games. It can be really useful and fun even when the enemies don't act like idiots. Granted, it is nearly never usd to take out huge numbers one by one and instead for information gathering, entering restricted areas, moving stuff against other peoples wishes and maybe the occassional assassination.

[Pleh]

I really hate giving my NPCs the idiot ball and i don't like it as player either as it really hurts versimilitude.

Eh. It's only idiot ball depending on who the NPCs are and how well prepared they are supposed to actually be.

Batman was breaking into half organized, half improvised criminal strongholds. Criminal mooks aren't known for their robust intelligence or bravado.

For example, when committing crimes, alarms are a double edged sword. You might attract rival thugs or other unhelpful forces. Also, everyone in the location is busy doing something, or they'd go home. Even if you get reinforcements on the guard, that just means some other area is now understaffed unless you give the NPCs the limitless population advantage.

Breaking into a military installation is way different. Reserve guards probably sleep in shifts on location, so getting reinforcements just means waking an extra shift. Alarms aren't as much a problem, because you aren't probably trying to hide anything.

Military guards are probably better trained and conditoned as well, weeding out the incompetents before they go into service. Criminal organizations probably go out of their way to include every idiot willing to hold a gun to walk around outside. If they die in the first attack, the gunshots will warn the more important people inside.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh. It's only idiot ball depending on who the NPCs are and how well prepared they are supposed to actually be.

Batman was breaking into half organized, half improvised criminal strongholds. Criminal mooks aren't known for their robust intelligence or bravado.

For example, when committing crimes, alarms are a double edged sword. You might attract rival thugs or other unhelpful forces. Also, everyone in the location is busy doing something, or they'd go home. Even if you get reinforcements on the guard, that just means some other area is now understaffed unless you give the NPCs the limitless population advantage.

Breaking into a military installation is way different. Reserve guards probably sleep in shifts on location, so getting reinforcements just means waking an extra shift. Alarms aren't as much a problem, because you aren't probably trying to hide anything.

Military guards are probably better trained and conditoned as well, weeding out the incompetents before they go into service. Criminal organizations probably go out of their way to include every idiot willing to hold a gun to walk around outside. If they die in the first attack, the gunshots will warn the more important people inside.

Agreed--assuming that all villains are the smart, disciplined, uber-prepared types breaks my verisimilitude way worse than people making stupid mistakes. Because real people make lots of stupid mistakes, do things they know they shouldn't, panic when they should remain calm, etc. It's not an idiot ball, it's just acting like real people who aren't perfect automatons with perfect information transfer.

[Cluedrew]

My favourite example was from a video game that I forget the name (I've only heard of it, unfortunately) where the elite units you fought part way through the game had the same stats as regular units, but better AI. I'm a little bit impressed by the idea actually, even though fighting games do that sort of thing all the time. So a military unit might be harder to sneak into just because the soldiers have drilled and know what to do, while the thugs were just told to stand guard and deal with anything suspicious.

[Pleh]

Agreed--assuming that all villains are the smart, disciplined, uber-prepared types breaks my verisimilitude way worse than people making stupid mistakes. Because real people make lots of stupid mistakes, do things they know they shouldn't, panic when they should remain calm, etc. It's not an idiot ball, it's just acting like real people who aren't perfect automatons with perfect information transfer.

I mean, I feel like it goes back to not wanting to roleplay in idiotball. It may just not be fun as a DM to play an incompetent mook.

That's fair enough. Some people don't like martial combat because, "it's just shifting numbers and rolling dice" and they prefer social focus and theatrical combat.

Some people don't like Tippyverse Caster exploitation to the slightest degree and work hard to nerf any semblance of it.

I can see the point of all that. I just feel like learning to enjoy playing characters that are positively doomed to failure is an important DM skill

Edit: and giving stealth characters alternative win conditions besides clearing the map undetected is still wonderful

[Max_Killjoy]

It all comes down to what that character should do as that character.

It's not the idiotball when someone's in-character.

It's the idiotball when a character who shouldn't do the dumbest thing possible, does the dumbest thing possible for the sake of The Story.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It all comes down to what that character should do as that character.

It's not the idiotball when someone's in-character.

It's the idiotball when a character who shouldn't do the dumbest thing possible, does the dumbest thing possible for the sake of The Story.

Agreed, but I see writers (and DMs) insisting that since no one wants to be sub-optimal[1] and there's a clear optimal path[2], then everyone who's not optimal must be doing so because they're holding the idiot ball. No, some people either differ on what optimal means, don't have access to that "optimal" path, or are just plain dumb. Having smart characters isn't the issue--having all characters be batman-level prepared is an issue. Variety is important.

[1] citation needed here--I know lots of people who don't particularly care about using their talents to the fullest. They're happy with mediocrity.
[2] As long as you assume that the characters have access to all the information (are meta-gaming). Maybe. For one narrow definition of optimal.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed, but I see writers (and DMs) insisting that since no one wants to be sub-optimal[1] and there's a clear optimal path[2], then everyone who's not optimal must be doing so because they're holding the idiot ball. No, some people either differ on what optimal means, don't have access to that "optimal" path, or are just plain dumb. Having smart characters isn't the issue--having all characters be batman-level prepared is an issue. Variety is important.

[1] citation needed here--I know lots of people who don't particularly care about using their talents to the fullest. They're happy with mediocrity.
[2] As long as you assume that the characters have access to all the information (are meta-gaming). Maybe. For one narrow definition of optimal.

To me that attitude on the part of those writers and GMs represents a lack of understanding of their own characters as fictional persons -- most characters won't know everything the writer or GM knows, most characters won't share the writer or GM's exact priorities, and most characters won't be omni-competent and thus always able to do the most "optimal" thing.

IMO, the idiotball is when someone really should know better, and doesn't.

[Pleh]

It all comes down to what that character should do as that character.

It's not the idiotball when someone's in-character.

It's the idiotball when a character who shouldn't do the dumbest thing possible, does the dumbest thing possible for the sake of The Story.


Agreed, but I see writers (and DMs) insisting that since no one wants to be sub-optimal[1] and there's a clear optimal path[2], then everyone who's not optimal must be doing so because they're holding the idiot ball. No, some people either differ on what optimal means, don't have access to that "optimal" path, or are just plain dumb. Having smart characters isn't the issue--having all characters be batman-level prepared is an issue. Variety is important.

[1] citation needed here--I know lots of people who don't particularly care about using their talents to the fullest. They're happy with mediocrity.
[2] As long as you assume that the characters have access to all the information (are meta-gaming). Maybe. For one narrow definition of optimal.

And I suppose my real problem with D&D here is that they stripped and nerfed Assassin archetypes to the point that the only way to reproduce some of these hallmark Assassin scenarios is to build it totally from scratch.

While the game is engineered towards Dungeon Crawls so strongly that there are literally dozens of Dungeon Generators to be found online, ideas to build a Dishonored style map ideal for Assassin types with multiple routes and layers just isn't supported very well (partly because Assassin types just aren't supported very well).

Which becomes a real problem if there was ever a hint of an idea in the designer's heads that assassins were part of a three part system that was meant to help balance casters and martials.

[CharonsHelper]

, ideas to build a Dishonored style map ideal for Assassin types with multiple routes and layers just isn't supported very well (partly because Assassin types just aren't supported very well).


Much of the problem is that while that one player was being a sneaky badass, the rest of the players would be twiddling their thumbs.

From my experience, stealth is used even less in-play than what little support the mechanics give it because even scouting means that at least half the group is sitting on their heels.

I think to do it justice in the way you're thinking you'd have a to have a game where all of the PC classes are some style of sneaky badass - maybe some more or less, but all pretty sneaky.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Much of the problem is that while that one player was being a sneaky badass, the rest of the players would be twiddling their thumbs.

From my experience, stealth is used even less in-play than what little support the mechanics give it because even scouting means that at least half the group is sitting on their heels.

Agreed. The "sneaky bad***" ends up being annoying unless the whole party is geared for that. It's very doable in a solo game (like Dishonored, etc) because there's only one person involved--no one else to get bored.

On the other hand, I feel the same way about the minionmancers whose turns take forever, the one-trick ponies who are either hyper-competent or completely incompetent, and Mr. "I have a win button for this."

To me, games are funnest when everyone has the opportunity to effectively participate whenever they want and no strategy dominates. No hard counters, no random "and you die because you used your abilities" chances, but generally competent characters. No ability should be useless, no (single) ability should trivialize a situation. Skill-sets should be about how you solve a problem, not what problems you can contribute to solving. Means, not ends.

[Cosi]

To whit I respond: Why are you here?

This seems like a question that requires more context. What do you mean by "here"? This forum? This thread? This particular argument with you specifically? Why should I not be wherever "here" is? Because I think that criticizing designers is good? Because I want to talk about game design rather that gameplay? Because my standards for something are wrong? Because I'm off topic?


Also, source on the WoD claim?

Well, TSR was out of business for a period there. Also, what Anymage said.


If I had the time and effort to make a 3.x hack instead of just moving on to something else, my starting point would involve giving everybody sorcererlike casting as a base. Everybody gets a nice power curve, nobody gets to redo most of their build just for waking up in the morning. I'd then rebalance at what levels certain abilities start to come on line, remove a lot of the more active plot devicey spells, and more heavily integrate incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm). You get to do your awesome stuff as you level, and can try to hunt down incantations if you really want to play the archivist type. But you have a smoother power curve, PCs don't feel so much like shifting grab-bags of power, and you don't have people popping off plot device level effects within the span of six seconds.

This seems to close to what I want to qualify as "Cosi bait". There are places where I'd do things differently. In particular, I think we different on "remove a lot of the more active plot devicey spells, and more heavily integrate incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm).", but I'm not 100% on what you mean. Also, I'm bullish on a paradigm with lots and lots of resource management systems over one with just one, though as I've stated I definitely like "give lots of people casting" as a relatively quick fix.


A 1st level wizard or sorcerer was still more useful out of combat than most normals, and they weren't exactly useless in a fight either, if you knew what you were doing.

Okay? I still don't understand how this doesn't get solved if you make martials more good instead of making casters more bad.


Counter-point, how do you force me to participate?

Because if you show up to play a game, you should be prepared to play that game? The proposal is not "kidnap Talakeal, tie him up, and force him to play a campaign with a character who contributes to every situation". Also, if you don't want to participate, you can just not participate. But it's much harder to participate if you want to, but don't have abilities that do anything.


Heck, why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by any given individual?

Because they can't. If you compare CR 6 monsters to a 10th level PC, you will observe that the PC solves far more than their "fair share" of encounters. Does that mean that 10th level PCs are overpowered? Of course not! It means you should compare them to 10th level challenges.

[Pleh]

Much of the problem is that while that one player was being a sneaky badass, the rest of the players would be twiddling their thumbs.

From my experience, stealth is used even less in-play than what little support the mechanics give it because even scouting means that at least half the group is sitting on their heels.

I think to do it justice in the way you're thinking you'd have a to have a game where all of the PC classes are some style of sneaky badass - maybe some more or less, but all pretty sneaky.


Agreed. The "sneaky bad***" ends up being annoying unless the whole party is geared for that. It's very doable in a solo game (like Dishonored, etc) because there's only one person involved--no one else to get bored.

On the other hand, I feel the same way about the minionmancers whose turns take forever, the one-trick ponies who are either hyper-competent or completely incompetent, and Mr. "I have a win button for this."

To me, games are funnest when everyone has the opportunity to effectively participate whenever they want and no strategy dominates. No hard counters, no random "and you die because you used your abilities" chances, but generally competent characters. No ability should be useless, no (single) ability should trivialize a situation. Skill-sets should be about how you solve a problem, not what problems you can contribute to solving. Means, not ends.

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a bit bigger."

Just because someone has the skills to take point doesn't mean the others have nothing to do in the meantime. It just changes who is on the job of running Support. Casters can use divination to help spies watch out for unseen patrols, or buff the spy with invisibility and silence spells. Fighters can create a diversion by picking a fight with guards at the front gate (no, this does not mean all cover is instantly blown, that is again dependent on the scenario). The Assassin may only need to use just enough stealth to open the door so the rest of the party can get in (if Teleport wasn't already just going ahead and breaking every challenge anyway).

After all, in just about every other scenario, the guy that chose to play the sneaky assassin character has to sit back and play support to everyone else most of the time. Why shouldn't they get a turn to take point from time to time and let the others support them for a change?

[Tinkerer]

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a bit bigger."

Just because someone has the skills to take point doesn't mean the others have nothing to do in the meantime. It just changes who is on the job of running Support. Casters can use divination to help spies watch out for unseen patrols, or buff the spy with invisibility and silence spells. Fighters can create a diversion by picking a fight with guards at the front gate (no, this does not mean all cover is instantly blown, that is again dependent on the scenario). The Assassin may only need to use just enough stealth to open the door so the rest of the party can get in (if Teleport wasn't already just going ahead and breaking every challenge anyway).

After all, in just about every other scenario, the guy that chose to play the sneaky assassin character has to sit back and play support to everyone else most of the time. Why shouldn't they get a turn to take point from time to time and let the others support them for a change?

Those are some pretty brief supporting roles for the others in your scenario there. Where as when the assassin is playing support they are generally supporting all the time and constantly engaged. However in terms of the brief foray forward I fail to see where the D&D stealth system is letting you down. That seems to be the precise situation that it is designed for so where is the problem coming from?

[Tanarii]

Furthermore, requiring mundane tasks to have a bunch of people working together is a huge blow to verisimilitude.Youve never been in the military or worked in an office environment? Not even played a team sport?


From my experience, stealth is used even less in-play than what little support the mechanics give it because even scouting means that at least half the group is sitting on their heels.My players sneak / scout constantly. It helps that I set a "separate group" rule of 30ft for sneaking in appropriate environments (Dungeons, adventuring sites without long lines of sight). But even at a more reasonable seperation of about 60ft, there should be no problem having the scouts in front, ready to fall back or have the main group catch up when something interesting is found. There's no 'twiddling of thumbs' involved.

In fact, any group not doing this deserves what they blindly stick their head into, in most RPGs. There's a reason 'Pointman' is a thing in military parlance.

The only reason it fell out of play is because of DMs doing their players a disservice and leaving 1/2 the party twiddling their thumbs unnecessarily whenever someone said "I scout ahead". That's not necessary at all.

[Satinavian]

Eh. It's only idiot ball depending on who the NPCs are and how well prepared they are supposed to actually be.

Batman was breaking into half organized, half improvised criminal strongholds. Criminal mooks aren't known for their robust intelligence or bravado.Sure.

But antagonists in most roleplay scenarios tend to be a bit more professional. In fact most guards you regularly encounter are probably part of some army or mercenaries.



It all comes down to what that character should do as that character.

It's not the idiotball when someone's in-character.

It's the idiotball when a character who shouldn't do the dumbest thing possible, does the dumbest thing possible for the sake of The Story.


Agreed, but I see writers (and DMs) insisting that since no one wants to be sub-optimal[1] and there's a clear optimal path[2], then everyone who's not optimal must be doing so because they're holding the idiot ball. No, some people either differ on what optimal means, don't have access to that "optimal" path, or are just plain dumb. Having smart characters isn't the issue--having all characters be batman-level prepared is an issue. Variety is important.

[1] citation needed here--I know lots of people who don't particularly care about using their talents to the fullest. They're happy with mediocrity.
[2] As long as you assume that the characters have access to all the information (are meta-gaming). Maybe. For one narrow definition of optimal.
Just a small reminder :

We are talking about people on guard duty finding one (or maybe more) of the other guards dead and reacting by splitting up motivated by fear instead of maybe raising an alarm, staying together or retreating to a safer position.
Yes, that is idiot ball level stupidity. It doesn't make any sense even for a nonprofessional and only is done so that the hero can catch them all alone to advance the plot. I don't care much if it is suboptimal on the metalevel or with perfect knowledge, it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of the guards and with their limited knowledge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure.

But antagonists in most roleplay scenarios tend to be a bit more professional. In fact most guards you regularly encounter are probably part of some army or mercenaries.


That's a large assumption there that isn't true for most of the games I've played.





Just a small reminder :

We are talking about people on guard duty finding one (or maybe more) of the other guards dead and reacting by splitting up motivated by fear instead of maybe raising an alarm, staying together or retreating to a safer position.
Yes, that is idiot ball level stupidity. It doesn't make any sense even for a nonprofessional and only is done so that the hero can catch them all alone to advance the plot. I don't care much if it is suboptimal on the metalevel or with perfect knowledge, it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of the guards and with their limited knowledge.

People do stupid things all the time even when they should know better. If you always make the best decision based on your local information, you're superhuman. Real people have lots of conflicting drives, desires, and habits. Lots of them bad (sub-optimal). Even professionals. Professional programmers make hacky fixes to things even when they know how to do better. And not all professionals are uber-competent. Not in most fields anyway. Most people are pretty average, even with training.

Edit: the idiot ball trope specifically refers to someone who has been presented on-screen as a person who doesn't make mistake X (doesn't get afraid, always has a plan, etc) who, conveniently for the plot, does something completely out of character. Most guards haven't been presented on-screen when they're bypassed/killed, so they don't have a fixed characterization. Claiming that all guards are hyper-competent is as alien (and is as bad an assumption) as claiming that all are bumbling morons. There should be a mix. Some good ones, some bad ones.

[Max_Killjoy]

People do stupid things all the time even when they should know better. If you always make the best decision based on your local information, you're superhuman. Real people have lots of conflicting drives, desires, and habits. Lots of them bad (sub-optimal). Even professionals. Professional programmers make hacky fixes to things even when they know how to do better. And not all professionals are uber-competent. Not in most fields anyway. Most people are pretty average, even with training.

Edit: the idiot ball trope specifically refers to someone who has been presented on-screen as a person who doesn't make mistake X (doesn't get afraid, always has a plan, etc) who, conveniently for the plot, does something completely out of character. Most guards haven't been presented on-screen when they're bypassed/killed, so they don't have a fixed characterization. Claiming that all guards are hyper-competent is as alien (and is as bad an assumption) as claiming that all are bumbling morons. There should be a mix. Some good ones, some bad ones.


On the other hand, when the ONE TIME we get to see that guard "on screen" is during this moment, and he does something really stupid even for a mediocre guard, then it starts to look like the guards are stupid.

And it happens so often in fiction that "stupid guards" are a really overdone cliche at this point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the other hand, when the ONE TIME we get to see that guard "on screen" is during this moment, and he does something really stupid even for a mediocre guard, then it starts to look like the guards are stupid.

And it happens so often in fiction that "stupid guards" are a really overdone cliche at this point.

If there's only one guard, ever, sure. But there should be stupid guards and smart guards. And that should vary based on the organization, the area, the type of creature (stock goblins vs mind flayers, for example) and everything else. All I'm saying is that a distribution is important, not locking things to either end of the spectrum.

[Pleh]

Those are some pretty brief supporting roles for the others in your scenario there. Where as when the assassin is playing support they are generally supporting all the time and constantly engaged.

Casting buffs is a short supporting role.

Constantly using Divination to scry the field and watch someone's back is fairly active throughout the encounter.

Picking a fight at the front gate to cause a distraction can take longer than what the Assassin actually needs to do their job.

And I was picking a few low hanging fruit examples. Use your imagination about the number of ways to support an infiltration unit, either from outside or from a few paces behind.


However in terms of the brief foray forward I fail to see where the D&D stealth system is letting you down. That seems to be the precise situation that it is designed for so where is the problem coming from?

It's mostly how the mechanics make most of the stunts I describe theoretically possible, but practically impossible due to skill checks. There are spells that help, but by the time you're dipping into casting to get there, why did you need to use stealth at all?

The subject at hand is the Caster Beats Mundane Paradigm. My particular point is about how if Assassins are supposed to be the anti-casters, this "precise situation" is more or less what needs to function without casting in order to allow that to happen. It's not really viable at the current construction of the game.


On the other hand, when the ONE TIME we get to see that guard "on screen" is during this moment, and he does something really stupid even for a mediocre guard, then it starts to look like the guards are stupid.

And it happens so often in fiction that "stupid guards" are a really overdone cliche at this point.

This is true, but then again, half the fun is getting to enjoy the cliches from time to time. Granted it gets boring if it's always true. Then guards basically are meaningless.

But it is a bit disappointing if we never get to have the cliches we see in movies, either. It's like candy. Too much sugar just doesn't feel great, but let's not just throw out the bag because some people don't know when enough is enough.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is true, but then again, half the fun is getting to enjoy the cliches from time to time. Granted it gets boring if it's always true. Then guards basically are meaningless.

But it is a bit disappointing if we never get to have the cliches we see in movies, either. It's like candy. Too much sugar just doesn't feel great, but let's not just throw out the bag because some people don't know when enough is enough.


I guess.

Personally I hate cliches and tropes.

[Satinavian]

And I was picking a few low hanging fruit examples. Use your imagination about the number of ways to support an infiltration unit, either from outside or from a few paces behind.If the group is not stealthy most of the support work happens before as preparation. During the stealth mission the other players usually can't contribute a lot.

Usually that it is not a problem as solo scenes of medium length are acceptable but it can get a problem if the player doing the stealth run is one of the particularly slow and indesicive one.


This is true, but then again, half the fun is getting to enjoy the cliches from time to time. Granted it gets boring if it's always true. Then guards basically are meaningless.

But it is a bit disappointing if we never get to have the cliches we see in movies, either. It's like candy. Too much sugar just doesn't feel great, but let's not just throw out the bag because some people don't know when enough is enough.

- I don't even like it in the movies if antagonists act that way.

- "from time to time" is basically the opposite of making a rule/a power out of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

- "from time to time" is basically the opposite of making a rule/a power out of it.

But if it's a power (as in, an active ability the player can use), then it's not the trope. It's just another tool. Yes, if it's a classes/build's only significant tool, then there's a separate problem. But as one tool? It's no different than magical mind-control (suggestion, command, etc). It makes the victims behave a certain way because you have a power rather than because they're just dumb.

As an aside--
I've never seen assassins as an RPG counter to casters. The idea of assassins used as a balancing tool seems horribly unfun, especially if you allow them to do stealth kills. It's a SoD, just on a perception/spot/etc check not a will/fort save. It's also easy (in 3.5) to be functionally impossible to sneak up on.

[Cosi]

I've never seen assassins as an RPG counter to casters. The idea of assassins used as a balancing tool seems horribly unfun, especially if you allow them to do stealth kills. It's a SoD, just on a perception/spot/etc check not a will/fort save. It's also easy (in 3.5) to be functionally impossible to sneak up on.

Agreed. Tactical RPS is good, but it shouldn't be absolute. "Auto-win vs some enemies, auto-lose vs others" is not a fun paradigm on either end. Also, if "stealth characters beat casters beat melee characters beat stealth characters" is the paradigm, you've lost out on a bunch of interesting characters, like non-melee martials or stealthy casters.

[Zale]

A low level expert could make eerie noises and produce a similar effect. At higher levels, the explosives he hid under the battlefield could wipe out an entire army. These aren't unobtainable benchmarks for muggles.


I don't think that's a useful distinction for a couple of reasons:

A) It doesn't use anything inherent to the character's mechanics. We're talking about D&D 3.5 based on your terminology, and nothing about experts gives them access to the ability to to make scary sounds or obtain explosives.

Of course, you'll say that I'm being overtly dependent upon mechanics and that these things are a part of creative roleplaying, and you are sort of right- but these things depend entirely on the DM permitting them. If the DM doesn't think it will work, it won't work, and you'll have no rules-based recourse to fall back on.

Wizards don't have to worry about that, because their ability to do these things is enshrined in the mechanics and rules of the game. They can go, "No DM, the rules explicitly state I have this ability." They can operate under the assumption that most games they play will follow the rules, and thus can project that these abilities will be constants they can rely on.

You can't assume that your mundane character can have access to explosives whenever they need to, but you can almost always rely on the wizard having magic.

B) This shifts the ability from something mechanical to something player-centric. D&D doesn't really have mechanics for characters being clever or for characters presenting clever solutions or for characters coming up with complex plans.

So it's about the player doing those things.

The reason that's relevant is because anyone playing anything can have clever ideas. It's not something exclusive to mundane characters- a wizard can decide to make weird sounds and/or use explosives to blow a bridge. Depending on how they work, they may even be more likely to pull it off than someone else.

Using player ability to fix out mechanical imbalances is bound to failure, unless you mandate that only less skilled players have magical characters.

Tl;DR:

Anyone can be clever, not just non-wizards. And if it's not in the rules, you're freeforming and that's 100% dependent on the GM and not the rules. Why would you buy a TTRPG to not use the rules it makes for you?

[Calthropstu]

This seems like a question that requires more context. What do you mean by "here"? This forum? This thread? This particular argument with you specifically? Why should I not be wherever "here" is? Because I think that criticizing designers is good? Because I want to talk about game design rather that gameplay? Because my standards for something are wrong? Because I'm off topic?



Well, TSR was out of business for a period there. Also, what Anymage said.



This seems to close to what I want to qualify as "Cosi bait". There are places where I'd do things differently. In particular, I think we different on "remove a lot of the more active plot devicey spells, and more heavily integrate incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm).", but I'm not 100% on what you mean. Also, I'm bullish on a paradigm with lots and lots of resource management systems over one with just one, though as I've stated I definitely like "give lots of people casting" as a relatively quick fix.



Okay? I still don't understand how this doesn't get solved if you make martials more good instead of making casters more bad.



Because if you show up to play a game, you should be prepared to play that game? The proposal is not "kidnap Talakeal, tie him up, and force him to play a campaign with a character who contributes to every situation". Also, if you don't want to participate, you can just not participate. But it's much harder to participate if you want to, but don't have abilities that do anything.



Because they can't. If you compare CR 6 monsters to a 10th level PC, you will observe that the PC solves far more than their "fair share" of encounters. Does that mean that 10th level PCs are overpowered? Of course not! It means you should compare them to 10th level challenges.

To clarify, why are you here on a forum where 3.5/pf is vastly dominant if you think it's so bad. To rain on people's parade?
Why not go discuss games where there ISN'T a huge caster disparity such as World of Darkness, Shadowrun or any one of a hundred other games? Maybe look at low magic settings where casters can do very little.
There are, after all, plenty of systems and plenty of boards to post for them. But you are here, harping on about 3.5/PF.

Hell, this isn't even the 3.5 section of the board. Why not bring up palladium or GURPS? Why not talk about the warhammer rpgs and their casters?
But no, it's 3.5/pf dominating this discussion. If you really hate caster disparity in 3.5, this is an excellent opportunity to direct people to systems where you thing they did the caster paradigm right rather than insult the developers of 3.5 and its players.

[Tinkerer]

Anyone can be clever, not just non-wizards. And if it's not in the rules, you're freeforming and that's 100% dependent on the GM and not the rules. Why would you buy a TTRPG to not use the rules it makes for you?

Indeed, that is something which I've seen way too many people recommend.

"Well sure it seems unbalanced between player A & B but player B can just try action A, B, or C."
"Yeah player B can try action A, B, or C but player A can also do action A, B, or C (plus they can do them better) and then also do action D through Z on top of that."

[Cosi]

To clarify, why are you here on a forum where 3.5/pf is vastly dominant if you think it's so bad. To rain on people's parade?

I don't think it's terrible, I think it's flawed. It is better than many games, and better at the particular things it is trying to do than anything else I've seen.


Why not go discuss games where there ISN'T a huge caster disparity such as World of Darkness, Shadowrun or any one of a hundred other games? Maybe look at low magic settings where casters can do very little.

The notion that WoD doesn't have massive imbalance is laughable. White Wolf is also broadly non-competent, and has issues with the boundaries of good taste. Shadowrun is a good game, but also has flaws and has a very different set of aesthetic assumptions than D&D. D&D is also, as observed, by far larger than anything else, and therefore making it good is a corresponding valuable endeavor.

[Pleh]

But if it's a power (as in, an active ability the player can use), then it's not the trope. It's just another tool. Yes, if it's a classes/build's only significant tool, then there's a separate problem. But as one tool? It's no different than magical mind-control (suggestion, command, etc). It makes the victims behave a certain way because you have a power rather than because they're just dumb.

^This to the Nth degree.


I've never seen assassins as an RPG counter to casters. The idea of assassins used as a balancing tool seems horribly unfun, especially if you allow them to do stealth kills. It's a SoD, just on a perception/spot/etc check not a will/fort save. It's also easy (in 3.5) to be functionally impossible to sneak up on.

No, it's never been done, and my point is that this may be the actual problem. It seems horribly unfun because no one has figured out how to do it yet, not because its an inherently bad idea.

The entire system seems to hint at the threat of hidden opponents, then it goes to great lengths to make sure it doesn't actually work that way. From what I've seen, this is because hiding relies on Opposed Skill Checks or Magic. To this end, Casters will either win because they are better at Magic, or they'll win because they trivialize Skill Checks.

The viable alternative I see is granting a wider degree of Extraordinary/Supernatural/Spell-Like Powers to stealthy types (if we were wanting to explore the Caster vs Mundane Paradigm through a Tactical RPS solution). These powers have more teeth than Skill Checks, but aren't dependent on the Magic System, so it isn't a Magical Arms Race.

For example, Evasion is one such ability that plays into this tactic of matching Magic's power with a non-magical counter that is not so easy to simply make trivial. Yes, you could avoid targeting them with AoE spells to avoid granting their Evasion any kind of benefit, but that means their Power of Evasion isn't trivial since it forced the Caster to change strategies (which for Prepared Casters isn't always an easy thing to do). Using your own agency to limit your opponents agency is more or less the name of the game.

To be clear, I'm not proposing a solution, but that a set of solutions do exist if we were to pursue the subject far enough to elaborate upon them.


Agreed. Tactical RPS is good, but it shouldn't be absolute. "Auto-win vs some enemies, auto-lose vs others" is not a fun paradigm on either end.

Agreed, and that was not the point I was attempting to defend. My argument is intended to be more of a "Mundanes should have more non-magical power options that change the field of play."

I'm not saying anything should be absolute. I'm saying, "people have done stealth in other games such that mimicking it in D&D could shift the Caster/Mundane Paradigm in precisely the desired manner."

I guess it boils down to, "increase mundane utility (without adding magic)" and I struck upon the Mundane Batman scenario as an example of gameplay that is proven to work that wouldn't be hard to replicate in the mechanics which could contribute to this end.


Also, if "stealth characters beat casters beat melee characters beat stealth characters" is the paradigm, you've lost out on a bunch of interesting characters, like non-melee martials or stealthy casters.

Sure, but I was making a single point about the viability of RPS tactics to increase Mundane viability. Once you've gotten some RPS systems functioning, from there you can start adding Lizard and Spock.

TL;DR: I guess I'm aiming more at a proof of concept than a rigorous proof of anything here.

[Lord Raziere]

The notion that WoD doesn't have massive imbalance is laughable. White Wolf is also broadly non-competent, and has issues with the boundaries of good taste. Shadowrun is a good game, but also has flaws and has a very different set of aesthetic assumptions than D&D. D&D is also, as observed, by far larger than anything else, and therefore making it good is a corresponding valuable endeavor.

Yeah, Mages pretty much curb-stomp any other supernatural in WoD. the only reason why no one complains about them being overpowered is because they are explicitly meant to be played alone, all of the WoD splats are. crossover games are not the normal mode of play, unlike DnD where they just put in wizards and fighters alongside each other without any thought whatsoever. and sure they're not very competent but at least their imbalance is intended, its explicit, its clear in fluff and the rules to such an extent that its intended that you honestly can see why putting two splats in the same game would be a bad idea and why people warn against it.

on the other other hand, I don't get the impression that 3.5's imbalance was ever intended. The games possible can be more wildly different than any WoD game due to this imbalance and with far far less warning. And most of the fans of this 3.5 imbalance are from such hardcore studies of the system that I'm convinced that they aren't seeing the same game as everyone else anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, Mages pretty much curb-stomp any other supernatural in WoD. the only reason why no one complains about them being overpowered is because they are explicitly meant to be played alone, all of the WoD splats are. crossover games are not the normal mode of play, unlike DnD where they just put in wizards and fighters alongside each other without any thought whatsoever. and sure they're not very competent but at least their imbalance is intended, its explicit, its clear in fluff and the rules to such an extent that its intended that you honestly can see why putting two splats in the same game would be a bad idea and why people warn against it.

on the other other hand, I don't get the impression that 3.5's imbalance was ever intended. The games possible can be more wildly different than any WoD game due to this imbalance and with far far less warning. And most of the fans of this 3.5 imbalance are from such hardcore studies of the system that I'm convinced that they aren't seeing the same game as everyone else anymore.

WoD mages also tend to be self-absorbed, caught up in the "importance" of their own issues, and full of hubris. They have major blind spots specifically because they buy into the notion that they can curbstomp anything. There are plenty of player-level Mage builds that get their butts handed to them by certain player-level Vampire or Werewolf builds because they think they're above it all and never see the danger coming.

And that's not counting the vampire who completely eschews direct confrontation and just makes the Mage's life a living hell.

[Zale]

Indeed, that is something which I've seen way too many people recommend.

"Well sure it seems unbalanced between player A & B but player B can just try action A, B, or C."
"Yeah player B can try action A, B, or C but player A can also do action A, B, or C (plus they can do them better) and then also do action D through Z on top of that."

Yeah, part of the problem is that magic users typically get access to exclusive actions and powers to manipulate the game setting and story, while also having access to the same tools as everyone else.

It's not just a matter of you having a rusty wrench while your friend has a 3D printer, it's that your friend has a 3D printer and a rusty wrench as well.

I've been wondering about Apocalypse World, since it has, as I understand it, archetype exclusive actions and powers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

on the other other hand, I don't get the impression that 3.5's imbalance was ever intended. The games possible can be more wildly different than any WoD game due to this imbalance and with far far less warning. And most of the fans of this 3.5 imbalance are from such hardcore studies of the system that I'm convinced that they aren't seeing the same game as everyone else anymore.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't (intended). The whole system works well if you (consciously or otherwise) restrict yourself to T3-ish levels. Blasting as a wizard. Healing as a cleric. Not MM-diving as a druid. Martials were under-tuned (especially out of combat) by quite a bit, but ToB made that better (somewhat, as I understand).

Basically, 3.5e was intended to be roughly balanced, but the designers failed at it. And then the community decided to make that flaw into a feature and built this large edifice around it.

[Pex]

It all comes down to what that character should do as that character.

It's not the idiotball when someone's in-character.

It's the idiotball when a character who shouldn't do the dumbest thing possible, does the dumbest thing possible for the sake of The Story.

You watched The Flash last week?
:smallbiggrin:

[Calthropstu]

I don't think it's terrible, I think it's flawed. It is better than many games, and better at the particular things it is trying to do than anything else I've seen.



The notion that WoD doesn't have massive imbalance is laughable. White Wolf is also broadly non-competent, and has issues with the boundaries of good taste. Shadowrun is a good game, but also has flaws and has a very different set of aesthetic assumptions than D&D. D&D is also, as observed, by far larger than anything else, and therefore making it good is a corresponding valuable endeavor.

Every system is going to be flawed. Hell, the fact that we are having this argument at all indicates that everyone has different views as to what flaws are. Some want balance, some don't, some want more accuracy, some less. Some want magic, some want robots, some want robots casting magic, and still others want neither magic nor robots. Some like the mechanics, some don't. Some want diceless combat.

To insult the designers for what you see as flaws is to forget they are human, trying to design something to appeal to as many people as possible. And, having admitted to liking it, they seem to have succeeded with you. They have also given you rule zero, allowing you or your gm to change the game as you see fit. So don't like huge swathes of rules? Take an exacto knife to em and correct them to your liking. Hell, do what Paizo did and publish it.

Or switch to other games more to your liking.

[Pex]

If there's only one guard, ever, sure. But there should be stupid guards and smart guards. And that should vary based on the organization, the area, the type of creature (stock goblins vs mind flayers, for example) and everything else. All I'm saying is that a distribution is important, not locking things to either end of the spectrum.

The dumb guards are the extras with no lines or small talk lines with their partner. The smart guards are the actors who are listed in the credits. Some are the BBEG's Lieutenants, given credit at the beginning of the show. Those who are of lower status, given credit at the end of the show, if they are to die won't die until at least a second scene they're in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The dumb guards are the extras with no lines or small talk lines with their partner. The smart guards are the actors who are listed in the credits. Some are the BBEG's Lieutenants, given credit at the beginning of the show. Those who are of lower status, given credit at the end of the show, if they are to die won't die until at least a second scene they're in.

Sadly RPGs don't come with credit lists :smallwink:

[Calthropstu]

Sadly RPGs don't come with credit lists :smallwink:

They could, but the credit list would all be "Guy with sword: (insert gm's name here."

Disclaimer: No guys with swords were harmed in the making of this post.

[CharonsHelper]

As an aside--
I've never seen assassins as an RPG counter to casters. The idea of assassins used as a balancing tool seems horribly unfun, especially if you allow them to do stealth kills. It's a SoD, just on a perception/spot/etc check not a will/fort save. It's also easy (in 3.5) to be functionally impossible to sneak up on.

It was done pretty well in the PvP of Dark Age of Camelot. It added a level of depth as people would actually guard the squishies in the back since they could be picked off by the backstab classes.

I remember that some people would actually play warriors of the mage races. It made them slightly sub-par warriors, but they'd wear big cloaks and have a staff equipped and then stand in the back with the squishies so that they made for an easy target - take only moderate damage from the backstab and then pull out their axe and kill the backstabber.

Now - it certainly could have been done better - but it definitely added depth to play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It was done pretty well in the PvP of Dark Age of Camelot. It added a level of depth as people would actually guard the squishies in the back since they could be picked off by the backstab classes.

I remember that some people would actually play warriors of the mage races. It made them slightly sub-par warriors, but they'd wear big cloaks and have a staff equipped and then stand in the back with the squishies so that they made for an easy target - take only moderate damage from the backstab and then pull out their axe and kill the backstabber.

Now - it certainly could have been done better - but it definitely added depth to play.

PvP is a separate issue (and DAoC was an MMO, IIRC, where the paradigm is quite different. Many stealth-type and RPS type designs work well when they don't work on the table-top).

[CharonsHelper]

PvP is a separate issue (and DAoC was an MMO, IIRC, where the paradigm is quite different. Many stealth-type and RPS type designs work well when they don't work on the table-top).

Definitely - it's a different (albeit related) form of gaming.

I've never seen it attempted in a TTRPG - but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Definitely - it's a different (albeit related) form of gaming.

I've never seen it attempted in a TTRPG - but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be.

I'd be strongly wary of importing mechanical ideas between game formats. Both the PvP part and the computerized/real-time part make huge differences here. For one thing, death in an MMO is relatively cheap. Same how movie/book conventions and ideas don't often translate well to other types. Generally, RPS mechanics are more annoying than anything at the table-top--they force you to have all the right mechanical counters instead of focusing on the character as an actual (fictional) being.

[2D8HP]

...the D&D derivative systems I'm familiar with (Pathfinder as my personal preference)....

....There's a general consensus here (and elsewhere) that casters, especially once they reach a certain power level, just beat non-casters, ..
How broad an issue is it really?

In the 0e/1e D&D games I played Magic Users were weaker than Fighters until you got to rarely played levels.

In 4e Pendragon (the only edition with caster PC's), waiting for the "stars to be right" made being a caster too dull to play anyway.

In RuneQuest and Stormbringer a low POW caster was almost useless if they weren't a viable "mundane", but a high POW sorcerer was OP compared to other PC's.

In Traveller, a PC could potentially find, be accepted by, and get trained by the Psionic Institute to not be "mundane", but then they'd be under the suspicion of being a Zhodani sympathizer if they're discovered.

5e D&D seems pretty balanced at low levels, and every class is too OP at high levels, which makes you want to start at 1st level again regardless.

What games besides 3.x D&D and some BRP games is this even a problem?

[PhoenixPhyre]

.

What games besides 3.x D&D and some BRP games is this even a problem?

Basically none. As I understand it, Ars Magica has a bigger gap but it's intentional and designed for troupe play, so it never really comes up as a problem in play.

Other games have other imbalances (White Wolf products, for example), but they're not caster vs martial (because those distinctions barely exist outside of the D&D family as a coherent thing).

[Talakeal]

Because if you show up to play a game, you should be prepared to play that game? The proposal is not "kidnap Talakeal, tie him up, and force him to play a campaign with a character who contributes to every situation". Also, if you don't want to participate, you can just not participate. But it's much harder to participate if you want to, but don't have abilities that do anything.

Right, the game SHOULD be fun. I think the game Quertus proposes would have to be "kidnap Talakeal," because it isn't one I would play voluntarily and in my experience most players feel the same way. People like feeling special and independent, they like having spotlight time. They don't like having to push themselves to the front of the crowd and constantly compete with one attention hog to get that spotlight, they don't like being redundant. And if they feel redundant they will stop showing up.

I remember one game where I was a player and a new guy joined our group and both me and the new guy chose to be rogues. Because I was much more experienced at the game than he was I could do everything he could do as well or better and he was miserable and stopped showing up after a few sessions. Imagine if the entire party was in that position.

In my experience the "jack of all trades" guy is always the least popular role, and for a good reason.



Youve never been in the military or worked in an office environment? Not even played a team sport?

And in all of those examples people are assigned individual roles based on their own specialty.

A baseball team will have a pitcher, a catcher, a shortstop, outfielders, and basemen. They don't just have nine guys who are all equally good at everything.


OBVIOUSLY for that 10% of situations which cannot be solved by an individual. Duh.

That 10% was referring to things like combat where you can simply overwhelm the problem with sheer numbers.

In such a situation I would personally just stick to jobs which don't require mass combats and resolve fights with one on one duels in such a situation.

Of course, that is always kind of the weird meta construct of RPGs, fights will almost always just so happened to balanced for exactly the number of people the party contains, no more no less.


Quertus was arguing that people should be able to participate, not that all people should participate. The former allows you to not participate just fine.

If you feel there's no imperative to act and are fine with not acting, then don't act. That's not an actual problem that needs solving.

If, instead, you have the ability to participate but don't because you don't think it's necessary, and then complain about your lack of participation, you are being annoying and daddy needs to spank you. :smalltongue:.

Have you never been in a situation where you felt that you didn't bring anything to the group? I would like to participate, but I don't want to force myself into the situation when I am essentially a fifth wheel.

For example, I am doing final projects for school right now and every single group project I am doing essentially has one person doing everything. Sometimes its me, sometimes it isn't, but invariably one person ends up doing the vast majority of the work. That is not a social dynamic I would like to see replicated in RPGs.

[Frozen_Feet]

Have you never been in a situation where you felt that you didn't bring anything to the group? I would like to participate, but I don't want to force myself into the situation when I am essentially a fifth wheel.

Oh, for sure. I've also seen countless people get trapped into thinking like that and failing to contribute because they think they have nothing to contribute, against all existing evidence.

Quite often, getting over yourself and forcing yourself in anyway is exactly what you need to do. And that's what the case is going to be, if you could contribute to a situation but you are not contributing to a situation because you expect someone else's contribution will obviate yours. Don't do that. Don't stand and wait for others to make you unnecessary, strive to make them unnecessary. :smalltongue:


For example, I am doing final projects for school right now and every single group project I am doing essentially has one person doing everything. Sometimes its me, sometimes it isn't, but invariably one person ends up doing the vast majority of the work. That is not a social dynamic I would like to see replicated in RPGs.

That's a different thing. It's called the Pareto Principle and can be paraphrased as "majority of effects are caused by minority of causes". It's replicated in almost every RPG group, with the GM typically being the minority who does most work. When the GM isn't, that's when the problems tend to begin. :smalltongue:

The only time this doesn't happen is when all players have near-symmetric skills and roles in upkeep of the game. This is a corner case, not necessarily and ideal you should strive for.

[Pex]

Basically none. As I understand it, Ars Magica has a bigger gap but it's intentional and designed for troupe play, so it never really comes up as a problem in play.

Other games have other imbalances (White Wolf products, for example), but they're not caster vs martial (because those distinctions barely exist outside of the D&D family as a coherent thing).

In Ars Magica everyone has a Magus and a Companion (the non-magic user) to play. You play your Companion when your Magus is busy doing magic research stuff off screen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In Ars Magica everyone has a Magus and a Companion (the non-magic user) to play. You play your Companion when your Magus is busy doing magic research stuff off screen.

Yeah. Troupe play, so the imbalance is both obvious (no one pretends that a Magus and a companion are equal) and not a problem because each venture had a defined main character that rotates (again, based on my understanding). That, or Magi normally only "adventure" with other Magi. Dunno there.

Now imagine if only one player played a Magus and the rest companions, and the Magus never had to do off screen research and was always at full power.

[RazorChain]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that standards tend to correlate with level of involvement (in basically anything), and familiarity with the more esoteric parts of a given field also tends to correlate with more involvement. This is particularly true when there's a high barrier to entry, which is the case for RPGs - the expected standard is learning at least one 300 page rule book at least decently to get in at all, and most people involved in the hobby are involved at the shallow end (again like basically everything) and don't have the sort of familiarity that standards tend to emerge from. On top of that there's the usual matter of visibility from a given point of knowledge, where the lay person is only likely to even know about the existence of D&D. D&D thus dominates the shallow end of the pool, and keeps a bunch of players because of it. These factors thus make any analysis trying to link quality to popularity deeply suspect.

To use a personal example from another media field, my standards for opera are basically as low as they get. I don't know the field well enough to have better standards, I don't particularly care about it, and what little knowledge I have is about the best known works (as in knowing about Wagner, knowing about the Ring Cycle, and that being close to it). I have an uncle that loves opera, and it would be pretty easy to get my hands on video recordings of opera of a wide variety of qualities - but because I'm largely outside the field, it's not like I'll be able to tell them apart by quality. If I got marginally more into it, watched a couple a year, and occasionally talked about opera with that uncle I would be the opera equivalent of the standard RPG player, because of another commonality between fields.

That is to say that there's a pretty standard level-of-involvement curve with some minor variation. There's a spike at and extremely near 0, for people who don't know about a field at all and then a very, very long tailed distribution with a fairly major bump just past the spike. Spike size to bump size is crazy variable, but beyond that the curves look basically the same, with the usual caveats around axis stretching, wobbliness of data, etc. In the context of fields with specific points of interest (artistic works, individual sports teams, individual food/beverage items, whatever) the set on the low end of this curve and thus the least esoteric parts of a field are going to be disproportionately well known. If commercialized they're generally pulling in disproportionate amounts of money. That doesn't mean that they're better, but it does generally indicate that what makes them worse isn't particularly perceptible for most people. I might like cheap white table wine, but when a sommelier has a cogent criticism of it I should probably assume that they're right, as my tastes represent those of someone right at the spike-bump boundary.

This is particularly relevant when trying to talk about theory. As a general rule examples are helpful to understand underlying criteria, with actually familiar examples being particularly helpful. In opera, this is probably Wagner's work (although I'm in the spike on that one, so this is a wild guess). In wine, it's general commentary on red vs. white, sweet vs. dry, and traits of major wine producing areas. In RPGs, it's D&D. When points of comparison are useful, it's multiple editions of D&D. This is why 3.5 still gets brought up so much - not because it's some masterpiece with a massive popularity that comes from sheer quality, but because it's well known enough to serve as an example when talking about general theory. Similarly the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing it because of it's quality. They're playing it because it's whats there and is easiest to get into, and system details are largely unimportant to them (much the same way that I don't particularly care about exactly which cheap white swill I'm drinking, wine wise). The people who know the system well, know RPGs in general well, and stick with it anyways are much rarer - which is to be expected regardless of quality, because that's how the spike-bump curve works.


I agree, it's like VHS and Betamax. Although Betamax was superiour quality it still lost the marketwar. The average roleplayer might eventually break the chains and try something else but at that moment he/she might be too set in their ways to give other systems a chance.

I am really happy that I started with WHFRP instead of D&D because I already knew there were alternatives out there. If a gamer hasn't tried out at least a dozen different system (let alone just one system in different editions) how can his opinion on matters of Roleplaying be anything but biased. It's like an someone trying to convince me of how fabulous a Big Mac is when he has only eaten from McDonalds and I have tasted a dozens of different burgers from burgershops in lots of different countries. Even though we have both the right to an opinion mine will be well grounded whereas his isn't.

[RazorChain]

Basically none. As I understand it, Ars Magica has a bigger gap but it's intentional and designed for troupe play, so it never really comes up as a problem in play.

Other games have other imbalances (White Wolf products, for example), but they're not caster vs martial (because those distinctions barely exist outside of the D&D family as a coherent thing).


It can't be considered a problem at all in Ars Magica because everybody makes a Magus....it's like saying that Vampires as a race are overpowered in VtM where everybody is playing one or that superheroes are the balance problem in a game of Champions.



.
How broad an issue is it really?

In the 0e/1e D&D games I played Magic Users were weaker than Fighters until you got to rarely played levels.

In 4e Pendragon (the only edition with caster PC's), waiting for the "stars to be right" made being a caster too dull to play anyway.

In RuneQuest and Stormbringer a low POW caster was almost useless if they weren't a viable "mundane", but a high POW sorcerer was OP compared to other PC's.

In Traveller, a PC could potentially find, be accepted by, and get trained by the Psionic Institute to not be "mundane", but then they'd be under the suspicion of being a Zhodani sympathizer if they're discovered.

5e D&D seems pretty balanced at low levels, and every class is too OP at high levels, which makes you want to start at 1st level again regardless.

What games besides 3.x D&D and some BRP games is this even a problem?

I never found casters too powerful in RuneQuest...at least the 1984 Deluxe edition in Glorantha. I ran campaigns continuously for 3 or 4 years and caster had to raise every spell as a skill and the base starting % for spell was so low that it would take dozens of sessions to become a decent caster, also you were always limited by magic points on how many spells you could cast, and even then no spells were close to D&D spells in power if you werent HeroQuesting.....and if you were HeroQuesting then you were a mythical being already.

Very few or almost no system has the glaring imbalance that D&D has between casters and non casters. I can't recall any from the top of my head and I have played dozen system extensively and have a passing knowledge from at least a dozen more. I managed to be a little overpowering with my Huckster in Deadlands but that was because of luck mostly.

[Pleh]

PvP is a separate issue (and DAoC was an MMO, IIRC, where the paradigm is quite different. Many stealth-type and RPS type designs work well when they don't work on the table-top).

Actually, PVP is not really a separate issue. In D&D, it's team based PVP every time: PCs vs DM.

Yeah, most players don't like antagonistic DMing because they don't like casual character loss, but there's already been a few Old Guard posters in this and related threads talking about how character death isn't always a big deal in TTRPGs. Sometimes it's really more like respawning in an MMO.


I'd be strongly wary of importing mechanical ideas between game formats. Both the PvP part and the computerized/real-time part make huge differences here. For one thing, death in an MMO is relatively cheap. Same how movie/book conventions and ideas don't often translate well to other types.

See above on the cheap death point, but your point is well made.

I feel like the essence of translating conventions through different media has to come down to understanding the transmitting medium very well and understanding the receiving medium absolutely. I mean that you start by understanding how your TTRPG works, then porting something else in is a matter of Quality Control ensuring the translated material functions like everything native to the TTRPG.

My example of trying to do this was giving Rogues a Climb Speed. This was ported from games about Rogues, uses basic D&D morphology, and even replicates abilities already present in the game to create new applications (in translating terms, it's almost word for word accurate). In the hypothetical process of importing Shadow of Mordor or Assassin's Creed into D&D, this might be one viable step to making that port happen.


Generally, RPS mechanics are more annoying than anything at the table-top--they force you to have all the right mechanical counters instead of focusing on the character as an actual (fictional) being.

I'm curious, Citation? Personal experience? Or conjecture?

IMX, TTRPGs already "force you to have all the right mechanical counters instead of focusing on the character as an actual (fictional) being."

In general, the rules prepare you to handle combat and opposition through rolls rather than roles. They won't stop you from jumping off the rails of mechanics, and maybe the alternative solution would work better, but anythinh non mechanical was an appeal to the DM anyway.

Some DMs meticulously make every NPC a person. Some barely make even the quest givers much more than a cliche plot hook vending machine. Most fall in the middle. None are wrong ways to play, just a preference of priorities in setting meta game.

People that get excited at DAoC on Table Top probably like RPS TTRPGs.

[Darth Ultron]

Actually, PVP is not really a separate issue. In D&D, it's team based PVP every time: PCs vs DM.


This is not true at all.

If the DM was really ''against'' the players, they could just kill the characters and win the game....forever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, PVP is not really a separate issue. In D&D, it's team based PVP every time: PCs vs DM.

Yeah, most players don't like antagonistic DMing because they don't like casual character loss, but there's already been a few Old Guard posters in this and related threads talking about how character death isn't always a big deal in TTRPGs. Sometimes it's really more like respawning in an MMO.


But that's a completely different atmosphere than PvP in a computer game. One, the intent is competitive. In the other, it's not (at least shouldn't be for modern styles). Antagonistic DMing is bad because it does nothing useful. Cheap character death is only a possibility if rolling a new character is easy and attachment to characters is low. Neither of which are normal anymore.




I'm curious, Citation? Personal experience? Or conjecture?

IMX, TTRPGs already "force you to have all the right mechanical counters instead of focusing on the character as an actual (fictional) being."

In general, the rules prepare you to handle combat and opposition through rolls rather than roles. They won't stop you from jumping off the rails of mechanics, and maybe the alternative solution would work better, but anythinh non mechanical was an appeal to the DM anyway.

Some DMs meticulously make every NPC a person. Some barely make even the quest givers much more than a cliche plot hook vending machine. Most fall in the middle. None are wrong ways to play, just a preference of priorities in setting meta game.

People that get excited at DAoC on Table Top probably like RPS TTRPGs.

But unless you have a jerk DM, there are many approaches that work even in combat. A team with a (well-balanced) fighter/cleric/mage/thief set-up can do just fine, as can a more (or less) varied group. The exact strategies differ, as do the strengths and weaknesses, but no group is SoL.

If there has to be an arcane caster (with spell z) to counter X, and a cleric (with remove w) to counter Y, and a rogue (with stealth above q) to counter Z, then that forces people to play very restricted types. There's no room for an actual character any more. Just a specific build.

You can see that in MMO PvP--there are only 1 or two team builds that are competitive. In CCGs, there are only a limited set of decks that have a chance of winning. That's what hard counters and RPS style does. That's because RPS becomes unstable once you move beyond just a few elements (rock, paper, and scissors). Technically, any odd number of elements where each element counters exactly half of the others will work, but that becomes exponentially harder to balance as you increase the elements involved. Not to mention more of a pain in the hind quarters.

It's also why even MMOs have moved away from the elemental resistances for dps--it forces people to play very specific builds to overcome specific raid bosses and have very specific group combinations, leaving those who prefer other classes out in the cold. IMO, that's a symptom of bad design. Anyone should be able to play any archetype and be successful. How they operate will change, but what they can do shouldn't. Otherwise, why bother printing those other archetypes in the first place?

[CharonsHelper]

You can see that in MMO PvP--there are only 1 or two team builds that are competitive. In CCGs, there are only a limited set of decks that have a chance of winning. That's what hard counters and RPS style does. That's because RPS becomes unstable once you move beyond just a few elements (rock, paper, and scissors). Technically, any odd number of elements where each element counters exactly half of the others will work, but that becomes exponentially harder to balance as you increase the elements involved. Not to mention more of a pain in the hind quarters.

Even if a certain combination is 10/10 while many others are 8/10 or 9/10, in a TTRPG an 8/10 would be plenty sufficient. Also - that's largely due to meta - which NPCs don't need to follow.

Other PvP games have many viable choices. Check LoL.



It's also why even MMOs have moved away from the elemental resistances for dps--it forces people to play very specific builds to overcome specific raid bosses and have very specific group combinations, leaving those who prefer other classes out in the cold. IMO, that's a symptom of bad design. Anyone should be able to play any archetype and be successful. How they operate will change, but what they can do shouldn't. Otherwise, why bother printing those other archetypes in the first place?

Part of that is because raid bosses are single big foes. If every fight had multiple foes which didn't fill all the same slot then it wouldn't be an issue.

As to R/S/P being done well - Pokémon does a very good job. (Yes - again I realize that it wouldn't translate into a TTRPG without major alterations - but a decent baseline.)

[Pleh]

This is not true at all.

If the DM was really ''against'' the players, they could just kill the characters and win the game....forever.

Only because your style of play does not allow a DM to separate their role of "playing the NPC" from "playing referee to the meta game." My style requires that they do so.

Of course any competition with the game's referee is unfair. In my mind, you can't both make decisions as NPCs and moderate the game simultaneously. This presents conflict of interest.

As DM, you first decide what the NPC does based only on that character's knowledge and capacity (no meta gaming, as if you were a normal player).

Then you switch roles and play Game Master, interpreting the consequences of the NPC's choices neutrally, as if they came from another player.

It's easier to see this in action if you actually delegate role of antagonist to another player, and then only moderate the PVP action.

I agree that this requires a level of integrity and sportsmanship many individuals may not have.


But that's a completely different atmosphere than PvP in a computer game. One, the intent is competitive. In the other, it's not (at least shouldn't be for modern styles). Antagonistic DMing is bad because it does nothing useful. Cheap character death is only a possibility if rolling a new character is easy and attachment to characters is low. Neither of which are normal anymore.

But unless you have a jerk DM, there are many approaches that work even in combat. A team with a (well-balanced) fighter/cleric/mage/thief set-up can do just fine, as can a more (or less) varied group. The exact strategies differ, as do the strengths and weaknesses, but no group is SoL.

If there has to be an arcane caster (with spell z) to counter X, and a cleric (with remove w) to counter Y, and a rogue (with stealth above q) to counter Z, then that forces people to play very restricted types. There's no room for an actual character any more. Just a specific build.

You can see that in MMO PvP--there are only 1 or two team builds that are competitive. In CCGs, there are only a limited set of decks that have a chance of winning. That's what hard counters and RPS style does. That's because RPS becomes unstable once you move beyond just a few elements (rock, paper, and scissors). Technically, any odd number of elements where each element counters exactly half of the others will work, but that becomes exponentially harder to balance as you increase the elements involved. Not to mention more of a pain in the hind quarters.

It's also why even MMOs have moved away from the elemental resistances for dps--it forces people to play very specific builds to overcome specific raid bosses and have very specific group combinations, leaving those who prefer other classes out in the cold. IMO, that's a symptom of bad design. Anyone should be able to play any archetype and be successful. How they operate will change, but what they can do shouldn't. Otherwise, why bother printing those other archetypes in the first place?

Be careful not to fall into Binarism, as if using *any degree* of RPS tactics means all combat becomes rigidly dependent on that mechanic.

My idea was that, while most TTRPGs aren't competitive anymore, there is still the "golfer's challenge" where they compete against themselves and against the nature of the challenge.

My idea of sprucing up the RPS elememts already present in D&D was to make it A viable mundane strategy against casters, not THE ONLY viable strategy.

I also meant it to be VIABLE to choose as strategy, not for casters to be hosed against assassins. I would aim for a balance that communicated to players that wizards were susceptible to assassin tactics, not that it was game over if they didn't have a meat shield covering them.

You can have a little more RPS without making the whole system completely dependent on it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Be careful not to fall into Binarism, as if using *any degree* of RPS tactics means all combat becomes rigidly dependent on that mechanic.

My idea was that, while most TTRPGs aren't competitive anymore, there is still the "golfer's challenge" where they compete against themselves and against the nature of the challenge.

My idea of sprucing up the RPS elememts already present in D&D was to make it A viable mundane strategy against casters, not THE ONLY viable strategy.

I also meant it to be VIABLE to choose as strategy, not for casters to be hosed against assassins. I would aim for a balance that communicated to players that wizards were susceptible to assassin tactics, not that it was game over if they didn't have a meat shield covering them.

You can have a little more RPS without making the whole system completely dependent on it.

I've just seen that type of balancing (competitive balancing) go horribly wrong, leading to "you must have roles X, Y, and Z to have a chance." In MMO circles, it's when PvP balance affects PvE strengths. Most have finally gone to complete separation of powers--powers do X against NPCs and Y against PCs. TTRPGs shouldn't think of balancing the group's caster vs the group's rogue (for example)--they should work on balancing both of them against the environment so that they can both overcome the same challenges, but in different fashions (using different tactics). This difference in what's being balanced makes for a very different constraint set.

I'm an opponent of NPC/PC build transparency--NPCs are built to be foils and props for PCs, not as main characters in their own right. This asymmetry means that the build process should be completely different--it has different goals. Thus, balancing the rogue against NPC casters is simple--don't do the broken stuff and help the rogue do his thing (making changes to the system where needed, like sneak attack should work on most things). The difficulty is that casters are so much more versatile (and more powerful additionally) that the entire system has to warp around them. Any challenge that is meaningful for
a T1 caster (at varying levels of optimization) is overpowering for an non-PO T4. Any challenge that's meaningful (but doable) for a non-PO T4 is laughable for a rationally-optimized (non-PO/TO) T1. This makes it impossible to balance the scales so both can contribute meaningfully.

[Satinavian]

You can have a little more RPS without making the whole system completely dependent on it.
RPS is good for giving two competing parties meaningful and still fair choices.

There is basically no benefit in a cooperative game like most TTRPGs. Or one where participants like players and DMs have completely different goals and option.


Which is why even with computer games you hardly ever see RPS in MMORPGs focussing on PvE. RPS is at its very core a PvP tool. Really, whenever i look up how magic in a new RPG system workf, one of the last things i want to know is what combat options it provides and how it compares to other combat options or who can kill whom.

[CharonsHelper]

Which is why even with computer games you hardly ever see RPS in MMORPGs focussing on PvE. RPS is at its very core a PvP tool.

Actually - City of Heroes had a decent chunk of it, just not used in symmetry with the mobs.

Now - the game was generally easy enough that it didn't matter much, but there were definitely classes better against different foes. It worked because those foes came in mixed groups, so rarely was there a group without some of the enemies which your class was best at.

[Cosi]

Every system is going to be flawed.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the flaws aren't worth criticizing. That's how you make things with less flaws in the future.


And, having admitted to liking it, they seem to have succeeded with you.

Stopping at "better than the alternatives" is not success, it's laziness. You stop when the game is good, not when other things are worse.


They have also given you rule zero, allowing you or your gm to change the game as you see fit.

Again, no. If I have to change your game to make it work, you failed at doing your job. The guy who sells you computer parts is not selling you a computer. That doesn't mean he's offering nothing of value, but to pretend he's selling more than he is is dishonest.


Right, the game SHOULD be fun. I think the game Quertus proposes would have to be "kidnap Talakeal," because it isn't one I would play voluntarily and in my experience most players feel the same way.

I have never seen someone complain that they have relevant abilities. In fact, not having relevant abilities is what causes the vast majority of complaints I've seen about gaming.


I remember one game where I was a player and a new guy joined our group and both me and the new guy chose to be rogues. Because I was much more experienced at the game than he was I could do everything he could do as well or better and he was miserable and stopped showing up after a few sessions. Imagine if the entire party was in that position.

That's because the paradigm is the one you want -- one where there are "Rogue problems" you point the Rogue at. In that paradigm, having two Rogues is a failure state. But it doesn't have to be. If there were "non-combat problems" that the group solved as a whole, having two Rogues would be no more of a problem than it is in combat. Your problem exists because the thing you think you want will not make you happy.


In my experience the "jack of all trades" guy is always the least popular role, and for a good reason.

Again, that's because you're in the wrong paradigm. If the game is threshold based, the guy who is "good but not good enough" at lots of things isn't workable.

[Tanarii]

And in all of those examples people are assigned individual roles based on their own specialty.

A baseball team will have a pitcher, a catcher, a shortstop, outfielders, and basemen. They don't just have nine guys who are all equally good at everything.
Okay. Good point. And many RPGs are in theory structured the same way. Especially ones with classes. To one degree or another.

(For example 4e went this way in a big way, each class having a primary and one of two or three secondaries.
Palladiums Robotech RPGs gives each character a heavy focus, but they also get plenty of ability to crossover into each other's areas of expertise as a secondary. Except veritech pilots, who are exclusive.)

And personally I like that, because I tend to think of most RPG groups as a 'squad', either actually in the game or in general structure, anyway. The downside is when you have so many players you get too much overlap, or so few you can't cover the basic bases. (Other downside is when I sit at a table with a bunch of players who are thinking of themselves as individual heroes in a story about themself, I get cranky.)

And of course, not all RPGs succeed on the execution.

[Pleh]

I've just seen that type of balancing (competitive balancing) go horribly wrong, leading to "you must have roles X, Y, and Z to have a chance." In MMO circles, it's when PvP balance affects PvE strengths. Most have finally gone to complete separation of powers--powers do X against NPCs and Y against PCs. TTRPGs shouldn't think of balancing the group's caster vs the group's rogue (for example)--they should work on balancing both of them against the environment so that they can both overcome the same challenges, but in different fashions (using different tactics). This difference in what's being balanced makes for a very different constraint set.

I'm an opponent of NPC/PC build transparency--NPCs are built to be foils and props for PCs, not as main characters in their own right. This asymmetry means that the build process should be completely different--it has different goals. Thus, balancing the rogue against NPC casters is simple--don't do the broken stuff and help the rogue do his thing (making changes to the system where needed, like sneak attack should work on most things).

Ok, but how do you define Environment, then? Your point feels so ethereal as to not be grounded in practical application. What does this look like?

In NPC/PC transparency, PVP is equivalent to PVE because even environment challenges use rules as if they were a player. In fact, you could assign another player the role and have them play out the actions of the environment.


RPS is good for giving two competing parties meaningful and still fair choices.

There is basically no benefit in a cooperative game like most TTRPGs. Or one where participants like players and DMs have completely different goals and option.

Which is why even with computer games you hardly ever see RPS in MMORPGs focussing on PvE. RPS is at its very core a PvP tool. Really, whenever i look up how magic in a new RPG system workf, one of the last things i want to know is what combat options it provides and how it compares to other combat options or who can kill whom.

But if the Environment is defined as a Bot Player, then PVP tools apply.

I don't understand this fixation with the baseless concept of PVE. What, besides an unconventional Player, constitutes the Environment challenge?

What's so different between an earthquake hazard, and an enemy caster evoking a magical earthquake effect?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, but how do you define Environment, then? Your point feels so ethereal as to not be grounded in practical application. What does this look like?

In NPC/PC transparency, PVP is equivalent to PVE because even environment challenges use rules as if they were a player. In fact, you could assign another player the role and have them play out the actions of the environment.



But if the Environment is defined as a Bot Player, then PVP tools apply.

I don't understand this fixation with the baseless concept of PVE. What, besides an unconventional Player, constitutes the Environment challenge?

What's so different between an earthquake hazard, and an enemy caster evoking a magical earthquake effect?

You're missing the context here. PvP vs PvE are terms only defined well in an MMO context (where the Environment is all the computer/AI controlled stuff and Players are...well...players). In that context, when PvP balance affects PvE is when raiders skills are modified to maintain competitive balance in PvP. Since the two styles are separate enough to attract almost a completely separate set of core players...this causes angst. This is where RPS-type balance happens in MMOs. Modern MMOs have completely separated the skill-sets--skill X does one thing against an NPC, but has a much lesser effect (or sometimes a completely different effect) against a PC. NPCs usually don't have RPS-type balancing mechanisms, while PCs often do.

PCs and NPCs play contrasting, yet complementary roles in the game environment. What works for one role fails for another--they have different purposes, needs, and balance points. For example, enemy NPCs are supposed to die in much greater numbers (in D&D anyway) than are PCs. If a party faces 4 average threats per day, with a 5% TPK chance per fight, they have only an 81% chance of surviving a single day, 66% chance of surviving 2 days, and it only gets worse from there. At an even balance (50% TPK chance), they have a 6% chance of surviving a single day, and a 3 x 10^(-9) chance of surviving a week (28 combats).

This necessitates completely separate build priorities, especially combined with the (true) fact that rolling big numbers is fun for many players. Consider the possible combinations in the simple case of combat. The relevant metrics are the ratios X_NPC = DMG (NPC) / HP (PC) and X_PC = DMG (PC) / HP (NPC):



X_NPC high
X_NPC low


X_PC high
Rocket-tag
"Heroics"


X_PC low
Meat-grinder
Padded-sumo



Rocket-tag ensues if both ratios are high--if a single hit is enough to kill a character, then the first mover has a tremendous advantage. This is 3.5's default setting at higher optimization levels. By contrast, if you're not the first mover, you're unlikely to be able to participate meaningfully. The entire battle can come and go before your initiative came up. This encourages an optimization arms race, both between party members and against the DM. Retreat is fundamentally impossible--it's nova or die. And nothing is more boring than dying/being completely shut out of the fight right out the gate in a combat that takes an hour of real-time.

Heroics is what happens if PCs can easily (2 or three rounds) kill any reasonable NPC, but the NPCs are less able to kill the PCs (especially with burst damage). This has both good cases and bad cases--in the bad case, everything's a cakewalk and there's no threat. In the good case, the numbers are such that most of the threat comes through attrition, rather than burst threats. You have several rounds (or more likely), several combats to realize you're in trouble and change strategies (or retreat). This is 5e's default setting. Note that this requires breaking PC/NPC transparency as it's inherently asymmetric.

Meat-grinder combat happens when the NPCs can easily kill PCs, but the PCs can't so easily kill NPCs. Low-level pre-3e editions come to mind here. This is a viable game type, but requires a completely different attitude toward things (and a different balancing strategy). Another example is Call of Cthulhu--combat is usually a bad idea there, especially with eldritch monstrosities. This also requires breaking PC/NPC transparency (or at least changing the relationship between "CR" and APL).

Padded-sumo combat is the trap that high-level 4e play fell into before they redesigned the monster-creation formulas to push the NPCs damage up and drop their health a bit. Fights take forever and are low-lethality (for anyone). Boredom often ensues. This one is compatible with PC/NPC transparency, but doesn't require it.

Depending on what kind of game you're going for, any of them (except maybe padded-sumo) are viable. But they produce very different balancing strategies.


In 5e, PCs use a certain set of rules for character creation, designed for their role as the central characters of the narrative. NPCs use a separate set of building rules (more like guidelines) for their role as the foils, the stage dressing that the players interact with. This helps in quickly standing up a set of NPCs and give them the important characteristics for the part where they directly and mechanically interact with the PCs (combat and social encounters), while leaving it open so that you can have, for example, a master magic-item craftsman who isn't an accomplished adventurer with a bunch of HD that can take on whole armies by himself. Or an accomplished farmer who is just as weak and frail as any other commoner in combat (1 HD, no combat proficiency). Or any other of a host of normal people the PCs might meet. Since you can give NPCs whatever abilities make sense (without having to muck around with class levels, skill points, feats, or whatever), you can have people with all sorts of fantastic abilities that are explicitly not spells, nor are the users spell casters. You can have a dedicated temple cleric who can pray for a miracle, but can't cast a spell normally. Or populate a world without having to carefully balance the numbers of each level of spell-caster to avoid breaking the setting wide open. It's also WAY faster to build and run monsters on the fly--you're not carrying around the baggage of a host of levels, feats, and skill interactions.

I think a difference here is that, for me, the rules are simply a UI. They're not the underlying fictional reality. They're just a way of simplifying that reality in a way that is suitable for a game. The rules only govern the interactions between PCs and the rest of the (DM-controlled) world. You can't use social skills on other PCs; you can't assume that the spells in the books are the only ones in the world or that they're really as standard as the books make them seem. In the fiction, fireball doesn't have a nicely spherical explosion with a fixed, nicely-rounded maximum range. That's entirely an abstraction made to make the game playable. It tells very little of the exact details of what's going on in-game. Same with classes, levels, HP, ability scores, etc. Behind the scenes, the NPCs use whatever rules are needed to make an engaging setting that's fun to play in. Nothing more, nothing less.


Now, of course, other games are designed around PC/PC conflicts. This necessarily requires other design assumptions that are incompatible with the "team vs world" model of D&D. And that's fine. Just don't try to import one into the other (or vice versa).

[Talakeal]

I have never seen someone complain that they have relevant abilities. In fact, not having relevant abilities is what causes the vast majority of complaints I've seen about gaming.

True, but I have seen a lot of people complain about other people making them obsolete.

People like feeling unique and special. In a game where people don't have limits it is very very difficulty to get that feeling.

I actually can't think of many games (save single player adventure games) that have even tried to go for a paradigm of making character archetypes without limits.


That's because the paradigm is the one you want -- one where there are "Rogue problems" you point the Rogue at. In that paradigm, having two Rogues is a failure state. But it doesn't have to be. If there were "non-combat problems" that the group solved as a whole, having two Rogues would be no more of a problem than it is in combat. Your problem exists because the thing you think you want will not make you happy.

No, I am pretty sure the thing that I don't like is having redundant characters, and I am pretty sure making everyone into a generalist is not going to make people feel less redundant.

Also, its easy to talk about scenarios that require the whole party to work together, but this is another thing entirely in practice. Aside from combats which are mathematically balanced against an X person party it is really hard for me to envision more than a few that aren't super contrived.

What does this actually look like in play? Can you give some examples?




Again, that's because you're in the wrong paradigm. If the game is threshold based, the guy who is "good but not good enough" at lots of things isn't workable.

Only in comparison to the other PCs.

If you are playing a solo game the jack of all trades is a very good choice, probably the best choice.

Likewise you can have one of Quertus' theoretical omnicompetent casters with versatility, power, and at will spells and still feel useless and impotent when in a party of similar characters who are double your level.

[2D8HP]

You're missing the context here....

....Just don't try to import one into the other (or vice versa)..
One very impressive post!

Kudos.

(It occurs to me that the two games I know best (T)D&D and Call of Cthullu you both classify as "Meat-grinders").

[Cluedrew]

I've been wondering about Apocalypse World, since it has, as I understand it, archetype exclusive actions and powers.Ah, Apocalypse World, fantastic execution. The more I dig at that game (and the Powered by the Apocalypse system) the more impressed I am. Now if only if that was turned towards a system people want to play.

Maybe look at Dungeon World? I think the fighter's abilities, from their starting Bend Bars, Lift Gate (destroy something just by strength) to Through Death's Eyes (decide who will live and who will die in a fight), are both thematic and sound pretty useful. And doing a quick span of the wizard's spell list, neither seems to be replicated with a spell. Well, depending on how you read Mimic, but I think that is supposed to be a mere appearance thing.

[CharonsHelper]

No, I am pretty sure the thing that I don't like is having redundant characters, and I am pretty sure making everyone into a generalist is not going to make people feel less redundant.


True - but in systems where more competent people are beneficial for various tasks, being a generalist can be a decent role for one class.

Say (theoretically) that there were three specialized roles to fill, such as the above mentioned martial/caster/stealth. A group of four PCs could either fill two of those slots with specialists, or they could have one specialist for each and a generalist who can help out significantly for everything. (This is again - in a system where multiple competent users are beneficial.)

Or if there were eight specializations, you could have the four PCs specialize in half of everything and try to half-donkey the other half. Or you could have three specialize and the fourth play a generalist who can do a decent job at the other five with help.

I am the first to say that generalist classes in MOST systems are trap options (I listed that in the thread about innocuous seeming terrible classes) but it can be a viable role to fill depending upon the core mechanics of the system.

[Max_Killjoy]

In 5e, PCs use a certain set of rules for character creation, designed for their role as the central characters of the narrative. NPCs use a separate set of building rules (more like guidelines) for their role as the foils, the stage dressing that the players interact with. This helps in quickly standing up a set of NPCs and give them the important characteristics for the part where they directly and mechanically interact with the PCs (combat and social encounters), while leaving it open so that you can have, for example, a master magic-item craftsman who isn't an accomplished adventurer with a bunch of HD that can take on whole armies by himself. Or an accomplished farmer who is just as weak and frail as any other commoner in combat (1 HD, no combat proficiency). Or any other of a host of normal people the PCs might meet. Since you can give NPCs whatever abilities make sense (without having to muck around with class levels, skill points, feats, or whatever), you can have people with all sorts of fantastic abilities that are explicitly not spells, nor are the users spell casters. You can have a dedicated temple cleric who can pray for a miracle, but can't cast a spell normally. Or populate a world without having to carefully balance the numbers of each level of spell-caster to avoid breaking the setting wide open. It's also WAY faster to build and run monsters on the fly--you're not carrying around the baggage of a host of levels, feats, and skill interactions.

I think a difference here is that, for me, the rules are simply a UI. They're not the underlying fictional reality. They're just a way of simplifying that reality in a way that is suitable for a game. The rules only govern the interactions between PCs and the rest of the (DM-controlled) world. You can't use social skills on other PCs; you can't assume that the spells in the books are the only ones in the world or that they're really as standard as the books make them seem. In the fiction, fireball doesn't have a nicely spherical explosion with a fixed, nicely-rounded maximum range. That's entirely an abstraction made to make the game playable. It tells very little of the exact details of what's going on in-game. Same with classes, levels, HP, ability scores, etc. Behind the scenes, the NPCs use whatever rules are needed to make an engaging setting that's fun to play in. Nothing more, nothing less.




This strikes me as a choice forced by the inherent flaws of how certain systems tie so much of character progression and capability into Levels to begin with. Because PC competence is so irrevocably interwoven with Levels, the only choices are to "level up" NPCs for any sort of competence in any field while following consistent rules for all characters, or have separate rules for different characters depending on their "status".

Also, for me at least the rules do need to feel enough like the setting that they're not constantly causing dissonance or pulling in opposite directions.

[Pleh]

You're missing the context here. PvP vs PvE are terms only defined well in an MMO context (where the Environment is all the computer/AI controlled stuff and Players are...well...players). In that context, when PvP balance affects PvE is when raiders skills are modified to maintain competitive balance in PvP. Since the two styles are separate enough to attract almost a completely separate set of core players...this causes angst. This is where RPS-type balance happens in MMOs. Modern MMOs have completely separated the skill-sets--skill X does one thing against an NPC, but has a much lesser effect (or sometimes a completely different effect) against a PC. NPCs usually don't have RPS-type balancing mechanisms, while PCs often do.

PCs and NPCs play contrasting, yet complementary roles in the game environment. What works for one role fails for another--they have different purposes, needs, and balance points. For example, enemy NPCs are supposed to die in much greater numbers (in D&D anyway) than are PCs. If a party faces 4 average threats per day, with a 5% TPK chance per fight, they have only an 81% chance of surviving a single day, 66% chance of surviving 2 days, and it only gets worse from there. At an even balance (50% TPK chance), they have a 6% chance of surviving a single day, and a 3 x 10^(-9) chance of surviving a week (28 combats).

This necessitates completely separate build priorities, especially combined with the (true) fact that rolling big numbers is fun for many players. Consider the possible combinations in the simple case of combat. The relevant metrics are the ratios X_NPC = DMG (NPC) / HP (PC) and X_PC = DMG (PC) / HP (NPC):



X_NPC high
X_NPC low


X_PC high
Rocket-tag
"Heroics"


X_PC low
Meat-grinder
Padded-sumo



Rocket-tag ensues if both ratios are high--if a single hit is enough to kill a character, then the first mover has a tremendous advantage. This is 3.5's default setting at higher optimization levels. By contrast, if you're not the first mover, you're unlikely to be able to participate meaningfully. The entire battle can come and go before your initiative came up. This encourages an optimization arms race, both between party members and against the DM. Retreat is fundamentally impossible--it's nova or die. And nothing is more boring than dying/being completely shut out of the fight right out the gate in a combat that takes an hour of real-time.

Heroics is what happens if PCs can easily (2 or three rounds) kill any reasonable NPC, but the NPCs are less able to kill the PCs (especially with burst damage). This has both good cases and bad cases--in the bad case, everything's a cakewalk and there's no threat. In the good case, the numbers are such that most of the threat comes through attrition, rather than burst threats. You have several rounds (or more likely), several combats to realize you're in trouble and change strategies (or retreat). This is 5e's default setting. Note that this requires breaking PC/NPC transparency as it's inherently asymmetric.

Meat-grinder combat happens when the NPCs can easily kill PCs, but the PCs can't so easily kill NPCs. Low-level pre-3e editions come to mind here. This is a viable game type, but requires a completely different attitude toward things (and a different balancing strategy). Another example is Call of Cthulhu--combat is usually a bad idea there, especially with eldritch monstrosities. This also requires breaking PC/NPC transparency (or at least changing the relationship between "CR" and APL).

Padded-sumo combat is the trap that high-level 4e play fell into before they redesigned the monster-creation formulas to push the NPCs damage up and drop their health a bit. Fights take forever and are low-lethality (for anyone). Boredom often ensues. This one is compatible with PC/NPC transparency, but doesn't require it.

Depending on what kind of game you're going for, any of them (except maybe padded-sumo) are viable. But they produce very different balancing strategies.


In 5e, PCs use a certain set of rules for character creation, designed for their role as the central characters of the narrative. NPCs use a separate set of building rules (more like guidelines) for their role as the foils, the stage dressing that the players interact with. This helps in quickly standing up a set of NPCs and give them the important characteristics for the part where they directly and mechanically interact with the PCs (combat and social encounters), while leaving it open so that you can have, for example, a master magic-item craftsman who isn't an accomplished adventurer with a bunch of HD that can take on whole armies by himself. Or an accomplished farmer who is just as weak and frail as any other commoner in combat (1 HD, no combat proficiency). Or any other of a host of normal people the PCs might meet. Since you can give NPCs whatever abilities make sense (without having to muck around with class levels, skill points, feats, or whatever), you can have people with all sorts of fantastic abilities that are explicitly not spells, nor are the users spell casters. You can have a dedicated temple cleric who can pray for a miracle, but can't cast a spell normally. Or populate a world without having to carefully balance the numbers of each level of spell-caster to avoid breaking the setting wide open. It's also WAY faster to build and run monsters on the fly--you're not carrying around the baggage of a host of levels, feats, and skill interactions.

I think a difference here is that, for me, the rules are simply a UI. They're not the underlying fictional reality. They're just a way of simplifying that reality in a way that is suitable for a game. The rules only govern the interactions between PCs and the rest of the (DM-controlled) world. You can't use social skills on other PCs; you can't assume that the spells in the books are the only ones in the world or that they're really as standard as the books make them seem. In the fiction, fireball doesn't have a nicely spherical explosion with a fixed, nicely-rounded maximum range. That's entirely an abstraction made to make the game playable. It tells very little of the exact details of what's going on in-game. Same with classes, levels, HP, ability scores, etc. Behind the scenes, the NPCs use whatever rules are needed to make an engaging setting that's fun to play in. Nothing more, nothing less.


Now, of course, other games are designed around PC/PC conflicts. This necessarily requires other design assumptions that are incompatible with the "team vs world" model of D&D. And that's fine. Just don't try to import one into the other (or vice versa).

But why? Why are these paradigms incompatible? I just don't see that conclusion from everything else you said and it looks like an unsupported bias. I feel like you go to a lot of work to describe things that were never in question, only to then leap to the conclusion about what it implies.

First of all, I was arguing from an assumption that in most RPGs, the "Heroics" phase of gameplay is the most commonly pursued (while Meat Grinder was an older style of play that has fallen out of favor). PC/NPC Transparency sounds like, "Using the same rules for making and playing both PCs and NPCs." But you seem to say that doing this means that PCs will always be fighting with reasonable chance to die if NPC use the same rules as PCs. This is only true if the NPCs are built to a combined Encounter Level sufficient to challenge the players as you suggest.

Hence, you can have Heroics in PC/NPC transparency (in the sense that they use the same rules) as long as the heroes gain benefit of a handicap (which the rules actually instruct DMs to do). An Equivalent Level challenge isn't meant to be a significant chance to kill a party member. It's meant to drain approximately 20% to 25% of the party's daily resources. A Boss Level encounter (Party Level + 3ish) is more the kind that can reasonably start killing party members. This is still creating NPCs with the same rules as PCs.

Ergo, most of this distinction you make seems irrelevant to the point. You could create the "Heroics" paradigm as easily with PVP as PVE if the players running the team intended to lose are happy to play the losing role, which was the case with Old Guard Meat Grinder games but more particularly is the common job of the DM even in the perfectly run game.

I mean to illustrate my point, let's take a classic, cliche D&D trope: Fight Your Evil Mirror Twin Party.

Sure, you could set them up as NPC foils that work differently than the players themselves do, but what is wrong about literally copy pasting character stats and pitting the characters against clones of themselves?

I guess my point is, in certain circumstances (that are non-trivial cases) "Team Vs World" is exactly the same as "PVP." Look no further than the case of "A Party Member Betrays the Fellowship," but if you cry foul over the "loss of cooperative intent" in the game, I'll be forced to ask you how we must set this up differently than the Fight Your Evil Mirror Twin scenario (which still involves no change in the degree of cooperative intent)?

[Satinavian]

But if the Environment is defined as a Bot Player, then PVP tools apply.

I don't understand this fixation with the baseless concept of PVE. What, besides an unconventional Player, constitutes the Environment challenge?

What's so different between an earthquake hazard, and an enemy caster evoking a magical earthquake effect?The difference is that your assassin can't kill a natural earthquake.
I had three RPG sessions last week, different groups, different systems. The total number of combat encounters was 0. Even if i go a bit further back and consider the combats we actually had try to distribute enemies along martial, stealthy and caster, by far most fights were against martials as fighting is their job.

If i actually started to implement RPS, the ability to contribute to by far most challanges would not even be considered. And in fights, the ability to win against martials would be by far the most valuable, the ability to win against casters the least valuable. So it wouldn't even be balanced in combat.

[Frozen_Feet]

Something to think about as pertains to PvP versus PvE:

In a typical RPG, there's an asymmetry between players and the GM. Players play people, while GM playes people and virtually anything and everything else.

The number of game where everything follows the same rules are sparse. I only own one, Noitahovi, which "personifies" the inanimate to make them work using the same rules as people.

More common, as in D&D, is that the asymmetry exists between dissimilar game objects, but similar objects are symmetric. For example, a barbarian and a mountain use distinct rules and rules for the mountain arr strictly on the GM's side, but barbarians use the same rules regardless of who playes them.

This partial symmetry would best be called Character versus Character. And using a proper CvC ruleset, it indeed does not matter who plays the cops and who plays the robbers. I personally think that a subset of rules intended for modelling playable characters should be CvC balanced. In D&D terms, this would be "all playable classes of equal level are balanced against each other" or "all playable characters of the same experience total are balanced against each other".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Something to think about as pertains to PvP versus PvE:

In a typical RPG, there's an asymmetry between players and the GM. Players play people, while GM playes people and virtually anything and everything else.

The number of game where everything follows the same rules are sparse. I only own one, Noitahovi, which "personifies" the inanimate to make them work using the same rules as people.

More common, as in D&D, is that the asymmetry exists between dissimilar game objects, but similar objects are symmetric. For example, a barbarian and a mountain use distinct rules and rules for the mountain arr strictly on the GM's side, but barbarians use the same rules regardless of who playes them.

This partial symmetry would best be called Character versus Character. And using a proper CvC ruleset, it indeed does not matter who plays the cops and who plays the robbers. I personally think that a subset of rules intended for modelling playable characters should be CvC balanced. In D&D terms, this would be "all playable classes of equal level are balanced against each other" or "all playable characters of the same experience total are balanced against each other".

Basically, although there's a special case involved with character building rules (as opposed to the rules for that character interacting with other characters). Basically, you can have two characters--one that can be built according to the PC rules and one that can't (no class levels, for example) that can interact just fine. The NPC got there in a different way, but is still bound by all the rules as to action economy, rolls, spell-casting, etc. That is, generating the stat block is special for NPCs, but using it isn't. If that makes sense. They're still not entirely symmetric--they play separate roles in the narrative. The PCs are the protagonists and viewpoint characters, the NPCs aren't. And I think that matters for the build process, as well as how they're portrayed.

In part, build asymmetry is necessary because the DM in a D&D game runs way more characters (and in a much more disposable fashion) than the non-DM players do. Requiring the same build process as for a PC is a huge time burden or requires limiting yourself to a small selection of pre-printed stat blocks. It also leads to imbalance--if you make a feat or spell that is needed for a one-off NPC, you're implicitly allowing the players access to it, which can completely disturb the balance between the players.

On the other hand, in 5e I can make an otherwise vanilla enemy "act" like a rogue by giving them sneak attack and evasion. No other requirements, no other included features. I can make a shamanistic caster by mixing and matching spells from various classes and giving them a spirit pet. I can give some NPCs inherent spell-casting (due to special life considerations, etc) without making them a full-fledged caster or introducing other effects--that one person who can cast a single 5th level spell 1x/day but nothing else. Basically, since the parts don't interact unless they say they do (increasing HD doesn't also increase skills/stats/whatever, for example) I can mix and match class features, monster features, etc without a lot of work and still have a useable NPC. This is without affecting inter-PC balance, because I don't have to worry about the effects on PC builds at all.

[Frozen_Feet]

You are correct. Different creation rules were evident in AD&D, where NPC stats were simply selected by GM according to guidelines, rather than rolling. The rationale there was that the NPCs are selected from the entire body of possible characters.

Arrays in d20 use the same logic. The standard and average arrays are based on average or likely rolls for 3d6, and the elite array based on likely rolls for 4d6k3.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You are correct. Different creation rules were evident in AD&D, where NPC stats were simply selected by GM according to guidelines, rather than rolling. The rationale there was that the NPCs are selected from the entire body of possible characters.

Arrays in d20 use the same logic. The standard and average arrays are based on average or likely rolls for 3d6, and the elite array based on likely rolls for 4d6k3.

Yeah. I was specifically countering the idea that the default is that the build process is identical. That was only true in 3e. As with many things, 3e was the exception that has swallowed the rule. It's also, coincidentally, the only edition that really experiences hard caster dominance over most of the commonly-played levels.

2e and before: Martials dominate over most levels until the very late game, where they're still useful. This is based on hearsay--I never played those outside a computer game.
3e--casters dominate by level 8-ish, eventually making martials (except for very narrow builds) useless.
4e--balance at a cost. No one dominates. Cost is that the status quo is completely disrupted and the system focuses on tactical combat even more narrowly than other editions.
5e--closer balance throughout. Everyone* is useful throughout, although there's more variation than in 4e (IMX). *Unless you intentionally tank a build.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the other hand, in 5e I can make an otherwise vanilla enemy "act" like a rogue by giving them sneak attack and evasion. No other requirements, no other included features. I can make a shamanistic caster by mixing and matching spells from various classes and giving them a spirit pet. I can give some NPCs inherent spell-casting (due to special life considerations, etc) without making them a full-fledged caster or introducing other effects--that one person who can cast a single 5th level spell 1x/day but nothing else. Basically, since the parts don't interact unless they say they do (increasing HD doesn't also increase skills/stats/whatever, for example) I can mix and match class features, monster features, etc without a lot of work and still have a useable NPC. This is without affecting inter-PC balance, because I don't have to worry about the effects on PC builds at all.


And that's part of why I prefer systems wherein all characters are built in a way closer to that.

[Frozen_Feet]

@PhoenixPhyre: even in games with CvC symmetry, it is often optional. For example, in AD&D a GM could make NPCs using the same rules as PCs, but didn't have to. The expectation was that such extra work was reserved for particularly important characters. I suspect 5e is return-to-the-roots in this respect. 3.x. was much bigger on PC and NPC symmetry than earlier editions, but it was also bloated in the asymmetric aspects. For example, 3.x. had many monsters intended for NPC-use-only, yet they still used the entire system for feats, skills etc. Which is just mad.

[Quertus]

So...your contention is that a guy standing around going "ooooOOOOOOoooooo" is somehow going be just as effective as a guy who can make actual monsters (well, believable illusionary ones) appear out of thin air?

More so, actually. Because you've just assumed that the illusions are believable (they probably aren't), whereas I've chosen a mundane with the skill to make the sounds believable.


@Quertus: there are more than three states. Most importantly, those who aren't doing things can be divided into at least three distinct categories:

1) Observing and excited: people who have their eyes on the game because they think it's interesting to follow even if it's not their turn.
2) Observing and frustrated: people who have their eyes on the game because they have investment in the outcome and are frustrated by their inability to affect it.
3) Disinterested: people who are no longer invested in the game and have ceased to pay attention.

Only 2) is directly bothered by having to twiddle their thumbs, and only 2) is directly helped by simply making their play piece more able to affect the situation.

In a turn based game (which most RPGs are), it's impossible to secure that every player can participate all the time. Hence it's better to aspire towards making the game interesting enough to the players that they will fall under 1).

Although I agree with what you're saying, it's a separate topic.

I played a game where I was paying attention, actively invested in trying to move the game forward, etc. But, after 10 sessions, I "did the math", and concluded that my character had contributed exactly nothing to the game.

Even ignoring my inability to affect the plot, I had even had zero contribution to combat. Sure, I had dealt some damage, but it was rendered irrelevant when an ally dropped an AoE which killed all the unwounded enemies alongside my wounded ones. Did I at least soak some damage? Well, no, when I got hit, there happened to be exactly two enemies per PC, who happened to pair off exactly two-on-one - had I not been there, there would have been two fewer opponents. Did I at least have a negative contribution, by soaking party resources on healing? Well, no, I had natural regeneration. I contributed quite literally absolutely nothing in 10 sessions of play.

I prefer a game where, most of the time, I can say that my character contributed. Certainly over one where I had zero contribution for 10 sessions.

Some people, on the other hand, don't care about contribution - they only care about moments where they get to shine. That's not wrong, just a different style, that generally necessitates spending more of your time not contributing - more highs and lows, less middle ground. Case in point (spoiled for length):



Counter-point, how do you force me to participate?

If everyone else can do what I can do, why don't I just sit back and twiddle my thumbs?

Heck, why have a party at all when 90% of the situations can be solved by any given individual?


Much easier said than done.

In my experience most people play RPGs for the felling of being special / independence, and if you are a group of interchangeable guys who are only able to accomplish things through weight of numbers that feeling is gone, and with it much of the enjoyment of the game.

Furthermore, requiring mundane tasks to have a bunch of people working together is a huge blow to verisimilitude.

One option is to have every situation require multiple people working on different tasks at the same time, but this gets very contrived, means people who don't have the required number of party members simply can't succeed (what if someone dies earlier in the night or their player doesn't show up for the session?) and can probably be circumvented with minionmancy anyway.

I suppose you could have spells require multiple people to cast and have their strength scale with the numbers, but I don't think the people who are wanting to play an omnicompetent wizard would like this very much, and it would actively cause a rift between them and people who want to play martial characters as people would play martial characters solely for the feeling of independence and the power of being able to act on their own and doing so would actually weaken the caster's power as they have one less body to help them cast.


Right, the game SHOULD be fun. I think the game Quertus proposes would have to be "kidnap Talakeal," because it isn't one I would play voluntarily and in my experience most players feel the same way. People like feeling special and independent, they like having spotlight time. They don't like having to push themselves to the front of the crowd and constantly compete with one attention hog to get that spotlight, they don't like being redundant. And if they feel redundant they will stop showing up.

I remember one game where I was a player and a new guy joined our group and both me and the new guy chose to be rogues. Because I was much more experienced at the game than he was I could do everything he could do as well or better and he was miserable and stopped showing up after a few sessions. Imagine if the entire party was in that position.

In my experience the "jack of all trades" guy is always the least popular role, and for a good reason.

And in all of those examples people are assigned individual roles based on their own specialty.

A baseball team will have a pitcher, a catcher, a shortstop, outfielders, and basemen. They don't just have nine guys who are all equally good at everything.

That 10% was referring to things like combat where you can simply overwhelm the problem with sheer numbers.

In such a situation I would personally just stick to jobs which don't require mass combats and resolve fights with one on one duels in such a situation.

Of course, that is always kind of the weird meta construct of RPGs, fights will almost always just so happened to balanced for exactly the number of people the party contains, no more no less.

Have you never been in a situation where you felt that you didn't bring anything to the group? I would like to participate, but I don't want to force myself into the situation when I am essentially a fifth wheel.

For example, I am doing final projects for school right now and every single group project I am doing essentially has one person doing everything. Sometimes its me, sometimes it isn't, but invariably one person ends up doing the vast majority of the work. That is not a social dynamic I would like to see replicated in RPGs.


True, but I have seen a lot of people complain about other people making them obsolete.

People like feeling unique and special. In a game where people don't have limits it is very very difficulty to get that feeling.

I actually can't think of many games (save single player adventure games) that have even tried to go for a paradigm of making character archetypes without limits.

No, I am pretty sure the thing that I don't like is having redundant characters, and I am pretty sure making everyone into a generalist is not going to make people feel less redundant.

Also, its easy to talk about scenarios that require the whole party to work together, but this is another thing entirely in practice. Aside from combats which are mathematically balanced against an X person party it is really hard for me to envision more than a few that aren't super contrived.

What does this actually look like in play? Can you give some examples?

Only in comparison to the other PCs.

If you are playing a solo game the jack of all trades is a very good choice, probably the best choice.

Likewise you can have one of Quertus' theoretical omnicompetent casters with versatility, power, and at will spells and still feel useless and impotent when in a party of similar characters who are double your level.

If you like Shadowrun's "now character A gets to do stuff while everyone else sits and twiddles their thumbs" style of play, then, yes, we prefer largely incompatible styles of games, and I won't try to force you to play ball.

Most sports aren't as boring as baseball. Most sports don't have everyone twiddling their thumbs if they aren't the "active player". Baseball represents horrible failure in game design IMO.

But only having one active player really does guarantee that player has the limelight when it's their turn.

Personally, I prefer a sport where I'm constantly an active participant, constantly analyzing the field, constantly looking for an advantage, constantly wearing down the other teams defenses by forcing them to react to me. I prefer to nearly always be participating, with smaller/shared spotlight time.

But, if that's not your thing, that's not Badwrongfun, just a preference for a different style.

However, you don't have to make everyone identical to still allow everyone to contribute. Nor does contribution necessitate removing personality or style differences. In one 2e D&D game, I was playing a character by the name of the Cendur, whose tactic of choice was "hit the archer". The final fight of the campaign, the party spearheaded an army vs army fight against an evil cult. My character followed his tactic of choice, and attacked the archers on the walls. He got a moment of spotlight time when I turned his morphing artifact into a symbol anathema to the cult, as a big **** you to the cultists. After the fact, he was given a moment to shine when it was pointed out that he single-handedly cleared a 100' section of castle wall of enemy archers. But, mostly, he was just "participating", hitting things like anyone could have done, while other PCs completed the critical objectives.

So, with that context to facilitate communication, I ask, to what extent do you care about participation, shining, and thumb twiddling?

Me, sure, getting a moment to shine is fun, but I prefer for it generally not to be at the expense of forcing others to twiddle their thumbs. I prefer the standard state of affairs to be "everyone is participating". Your adherence to the solo duel, and using baseball as an example, indicates you prefer everyone to be spending 80+% of the game stitting on their hands / twiddling their thumbs / doing nothing. And, to me, that just isn't fun.


Quertus was arguing that people should be able to participate, noy that all people should participate. The former allows you to not participate just fine.

If you feel there's no imperative to act and are fine with not acting, then don't act. That's not an actual problem that needs solving.

If, instead, you have the ability to participate but don't because you don't think it's necessary, and then complain about your lack of participation, you are being annoying and daddy needs to spank you. :smalltongue:

Hahaha - pretty much :smallwink:

Although, again, there is a difference between "participate" and "shine". Complaining that you don't get to shine even when you have 100% participation is valid.

[Darth Ultron]

No, I am pretty sure the thing that I don't like is having redundant characters, and I am pretty sure making everyone into a generalist is not going to make people feel less redundant.

Also, its easy to talk about scenarios that require the whole party to work together, but this is another thing entirely in practice. Aside from combats which are mathematically balanced against an X person party it is really hard for me to envision more than a few that aren't super contrived.

What does this actually look like in play? Can you give some examples?


The Big over all problem here is the planning and preparation.

The Cool Modern Casual Way: The DM is just a Player, but oddly makes the bare bones of the setting unlike the other fellow players. Then the DM does nothing else. On game day, the player called DM just shows up with the other players. So the DM player just sits back and casually improvies and reacts to the other players and stuff happens in the game in a random mess.

Now, this does work great in some games made for this type of game play, where the rules are simple and each action only has a single page or so of rules. And a game that does not have tons of rule books and options. It does not work in a complex game with lots of moving parts, rules, rule books and options.

The Classic Way The DM writes an adventure for the players to go on. The DM takes time to do this before the game. The DM can take time to plan and prepare things like scenarios that require the whole party to work together.

Simple ones start with things like one character distracts a guard, while another character steals something from behind them.

Cons work great where the characters have to fool or trick someone. And not just the ''characters vs the NPC'', but also the more fun of the ''characters vs the other characters'' to trick the NPC.

[Cluedrew]

So...your contention is that a guy standing around going "ooooOOOOOOoooooo" is somehow going be just as effective as a guy who can make actual monsters (well, believable illusionary ones) appear out of thin air?More so, actually. Because you've just assumed that the illusions are believable (they probably aren't), whereas I've chosen a mundane with the skill to make the sounds believable.Put a different way: So...your contention is that a guy standing around flipping through a magical 16mm slide show is somehow be just as effective as a guy who can make actual monsters (well, believable illusionary ones) appear out of thin air?

I don't actually know if they ever had 16mm slides, but 16mm sounded like a type of old recording tap so I stuck it there to try and get the point across. And that I think is the main issue, people assume the magic solution will work better than the non-magic one because one is magic. And sure you can write a story where that is how it works, but it hardly has to be that way. Also an illusion is illusionary, regardless if it is created through illusion magic or the pure skill of the illusionist, so yes you can create one without magic easily.


I contributed quite literally absolutely nothing in 10 sessions of play.... A non-accomplishment so precise that it is almost an accomplishment in its own right.

[Talakeal]

I played a game where I was paying attention, actively invested in trying to move the game forward, etc. But, after 10 sessions, I "did the math", and concluded that my character had contributed exactly nothing to the game.

Even ignoring my inability to affect the plot, I had even had zero contribution to combat. Sure, I had dealt some damage, but it was rendered irrelevant when an ally dropped an AoE which killed all the unwounded enemies alongside my wounded ones. Did I at least soak some damage? Well, no, when I got hit, there happened to be exactly two enemies per PC, who happened to pair off exactly two-on-one - had I not been there, there would have been two fewer opponents. Did I at least have a negative contribution, by soaking party resources on healing? Well, no, I had natural regeneration. I contributed quite literally absolutely nothing in 10 sessions of play.

I prefer a game where, most of the time, I can say that my character contributed. Certainly over one where I had zero contribution for 10 sessions.

You know its funny, I think we are actually saying the same thing here.

Now, I bet you were still taking actions for those ten seconds, the actions just never mattered, right?

Which is precisely what I think would happen to the majority of players if everyone was playing a versatile caster; one person, likely either the smartest or most goal oriented person in the group, would solve virtually every problem on their own and everyone else just sits back and pretends to contribute.



If you like Shadowrun's "now character A gets to do stuff while everyone else sits and twiddles their thumbs" style of play, then, yes, we prefer largely incompatible styles of games, and I won't try to force you to play ball.

[spoiler="baseball metaphor "]Most sports aren't as boring as baseball. Most sports don't have everyone twiddling their thumbs if they aren't the "active player". Baseball represents horrible failure in game design IMO.

But only having one active player really does guarantee that player has the limelight when it's their turn.

Personally, I prefer a sport where I'm constantly an active participant, constantly analyzing the field, constantly looking for an advantage, constantly wearing down the other teams defenses by forcing them to react to me. I prefer to nearly always be participating, with smaller/shared spotlight time.

But, if that's not your thing, that's not Badwrongfun, just a preference for a different style.

Here's the thing, you are supposed to only be acting a small fraction of the time because tabletop games generally run off turns. So if you have 5 players in the game, by and large you are going to be spending 80% of the time twiddling your thumbs waiting for your turn to come around again*.

The problem with the Shadowrun setup is that each players "turn" takes as long as an entire encounter in D&D, and thus everyone else gets really bored waiting for their turn to come up.



Me, sure, getting a moment to shine is fun, but I prefer for it generally not to be at the expense of forcing others to twiddle their thumbs. I prefer the standard state of affairs to be "everyone is participating". Your adherence to the solo duel, and using baseball as an example, indicates you prefer everyone to be spending 80+% of the game sitting on their hands / twiddling their thumbs / doing nothing. And, to me, that just isn't fun.

Ok, so say we have a dungeon room with a locked door, a wounded prisoner, and a massive boulder blocking the path.

What is the fundamental difference between having a rogue pick the lock, the barbarian move the boulder, and the medic tend to the prisoner during their turns and having a party of three casters draw lots over who gets to cast knock on the door, disintegrate on the boulder, and heal on the prisoner? Aside from the fact that the feeling of team work is wholly illusory in the second example as any one of the casters could have cast all three spells on their own while his two friends sat back and played go fish, that is.**



Also, note that I said I would seek out solo duels in a game where everyone was the same because it would give me 100% up time, not that this is my preferred game style.

*: Not counting the DM's turn of course.
**:This is set in a hypothetical game where martial characters are allowed to have a variety of skills like I want and where casters have both great endurance and at-will casting like you and Cosi want iirc.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. I was specifically countering the idea that the default is that the build process is identical. That was only true in 3e. As with many things, 3e was the exception that has swallowed the rule.
It kinda amazes me that so many people assume 3e is the "default" way of doing D&D things, especially when it's something where it is the only edition that did it that way. Especially when it's an edition that's been dead for a decade. At this point, AD&D 1e, 2e, or even oD&D or BECMI ways are equal valid to consider.

Otoh someone just go done complaining about assuming the D&D way of doing things is the only way of doing things, so it probably shouldn't. :smallamused:

[Satinavian]

Yeah. I was specifically countering the idea that the default is that the build process is identical. That was only true in 3e. As with many things, 3e was the exception that has swallowed the rule. It's also, coincidentally, the only edition that really experiences hard caster dominance over most of the commonly-played levels.
It is by far not only D&D 3E.

In fact it is kind of the default way to do it in point buy systems where you can just buy/assign the abilities your NPC should have, leave out those he should not have and end up with a legal character without any need to force him into some adventuring class.

[Talakeal]

It is by far not only D&D 3E.

In fact it is kind of the default way to do it in point buy systems where you can just buy/assign the abilities your NPC should have, leave out those he should not have and end up with a legal character without any need to force him into some adventuring class.

Yeah, the whole notion only really makes sense in terms of a class based system, of which D&D is by far the most prevalent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, the whole notion only really makes sense in terms of a class based system, of which D&D is by far the most prevalent.


It is by far not only D&D 3E.

In fact it is kind of the default way to do it in point buy systems where you can just buy/assign the abilities your NPC should have, leave out those he should not have and end up with a legal character without any need to force him into some adventuring class.

I guess I'm confused and not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll admit that D&D is the only system whose rules I'm really comfortable with.

So let's consider a few systems I've heard of--what are the steps to making an NPC (major or minor) in each of the following systems? Do you have to follow the same exact process (including only picking from player-available options) as you would for creating a PC? Are the durability/damage/skill outputs the same as an equivalent-power PC?

* Traveller. I've heard that this one goes by life-cycle and can take quite a while to build a starting PC. I'm assuming you don't have to do that whole process for an NPC.
* GURPS. Something about choosing a number of points and then buying variable-point skills from there?
* Apocalypse World. No clue what the character generation system is.
* FATE (either core or accelerated). I know you have aspects and a high concept, but beyond that I'm unsure.
* Other notable ones?

I really am asking this out of curiosity--I like knowing bits and facts about other systems.

[2D8HP]

It kinda amazes me that so many people assume 3e is the "default" way of doing D&D things, especially when it's something where it is the only edition that did it that way. Especially when it's an edition that's been dead for a decade. At this point, AD&D 1e, 2e, or even oD&D or BECMI ways are equal valid to consider....:.
Preach it!

[Cosi]

People like feeling unique and special. In a game where people don't have limits it is very very difficulty to get that feeling.

Nonsense. You can have unique abilities without having to have unique access to parts of the game. You can have a stealth minigame where everyone contributes without giving everyone the same abilities as the Rogue. Indeed, in order to have a stealth minigame, you need everyone to have some way of contributing to it.


No, I am pretty sure the thing that I don't like is having redundant characters, and I am pretty sure making everyone into a generalist is not going to make people feel less redundant.

Do you feel redundant in combat when someone else makes attack rolls?


What does this actually look like in play? Can you give some examples?

Something like skill challenges, but less garbage. So the PCs have a goal (like "persuade the king" or "infiltrate the temple") and they all take actions that help them progress towards that goal. Like the Wizard making a Knowledge check to identify some glyphs or the Rogue making a Open Lock check to unlock something.


Ah, Apocalypse World, fantastic execution. The more I dig at that game (and the Powered by the Apocalypse system) the more impressed I am. Now if only if that was turned towards a system people want to play.

How? There's no "game" there. You roll dice, the DM makes things up. Apocalypse World is not a good product, and can barely even be called a "game".


It kinda amazes me that so many people assume 3e is the "default" way of doing D&D things, especially when it's something where it is the only edition that did it that way. Especially when it's an edition that's been dead for a decade.

I don't think you can really say that 3e is "dead". Pathfinder still exists, and the only difference between it and your table's houserules is that someone managed to actually publish it.


At this point, AD&D 1e, 2e, or even oD&D or BECMI ways are equal valid to consider.

Yes, but the ways those games did things are honestly pretty stupid. If you think "BAB vs THAC0" is a debate worth having, you do not deserve to be part of a serious conversation about RPGs. Ditto racial level limits or different XP tables for different classes. There are some good ideas in older editions (lower HP/damage curve, random items), but 3e is simply a better game than they are and gets correspondingly more mentions. This is accentuated if you're talking about games from a "mining for ideas" perspective.

[2D8HP]

....3e is simply a better game than they are and gets correspondingly more mentions. This is accentuated if you're talking about games from a "mining for ideas" perspective.


5e D&D seems pretty balanced at low levels, and every class is too OP at high levels, which makes me want to start at 1st level again regardless.

I have no interest in the "build mini-game", nor in playing a superpowered "god wizard", I just want to role-play a Fafhrd, Gray Mouser, Robin Hood, or Sinbad-like "guy with sword", and having to even think of "power levels" sounds like a chore.

Other than having so many tables, why would I want to play 3.x D&D?


In the 0e/1e D&D games I played Magic Users were weaker than Fighters until you got to rarely played levels, but that was known early.While in theory Magic-Users became the most powerful characters (it even suggested so in the rules:

1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic,
(Page 6)

"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are very weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."...)

IIRC, in practice Mages were so weak that no one I knew played them long. We only did it when we rolled badly or (briefly) wanted a challenge, so I never saw any Mages past second level that weren't NPC's at my usual tables.I can very much remember how in 70's early 80's it was hard to get anyone to play a "Magic User" (even when the Intelligence score roll was higher their Strength), simply because at low levels they had the least they could do (and the lowest hit points).
Most everyone played "Fighting-Men" to start, but those few who played for "the long game" found that "Magic Users" vastly overpowered other classes at high levels. Thematically and for "world building" it made sense, magicians should be rare, and "the great and powerful Wizard" should be more fearsome then the "mighty Warrior". But as a game? Having separate classes each doing their unique thing is more fun, and always hanging in the back while another PC does everything isn't.....anyway, it was such a long slog before a Magic User PC became less weak than the other classes that if they survived to become poweful it seemed like a just reward in old D&D.

Given my preferences what would make 3.x better?

[Talakeal]

Nonsense. You can have unique abilities without having to have unique access to parts of the game. You can have a stealth minigame where everyone contributes without giving everyone the same abilities as the Rogue. Indeed, in order to have a stealth minigame, you need everyone to have some way of contributing to it.

I think we either had a miscommunication or a straw-man got involved somewhere, because your tone implies you are offering a counter-point but the substance of the text agrees with me.

I am absolutely not saying that people shouldn't have ways to contribute, but what I am saying is that they can contribute without giving them full rogue abilities.

Quertus (and I thought you to a lesser extend with all that talk of hurting verisimilitude by defining the limits of a power) was advocating for having everyone play a highly versatile character with overlapping abilities, and I was offering a counter-point that if everyone has the same abilities they are going to feel samey and redundant.



Do you feel redundant in combat when someone else makes attack rolls?

Kind of. If the DM is simply scaling the CR of the enemies to the party and we aren't offering any extra synergy then nothing is really gained by me being there except the combat taking longer.

I much prefer smaller tactical combats where people are each bringing something unique to the fight and abilities are synergizing rather than giant slogs, which is one of the reasons I prefer TTRPGs to MMOs.


Something like skill challenges, but less garbage. So the PCs have a goal (like "persuade the king" or "infiltrate the temple") and they all take actions that help them progress towards that goal. Like the Wizard making a Knowledge check to identify some glyphs or the Rogue making a Open Lock check to unlock something.

Again, easy to say hard to implement. We both agree that skill challenges in their current form are garbage, but I have yet to see a proposal for an alternative that has the same feeling but offers a significant improvement.

"Like the Wizard making a Knowledge check to identify some glyphs or the Rogue making a Open Lock check to unlock something" is fine and is actively what I am in favor of.

"Identical Wizard A, or B, or C, or D casts a divination spell to identify some glyphs and then Identical Wizard A, or B, or C, or D casts knock to unlock something," is not.

[Max_Killjoy]

And that's part of why I prefer systems wherein all characters are built in a way closer to that.


It is by far not only D&D 3E.

In fact it is kind of the default way to do it in point buy systems where you can just buy/assign the abilities your NPC should have, leave out those he should not have and end up with a legal character without any need to force him into some adventuring class.


Yeah, the whole notion only really makes sense in terms of a class based system, of which D&D is by far the most prevalent.


I guess I'm confused and not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll admit that D&D is the only system whose rules I'm really comfortable with.

So let's consider a few systems I've heard of--what are the steps to making an NPC (major or minor) in each of the following systems? Do you have to follow the same exact process (including only picking from player-available options) as you would for creating a PC? Are the durability/damage/skill outputs the same as an equivalent-power PC?

* Traveller. I've heard that this one goes by life-cycle and can take quite a while to build a starting PC. I'm assuming you don't have to do that whole process for an NPC.
* GURPS. Something about choosing a number of points and then buying variable-point skills from there?
* Apocalypse World. No clue what the character generation system is.
* FATE (either core or accelerated). I know you have aspects and a high concept, but beyond that I'm unsure.
* Other notable ones?

I really am asking this out of curiosity--I like knowing bits and facts about other systems.

Let's take HERO as an example.

If you want to build an NPC, you build a character. All characters are built the same. There are no "NPC only" powers or abilities or rules.

But if you're really in a hurry, you can just set their stats and assume that the details would work out, since there's almost always more than one way to get to whatever end point you wanted, and if you just care about raw stats and not points, it's not a big deal to just say "here we are". Because nothing is class or level based, you're not skipping core build parts, and no special NPC rules are needed.

[RazorChain]

I guess I'm confused and not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I'll admit that D&D is the only system whose rules I'm really comfortable with.

So let's consider a few systems I've heard of--what are the steps to making an NPC (major or minor) in each of the following systems? Do you have to follow the same exact process (including only picking from player-available options) as you would for creating a PC? Are the durability/damage/skill outputs the same as an equivalent-power PC?

* Traveller. I've heard that this one goes by life-cycle and can take quite a while to build a starting PC. I'm assuming you don't have to do that whole process for an NPC.
* GURPS. Something about choosing a number of points and then buying variable-point skills from there?
* Apocalypse World. No clue what the character generation system is.
* FATE (either core or accelerated). I know you have aspects and a high concept, but beyond that I'm unsure.
* Other notable ones?

I really am asking this out of curiosity--I like knowing bits and facts about other systems.

He's agreeing with you. The standard practice in point buy is only give npc powers/skills that are relevant to save time. Nobody cares that thug#1 had a basketweaving skill when he dies in the 1st round of combat.

In all systems you just pick what is relevant to save time.

In point buy this is very easy because you just spend points on skill/stats/abilities/powers so you dont need to explain at all...in D&D terms the players might cry foul if the bad guy used a flurry of blows while wearing heavy armor and casting a 5th level wizard spell. In point buy this is only explained away by how many points the bad guy had.

Some point buy systems also have guidelines of making new powers so if something new showd up in game the players cant scream and shout and call the GM a cheater for not following RAW slavishly.

[Talakeal]

He's agreeing with you. The standard practice in point buy is only give npc powers/skills that are relevant to save time. Nobody cares that thug#1 had a basketweaving skill when he dies in the 1st round of combat.

In all systems you just pick what is relevant to save time.

In point buy this is very easy because you just spend points on skill/stats/abilities/powers so you dont need to explain at all...in D&D terms the players might cry foul if the bad guy used a flurry of blows while wearing heavy armor and casting a 5th level wizard spell. In point buy this is only explained away by how many points the bad guy had.

Some point buy systems also have guidelines of making new powers so if something new showd up in game the players cant scream and shout and call the GM a cheater for not following RAW slavishly.

Note that this isn't foolproof.

I run point buy games almost exclusively and my players often cry foul when I don't specify HOW an NPC has the numbers they have.

I will simply eyeball what is an appropriate value for a character in their position and give it to them rather than actually finagling the details, and then when my players decide that the NPC's score is too high they will ask me for an accounting of how he got it and I will say something like "Well, he has a +14, he COULD have had, say, a 9 dexterity, a +3 quality sword, and two ranks of the melee prodigy merit, but I don't know exactly how he did it because I just gave him the end result to save time," and then my players will feel cheated.

But then again I seem to have extra-ordinarily whiny players so YMMV.

[Zale]

The reason I brought up exclusive actions is because of this sort of thing:

If anyone can do Y, and only one archetype can do X, then that archetype has an advantage because they get X and Y, while everyone else only gets Y.

The thing is that wizard can do everything else, and do magic, while everyone else can't do magic. And it doesn't help that magic can be written to do anything, and thus invalidates the other things as well.

Like, in a heartbreaker-esque game, if I'm a rogue, in what way can I do things that a sufficiently motivated wizard cannot? What capacities do I possess that are exclusive to my archetype, and not something that is universal?

If anyone can be sneaky, or try to open locks, or steal things, or attack from stealth, or whatever, then there's nothing that only a rogue can do.

Because in most cases, the wizard can also try to do all of those things, or use magic to replicate them.

So I feel like a good fix would be to either give everyone a niche with exclusive actions (which can result in shadowrun if done poorly), or to democratize all actions, so that anyone can attempt to do anything, just some people are better at it (which means attacking classes as a concept, probably).