Do caster out of combat options matter?

[clash]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

[Rynjin]

If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.

[Schwann145]

I think about this all the time.
Consider Astral Projection: As a 9th level spell it's one of the most powerful spells in the game, and the only thing it does is let you go somewhere. You can even count on your DM making all the protections of the spell useless, as you'll definitely run into silver swords or creatures who can sever your cord - why wouldn't they, amirite?
So, long story short, you have to cast a 9th level spell to fulfill, "you're allowed to go here now." And how long will that last? Well, since 5e refuses to make high level games balanced/playable, it won't last long.


But, yes, I agree with your premise, OP.
The story your DM wants to tell will accommodate the party as it needs to. If "do you know this spell?" is going to be a wall, the game just grinds to an immediate halt and no one has fun when that happens.

[clash]

If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.

So you're saying if you have a campaign with 4 fighters as players and no magic you will both require them to use planar travel and give them no plot hooks, no magic items and no NPCs or quests to help them achieve planar travel? Seems like your campaign wouldn't get very far.

[NichG]

The mistake here is viewing it as being the DM's sole purview what sort of large-scale things happen at the gaming table.

Out of combat options are valuable because they give a player the agency to say what the plot is in a far more open-ended way. Oh, the city I'm in is under siege and the commander of the enemy forces is strutting around expecting a champion from our side to duel him? Eh, I teleport away with the NPC I'm trying to protect - no need to fight that guy. Or, we can just feed everyone with Create Food and Water and wait them out, no big deal. If what you want to do is pass through a sequence of combat challenges posed to you by the DM, the out of combat stuff might not matter to you - but then someone else at the table realized they can drive the plot themselves using things the system has offered to them, and you get table conflict.

It's not a matter of balance between classes, its a matter of disagreement about what 'playing the game' actually encompasses. One person says 'if the DM intends for us to go to the Plane of Fire, we'll get there', while someone else says 'Did you know that the Plane of Mineral just has arbitrary quantities of gemstones lying around? Forget about the Plane of Fire, I smell profit!'.

[GeneralVryth]

If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.

This is the exact opposite of correct. If a campaign depends on a specific class ability, that is a bad campaign. The various out of combat options for all classes, should be ways to make things easier or get some kind of benefit. For example a caster with Plane Shift should mean you don't have shell out X amount of gold, or owe a favor to a local Wizard. It should not mean the campaign effectively ends there, that's just dumb.

[Psyren]

I wonder which thread spawned this line of thought :smallamused:

It's your job to make the party's abilities matter. The question is not whether you should create an alternate route along the critical path if the players don't have the innate ability to traverse it themselves - of course you should. If the plot requires the party crossing a collapsed bridge and they can't fly, your job is to provide other ways of crossing for them to discover. But if the party made character choices that do give them a means of surmounting that obstacle, like an innate way to fly everyone across, you should reward that foresight and ingenuity differently than if you were forced to step in and help.

Job #1 is to always keep the action moving, while Job #2 is to make sure the players' choices matter.

[clash]

If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.


The mistake here is viewing it as being the DM's sole purview what sort of large-scale things happen at the gaming table.

Out of combat options are valuable because they give a player the agency to say what the plot is in a far more open-ended way. Oh, the city I'm in is under siege and the commander of the enemy forces is strutting around expecting a champion from our side to duel him? Eh, I teleport away with the NPC I'm trying to protect - no need to fight that guy. Or, we can just feed everyone with Create Food and Water and wait them out, no big deal. If what you want to do is pass through a sequence of combat challenges posed to you by the DM, the out of combat stuff might not matter to you - but then someone else at the table realized they can drive the plot themselves using things the system has offered to them, and you get table conflict.

It's not a matter of balance between classes, its a matter of disagreement about what 'playing the game' actually encompasses. One person says 'if the DM intends for us to go to the Plane of Fire, we'll get there', while someone else says 'Did you know that the Plane of Mineral just has arbitrary quantities of gemstones lying around? Forget about the Plane of Fire, I smell profit!'.

This is an interesting perspective to me. Basically you're saying out of combat options aren't about being able to solve a problem they are about choosing how you solve the problem.

[Rafaelfras]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

I agree with that perspective. A party without plane shift will get to the plane it needs to go somehow. The important thing is to provide the options so the party can overcome said obstacles and use those obstacles when you know they have abilities to overcome then so the players can put then to good use.






Job #1 is to always keep the action moving, while Job #2 is to make sure the players' choices matter.

Agree with this. I have a assassin in my group and she got to use her level 9 ability to great effect a couple of times now because I went out of my way not just to include infiltration quests but to make that ability really shine and show its full strength, including not requiring any roll, making her love her subclass choice and never feeling that one of the most frowned abilities of the game was wasted space.

[NichG]

This is an interesting perspective to me. Basically you're saying out of combat options aren't about being able to solve a problem they are about choosing how you solve the problem.

It can also be about getting to choose what problems you want to or have to care about. Lots of out of combat options mean that you have a lot of agency in determining what actually constitutes a 'problem' for you that others can impose on you.

[Rynjin]

So you're saying if you have a campaign with 4 fighters as players and no magic you will both require them to use planar travel and give them no plot hooks, no magic items and no NPCs or quests to help them achieve planar travel? Seems like your campaign wouldn't get very far.

No, I won't require them to use planar travel. They simply will not get to interact with the axis of planar travel, as they have no ability to do so.

If they do end up in an extraplanar situation, their abilities are much more limited. A Wizard or Cleric could casually Plane Shift everyone back to the material, where they could rest, restock on supplies, etc.

Fighters do not have this ability, and I'm not going to have them find a convenient "Wand of Return to Material and Then this Exact Plane" sitting around.

They're stuck until or if they find a way back.

Player choices have consequences. Bending over backward to ensure that their choices don't matter, good or bad, is simply poor campaign construction. End of. You may as well write a novel at that point.

If your campaign heavily requires planar travel to work, it will need to be retooled. Because a party of 4 Fighters with no magic is not going to be able to engage on that axis in the same way a spellcaster can. Sometimes this retooling is going to involve "no planar travel" because the party is incapable of it. There are plenty of adventures to be had on the Material.

In some cases you can provide workarounds but they should inherently add to the plot, not just paper over flaws. Giving them a vehicle that can travel the planes can get the job done, but does not replace the utility a caster would bring. A vehicle can be broken, stolen, or have additional limits. it adds drama, doesn't detract. If you simply give them an item or NPC that functions in the exact same way as a caster, you have completely invalidated the party's choice to have no caster.

In the same sense on the lesser end, if your party comes across a chasm, the utility Flight magic brings is..expediency. You can simply fly across the chasm and be done.

I'm not going to retcon a bridge being there for the all Fighter party just to make life easy for them. They chose to make a party with very limited ways to interact with the world around them, and need to deal with the consequences of that. They'll need to find a way to go around or over the problem in a different way.

If I got into a game and every time I came across a challenge my PC couldn't easily solve, and before I could think of getting around it the GM handed me a "Makes It Easy" button to solve it, I'd be pissed and probably leave that game. Because it's clear that GM has an extremely shallow understanding of problem solving and is unable to improvise in even the slightest way.


This is the exact opposite of correct. If a campaign depends on a specific class ability, that is a bad campaign.

Yes, agreed. So if you write a campaign based around planar travel for the all Fighter party your campaign writing sucks.

[Skrum]

This is an interesting perspective to me. Basically you're saying out of combat options aren't about being able to solve a problem they are about choosing how you solve the problem.

I think that's basically true of the entire game. DM's usually don't write combats that are purposely too hard or are the perfect foil to the group (unless that itself is a story moment). The combat is written with the party in mind. Modules are written such that a Generic Party can succeed - the horde of goblins might be easier to beat if you can cast fireball or sickening radiance, but being nearly unhittable with 25 AC and just hitting them one at a time will work too.

Being a good DM is about writing an interesting story that the players feel like they have agency in. A good class is one that gives the player lots to do, and again, feel like they're impacting the world in meaningful ways.

[Psyren]

No, I won't require them to use planar travel. They simply will not get to interact with the axis of planar travel, as they have no ability to do so.

If they do end up in an extraplanar situation, their abilities are much more limited. A Wizard or Cleric could casually Plane Shift everyone back to the material, where they could rest, restock on supplies, etc.

Fighters do not have this ability, and I'm not going to have them find a convenient "Wand of Return to Material and Then this Exact Plane" sitting around.

They're stuck until or if they find a way back.

Player choices have consequences. Bending over backward to ensure that their choices don't matter, good or bad, is simply poor campaign construction. End of. You may as well write a novel at that point.

If your campaign heavily requires planar travel to work, it will need to be retooled. Because a party of 4 Fighters with no magic is not going to be able to engage on that axis in the same way a spellcaster can. Sometimes this retooling is going to involve "no planar travel" because the party is incapable of it. There are plenty of adventures to be had on the Material.

In some cases you can provide workarounds but they should inherently add to the plot, not just paper over flaws. Giving them a vehicle that can travel the planes can get the job done, but does not replace the utility a caster would bring. A vehicle can be broken, stolen, or have additional limits. it adds drama, doesn't detract. If you simply give them an item or NPC that functions in the exact same way as a caster, you have completely invalidated the party's choice to have no caster.

In the same sense on the lesser end, if your party comes across a chasm, the utility Flight magic brings is..expediency. You can simply fly across the chasm and be done.

I'm not going to retcon a bridge being there for the all Fighter party just to make life easy for them. They chose to make a party with very limited ways to interact with the world around them, and need to deal with the consequences of that. They'll need to find a way to go around or over the problem in a different way.

If I got into a game and every time I came across a challenge my PC couldn't easily solve, and before I could think of getting around it the GM handed me a "Makes It Easy" button to solve it, I'd be pissed and probably leave that game. Because it's clear that GM has an extremely shallow understanding of problem solving and is unable to improvise in even the slightest way.



Yes, agreed. So if you write a campaign based around planar travel for the all Fighter party your campaign writing sucks.

This is such a weird take to me. The DMG has an entire section on Planar Portals (DMG 45). Why do you think they wrote all that, except to allow parties without Plane Shift to travel the planes? It sounds like, in your view, a DM who even thought of using these rules is "papering over flaws" with a "make it easy button" and you would abandon ship immediately.

[JNAProductions]

This is such a weird take to me. The DMG has an entire section on Planar Portals (DMG 45). Why do you think they wrote all that, except to allow parties without Plane Shift to travel the planes? It sounds like, in your view, a DM who even thought of using these rules is "papering over flaws" with a "make it easy button" and you would abandon ship immediately.

It doesn’t read that way to me.

“Quest to find a portal home,” is very different from “Can immediately go home and later come back, regardless of party capabilities.”

[Psyren]

It doesn’t read that way to me.

“Quest to find a portal home,” is very different from “Can immediately go home and later come back, regardless of party capabilities.”

I think this is where both of your disconnects are coming from. "A portal exists" does not have to equal "it is trivial to locate and use." The portal existing means the 4Fighter Party gets to Do the Adventure - not that it will be exactly as easy for them as if they had a Wizard taxi on retainer.

[LudicSavant]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter?

Yes, immensely so. Obstacles for any given goal or sub-goal are not guaranteed to be bypassable by 100% of adventurers regardless of their capabilities. And even if they are bypassable by other means, the alternate means may be more costly or less beneficial.

It's one thing to eventually find a key to a locked door. It's another to be able to simply be able to path through not only doors but walls in any pattern you choose, with your entire party in tow, without making a sound or allowing adversaries an opportunity to react to you.


If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

There is no singular ability that is 100% required to resolve any combat-related goal, either -- and often there are ways to bypass an obstacle without combat at all.

Being able to travel the planes is more than just a 'you may participate in an adventure on the Plane of Fire' button. It's the ability to access those environments and their useful properties for any of a thousand purposes, at any time you choose, whether getting there is actually required or merely advantageous. It's the ability to simply make someone be elsewhere, and moreover, have that elsewhere have different laws of physics, powerful alien beings, and so on and so forth.

[Elenian]

Pretty much the same reasoning will lead you to conclude that in-combat options don't matter either, since a good DM will tailor encounters to the party's capabilities anyway. In fact, having fewer options probably makes the DM's job easier.

Like I guess it depends what you mean by 'matter', what kind of story you're trying to tell, and what character you're playing. If you're trying to tell LotR, then it certainly matters whether Gandalf can teleport the party hundreds of miles (it would make the story much worse).

[LudicSavant]

Pretty much the same reasoning will lead you to conclude that in-combat options don't matter either, since a good DM will tailor encounters to the party's capabilities anyway.

Indeed, the argument appears to overlook why any abilities matter, combat or not.

[Amnestic]

If the party needs to get to the Plane of Fire, they're going to have to pay to do so.

Sometimes the payment is character building (investment of personal resources - being a wizard who learned Plane Shift/Gate or the like), sometimes it's paying someone else to get them there (investment of 'group' resources - gold, magic items, etc. that now can't be spent elsewhere), and sometimes it's payment is in time (questing to find a portal).

While they all may ultimately lead to the same place ("The party reaches the Plane of Fire"), their costs aren't equal, especially if there's a time sensitive aspect to needing to reach said Plane.

So, macro story? They might matter, depending on the story being told. Micro moments? They definitely can matter, depending on what the out of combat option in question is.

One relatively moderate example I can point to was one of the casters in my RHoD game used an ability that let them scout ahead by asking nature what's going on. This let them know about a fairly decent sized lizardfolk ambush nearby, which in turn allowed them to spring the ambush themselves, Surprising the enemy and taking an advantageous position that made the encounter way easier than it would have been if they'd been caught off guard.

Another had them come up to a river where the sole nearby crossing was filled with watering animals that would likely be hostile if they got close. They had options: try to soothe the animals and potentially have to fight them, try to swim and potentially fail, or spend time looking for another crossing. The druid said "nope, I cast Water Walking" and the party walked across, bypassing the 'encounter' entirely.

Did it affect the macro story? No, not really in either case. They would still have gotten to where they needed to go regardless of whether they'd sprung the ambush themselves or fought the animals, but the out of combat options changed the 'costs' of getting there.

[Kane0]

Tangentially related, last campaign we discovered that an Amulet of the Planes doesnt have any special requirements on who can attune to it.
Giving it to the Orc Barbarian that rode a 'tamed' wyvern may not have been the best idea...

Edit: and said amulet also has no charges or usage restrictions besides your action and familiarity with the destination, even if you mishap and go to the wrong place!

[Arkhios]

If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.

Agreed, that is a bit harsh, but there's a seed of truth in it.

Spells that can, for example, cut a long journey short should be acknowledged when writing campaigns.

Give the long method to travel as what is normally required to get from A to B, but don't punish players for having and using their alternative methods. Keep in mind that you shouldn't place mandatory encounters along the usual route, if there is a possibility that players can avoid them whether they know of them or not. If you insist that players use one method alone, you might as well show them the rails and give them the locomotive.

(Choo, choo!)

[Silly Name]

They do matter, because they allow the caster (and their party) to bypass certain challenges, and to approach new challenges in different ways. As NichG said, they give players more agency.

The classic example is Scry and Die tactics: once you have access to powerful divinations and powerful teleportation spells, you can go in many places you couldn't before, and even bypass many troubles.

Yes, if the DM wants the party to be able to go to a certain place, they will obviously provide means for the party to go there... But being able to go where you want, under your own power, and then go back without having to worry about reaching the ship/the portal/the wizard they hired to teleport for them is a great boon for the players.

And we're only talking movement options. Stuff like Rope Trick can be a lifesaver in a pinch (my players once used it to survive a storm at sea after some bad rolls for managing their ship meant they started sinking); Resurrection spells mean death is no longer the end of a character; Speak with Dead/Animals/Plants allow players to interact with creatures and things they normally wouldn't and receive extra information.

Hell, just look at Passwall: comfortably cutting through walls up to 20-feet thick? That's huge. You can bore a hole in a castle wall, or bypass a bunch of dungeon rooms.

Basically, those spells allow the players to further exert their agency on the world, the same way skills and roleplaying would be, but greatly magnified by the power of magic.

[Mastikator]

If the players choose to not have out of combat options and the DM wants a campaign that involves the use of out of combat options, then it would behoove the DM to throw the players a bone. I think quest items are fine. If- on the other hand players have out of combat options then they should be able to use them. In fact I think the DM should enable and reward that, if a player picks up Plane Shift then they ought to find/be able to make/buy the prerequisite attuned rods. If a player learns the teleportation circle spell they get a few addresses, the DM ought to ask what kind of places the player is interested in and give them something fun and interesting.

I do mostly agree with Rynjin. Don't add a bridge just because the players suck at climbing and can't teleport/fly. They take the long way around the chasm.

[stoutstien]

Opinion 1) plot devices should not be disguised as class features or vice versa.

Opinion 2) The general theme and feel of the game that the GM and other players are going for should dictate what options are available as class features to facilitated that theme. Trying to do it the other way around leads to madness and unfulfilling game play.

Opinion 3) spells cover way too much ground and need a retool. You can't have something like a small localized effect and something that could potentially shatter the world on the same scale and it make any sense.

[Aimeryan]

Two different axis to cater to here: Capability and Agency.

Capability

Here you essentially have three types of DM: ones that will only present challenges the party can handle, ones that will present challenges regardless of capability but will always include a backdoor that the party can handle, ones that will present challenges regardless of capability including the possibility of failing something in the campaign.

In the first, yeah it doesn't really matter what the players can do - they'll always be capable of handling the situation.
In the second, it can matter what the party can do; it may save time, or provide better rewards/no losses, if they can handle the challenge in the more difficult way. Alternatively, it may make no difference - it depends on how the DM handles the players having to use the backdoor.
In the third, it definitely matters what the party can do; whole plotlines, rewards, etc., may be lost otherwise.

So, caster's out of combat options can be very impactful here - but also may not be, depending on the DM.

Agency

With this, it really depends on the player. Some players are just there for the story and could not care less what their character is capable of - it is essentially no different to listening to a non-interactive story in this case. Other players want a game, and so their agency is highly relational to their prospects for fun - afterall, probably the biggest benefit of a tabletop RPG with a human DM is that there can truly be no railroading if desired.

So, caster's out of combat options can be very impactful here - but also may not be, depending on the player.

[KorvinStarmast]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? The party druid (me = GM) has chosen to cast regenerate on two hostages who were just rescued. One was missing an eye, one missing half of an arm. This costs the party a day during which the bad guys are going to be doing some things. But the party has chosen to heal their allies/friends now. That matters. It was their choice.

If the party needs to get to the Plane of Fire, they're going to have to pay to do so. This. What will you (the party) trade (be it goods or services) in order to get access to that rare ability/tool? Costs and opportunity costs need to be folded in.
As an aside; Magic Items handle some of this. When you get a legendary item at level 11, cubic gate, as we did in one campaign it made planar travel to five of the planes a lot less difficult.
But that was a bonus item that came from defeating a lich: the DM rolled up "what was in the chest?" after the battle and ended up generating a cubic gate. Some of the other magic items she had used against us we also collected.


Sometimes the payment is character building (investment of personal resources - being a wizard who learned Plane Shift/Gate or the like), sometimes it's paying someone else to get them there (investment of 'group' resources - gold, magic items, etc. that now can't be spent elsewhere), and sometimes it's payment is in time (questing to find a portal). Yes. Tradeoffs.

Another example of out of combat stuff that matters:
I am a player in this one.

My warlock had, for most of her levels from 7 to 11, the at will casting of disguise self. She used it a LOT for out of combat stuff and opened a bunch of opportunities for intel collection (her deception ability is pretty good, proficient) and misdirection to allow the party to get to some places with nobody being the wiser.

She still has at will Speak With Dead. This has provided some intel collection that allows the party to make informed decisions. It is not an easy button, as our DM does the "cryptic answer" thing, but it's helpful.

Mass Suggestion: our bard broke up the beginning of a riot with that a few sessions back. This got us access to some people in the city council and set up a meeting with the vizier - which we needed.

Out of combat: Rary's Telepathic Bond. Let us split up the party as we hunted down a troublesome mage and then captured him. We were able basically form a dragnet and track them down, mentally communicating the whole time.

[Psyren]

Being able to travel the planes is more than just a 'you may participate in an adventure on the Plane of Fire' button. It's the ability to access those environments and their useful properties for any of a thousand purposes, at any time you choose, whether getting there is actually required or merely advantageous. It's the ability to simply make someone be elsewhere, and moreover, have that elsewhere have different laws of physics, powerful alien beings, and so on and so forth.

Exactly - just because the DM can make a portal available for an OnlyFighters party to participate in a planar adventure, doesn't mean the players' choice to have or not have a wizard becomes invalidated. Having a wizard that can plane shift the PCs gives more benefits than being a taxi to the plot.



I do mostly agree with Rynjin. Don't add a bridge just because the players suck at climbing and can't teleport/fly. They take the long way around the chasm.

I disagree that "adding a bridge" is automatically bad. The bridge can be every bit as challenging/onerous as "the long way around the chasm," just faster. I would do both.

Baldurs Gate 3 is illustrative here; every critical plot path and even a number of the non-critical ones have at least 3 avenues of approach. That "rule of 3" is a good practice for GMs in general.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Another had them come up to a river where the sole nearby crossing was filled with watering animals that would likely be hostile if they got close. They had options: try to soothe the animals and potentially have to fight them, try to swim and potentially fail, or spend time looking for another crossing. The druid said "nope, I cast Water Walking" and the party walked across, bypassing the 'encounter' entirely.


Yes! The Druid is Druiding their way through the encounter. Choices matter because they let you show your character's approach to a problem.

[LudicSavant]

Baldurs Gate 3 is illustrative here; every critical plot path and even a number of the non-critical ones have at least 3 avenues of approach. That "rule of 3" is a good practice for GMs in general.

To further illustrate with BG3, even with its much more limited ability to interact with the world in comparison to true tabletop, non-combat features are enormously powerful at every stage of the game.

[Sorinth]

I do think there are a subset of out of combat spells that aren't actually that important and are basically just the simple/straightforward way of doing something. But even then they can still matter, if you need to go to the Fire Plane to get some McGuffin then yeah you don't need plane shift, but having it does present options. If the McGuffin is guarded by an army that they can't fight their way out then the people without plane shift who are using a portal have to steal it and escape undetected, the plane shift team can grab it and bounce so it's not as concerning if they are detected which opens up options for planning.

But it's also about the DM style, if things are setup where the expectations are the PCs win the day and that challenges are all beatable that's going to lean into those spells not be as important, whereas expectations are that some challenges aren't beatable then they will matter more because they present options to bypass some of those unbeatable encounters.

[Sigreid]

The mistake here is viewing it as being the DM's sole purview what sort of large-scale things happen at the gaming table.

Out of combat options are valuable because they give a player the agency to say what the plot is in a far more open-ended way. Oh, the city I'm in is under siege and the commander of the enemy forces is strutting around expecting a champion from our side to duel him? Eh, I teleport away with the NPC I'm trying to protect - no need to fight that guy. Or, we can just feed everyone with Create Food and Water and wait them out, no big deal. If what you want to do is pass through a sequence of combat challenges posed to you by the DM, the out of combat stuff might not matter to you - but then someone else at the table realized they can drive the plot themselves using things the system has offered to them, and you get table conflict.

It's not a matter of balance between classes, its a matter of disagreement about what 'playing the game' actually encompasses. One person says 'if the DM intends for us to go to the Plane of Fire, we'll get there', while someone else says 'Did you know that the Plane of Mineral just has arbitrary quantities of gemstones lying around? Forget about the Plane of Fire, I smell profit!'.
I drive significant portions of game plot with or without spells simply by setting character goals and going for them. DMs tend to love it as it takes a significant chunk of the burden of DMing off their shoulders.

[Psyren]

To further illustrate with BG3, even with its much more limited ability to interact with the world in comparison to true tabletop, non-combat features are enormously powerful at every stage of the game.

Indeed. BG3 checks allow you to bypass difficult fights entirely, or get powerful NPCs on your team, or obtain information and resources that you otherwise couldn't. And several of those checks are rendered automatic or gain advantage via tags related to choices like your race, class and background, validating player choice even further. It's fantastic design, and Larian applied the DMG guidance expertly.

[Dr.Samurai]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter?
As you can see from the thread replies... it depends.

Some DMs will make them matter, some won't. Some players will not attempt anything unless they have a button, some will. So it really matters how everyone approaches the game.

For my party... at my table our spellcasters don't grab Teleport and Plane Shift. They don't even grab Detect Magic or Identify or Dispel Magic, etc. They grab spells that they think will be fun and that they will use often.

We get by just fine.

If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions.
This is what Descent Into Avernus does, which require you to be in Avernus a full 10 levels before anyone can cast Plane Shift.

Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it
Yeah, I've never sat down at a table to start a game, and had the DM say "Ok so you start at a tavern, and now your quest requires that your level 2 characters trek through the Plane of Fire"

"Oh but... we don't have Plane Shift, or a way to protect ourselves from the constant fire damage on that plane"

"Too bad. Should have planned better. Not sure why you guys didn't look to your out of combat abilities differently..."

or the only reason flight is required is because you have it.
This is the big one right here, and why these conversations are rather contrived. These out of combat spells are SO important... only after the caster has learned them and prepared them. So as I said... it depends on your table's approach to the game. People are basically saying "Once your caster can learn Plane Shift, they better, otherwise [insert dilemma about a quest that takes place on the Plane of Fire]".

So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.
It's just a way to reinforce the meme that spellcasters are better and can do more stuff, and a way for optimizers to benchmark how good their builds are by saying "we can do all of these things, and all of these things are necessary".

In reality, spellcasters thrust the responsibility of needing a spell for everything onto themselves, so they can turn around and say "I can shoulder the burden I have placed upon myself". In reality, they can be in the same predicament as anyone else, needing a flying mount to reach an ancient sky castle, journeying to a portal to reach another plane of existence, etc. They're not required to be able to do all of these things, except for people that say these are requirements.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

There are sort of two tiers of out-of-combat magic, tier 1 being using magic to do things that you could possibly do via mundane means, just much quicker and more efficiently (fly, fabricate, knock, etc), and tier 2 being use cases where only magic will do (Dream, magic jar, plane shift, speak with dead, etc). They are underutilized for the same reason skills in general are somewhat underutilized at most tables, because people lean on the combat pillar more heavily (which is fine). I personally find both to be extremely powerful, to the point they have the downside of leapfrogging ahead of wherever the DM has prepared for.

[Skrum]

Indeed. BG3 checks allow you to bypass difficult fights entirely, or get powerful NPCs on your team, or obtain information and resources that you otherwise couldn't. And several of those checks are rendered automatic or gain advantage via tags related to choices like your race, class and background, validating player choice even further. It's fantastic design, and Larian applied the DMG guidance expertly.

The benefit of doing a massive, comprehensive amount of "prep." While I absolutely agree that this kind of world interaction is excellent and something DM's should strive for, in practice it's often hard to do. Planning a whole encounter might take significant prep. Letting the players bypass it with a check or two, that can be hard to swallow. And it also implies the DM should be sitting on 10 times more content than what's going to come up at any given time.

[Dr.Samurai]

And it also implies the DM should be sitting on 10 times more content than what's going to come up at any given time.
And in the opposite direction, it implies that casters should learn and prepare a bunch of spells that might not come up at any given time as well.

I mean... there are casters out there sitting on some high level spell slots not using them because they are "just in case" spells.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with most of what Rayjin said.

If players are passengers in the story, out of combat abilities don't matter, if players are driving the plot, they matter a lot.

[NichG]

The benefit of doing a massive, comprehensive amount of "prep." While I absolutely agree that this kind of world interaction is excellent and something DM's should strive for, in practice it's often hard to do. Planning a whole encounter might take significant prep. Letting the players bypass it with a check or two, that can be hard to swallow. And it also implies the DM should be sitting on 10 times more content than what's going to come up at any given time.

Alternately, it implies that part of the DM's job is to learn to prep content generators - things that make it easy to determine things on the fly - rather than content whenever possible. That could be everything from prepping things in a modular manner so that you can reuse elements of your prep, to just mapping out motivations and goals and general themes and then filling in the blanks only when they're needed, to doing everything full on improvisation all the time.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with most of what Rayjin said.

If players are passengers in the story, out of combat abilities don't matter, if players are driving the plot, they matter a lot.
But I still don't think this goes far enough.

I can be a driver of the plot and say "We need to get to the Plane of Fire. None of us has the ability to do so, so I suggest we go to XYZ Library and do some research"

Research fails.

"Ok, we're not having any luck, let's pool our resources together and consult a sage"

Success

"Ok, now we know the location of a portal"


The story takes place in a world, and character agency doesn't mean the world has to deprive the characters of alternatives/options.

[Skrum]

Alternately, it implies that part of the DM's job is to learn to prep content generators - things that make it easy to determine things on the fly - rather than content whenever possible. That could be everything from prepping things in a modular manner so that you can reuse elements of your prep, to just mapping out motivations and goals and general themes and then filling in the blanks only when they're needed, to doing everything full on improvisation all the time.

I'm not saying it's bad or some ridiculous thing the game is asking, I'm just saying there are pragmatic difficulties.

If I'm preparing a game and I want roughly 4 hours of content, and the players bypass a giant ravine and two associated encounters because I didn't realize they could fly, like I don't want to block their use of a cool ability, but I also might be scrambling. That's all I'm saying.

And like, the ability to seamlessly react to the players and reward them for having abilities or being clever, that's what makes a good DM. But it is hard at times.

[Rukelnikov]

But I still don't think this goes far enough.

I can be a driver of the plot and say "We need to get to the Plane of Fire. None of us has the ability to do so, so I suggest we go to XYZ Library and do some research"

Research fails.

"Ok, we're not having any luck, let's pool our resources together and consult a sage"

Success

"Ok, now we know the location of a portal"


The story takes place in a world, and character agency doesn't mean the world has to deprive the characters of alternatives/options.

Yeah, and in that same scenario if one of the PCs could cast plane shift they may have saved maybe a session and who knows how much in game time.

But also consider the "not so big barriers", players are exploring a unknown jungle and get to a huge chasm with a city floating in the middle, is flight the only conceivable option to get there? No. Is it the simplest one? Probably.

And there's also all the sidetracking that ends up happening, maybe while doing the research for the planar portals the PCs come across some strange happenings in Candlekeep, and now the plane crossing adventures are on hold in favor of mystery solving in Candlekeep, because that's more appealing now.

[Mastikator]

I disagree that "adding a bridge" is automatically bad. The bridge can be every bit as challenging/onerous as "the long way around the chasm," just faster. I would do both.

Baldurs Gate 3 is illustrative here; every critical plot path and even a number of the non-critical ones have at least 3 avenues of approach. That "rule of 3" is a good practice for GMs in general.

Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't put bridges in the game just because a player chose to have characters with no means to cross it without a bridge (speaking metaphorically). There are sections of Baldur's Gate 3 that become (un)available to players based on their character-building choices. It would be a worse game if it added bridges just because I chose to not have out of combat options.

BG3 will literally tell you to make sure your party is diverse in their capabilities, because if you choose to respec all of your characters into sharpshooting death machines then there would be a ton of stuff in game that is just straight up unavailable to you.

That is exactly how I try to design adventures, players with out of combat features will be able to access stuff that those without can't. If all players choose that then too bad. In an adventure I designed there was a ravine, I put a wooden suspension bridge over the ravine. But I made the bridge in a state of disrepair (because nobody had been there in years). The bridge could not support more than 300lbs, and some of the planks were rotted. The ravine was 30 feet across and 30 feet deep. The bridge could be reinforced to support more weight. The ravine could be climbed, and teleported across. Or even jumped across with a simple jump spell. There were tons of ways to cross the ravine. But the players all wanted to be pure-combat damage dealers and ended up having to take the long way around.

[Sorinth]

Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't put bridges in the game just because a player chose to have characters with no means to cross it without a bridge (speaking metaphorically). There are sections of Baldur's Gate 3 that become (un)available to players based on their character-building choices. It would be a worse game if it added bridges just because I chose to not have out of combat options.

How can you say that? Were you in the meetings where the devs came up with the maps and decided where to place bridges?

I can't think of an area that only people who can fly or jump huge distances can reach that is more then here's a chest/small bit of loot. So I think they very much went out of their way to put a bridge or a path that would make it so any character could reach the areas.

[clash]

Yeah, and in that same scenario if one of the PCs could cast plane shift they may have saved maybe a session and who knows how much in game time.

But also consider the "not so big barriers", players are exploring a unknown jungle and get to a huge chasm with a city floating in the middle, is flight the only conceivable option to get there? No. Is it the simplest one? Probably.

And there's also all the sidetracking that ends up happening, maybe while doing the research for the planar portals the PCs come across some strange happenings in Candlekeep, and now the plane crossing adventures are on hold in favor of mystery solving in Candlekeep, because that's more appealing now.

You say it like sessions spent researching portals and looking for a sage are wasted sessions? Or time spent side tracking is time not playing the game. I think it's quite possible the plane shifting actually takes parts of the game away from players that enjoy it and whether it does or not I wouldn't say there is a real advantage to one approach or the other.

[Rukelnikov]

You say it like sessions spent researching portals and looking for a sage are wasted sessions? Or time spent side tracking is time not playing the game. I think it's quite possible the plane shifting actually takes parts of the game away from players that enjoy it and whether it does or not I wouldn't say there is a real advantage to one approach or the other.

They're not time wasted, but the question is whether it matters or not, if an adventure changes from a plannar jaunt to a mystery solve, they can both be enjoyable, and in my example the players are choosing to pursue the mystery solving, but it's evident that being able to cast the spell did matter, it completely changed the nature of the adventure.

[Mastikator]

How can you say that? Were you in the meetings where the devs came up with the maps and decided where to place bridges?

I can't think of an area that only people who can fly or jump huge distances can reach that is more then here's a chest/small bit of loot. So I think they very much went out of their way to put a bridge or a path that would make it so any character could reach the areas.

I can say that because I have seen it? I've played the game multiple times and have seen options that require certain builds. Some were available to me in one playthrough but not in another. Easy example is the holes that require you to be tiny size. Druids and halflings (with potion/spell of dimunition) can go through the hole. A party of medium sized characters that have no means of becoming tiny have no chance of going through the hole.

Let me clarify here: I am not saying I know why they put bridges where they put bridges. I make no claim on that area. I have never made claims about that subject. And when I design dungeons I put bridges where I think there should be bridges.

I AM saying that they do not put bridges into the game while I am playing as a response to me not being able to cross a gap. If I can't cross a gap because of my character building choices then Larian is not going to add a bridge just for me. Do I need to have been to their board meetings to know that? Can't I just have played the game and seen it for myself?

When I design an adventure and add a ravine, I don't then look at the player's sheets and think "wow they are not going to be able to cross this! I better add a bridge". Because A) they might surprise me, B) that would invalidate their choices.

[Psyren]

Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't put bridges in the game just because a player chose to have characters with no means to cross it without a bridge (speaking metaphorically).

No, but Baldur's Gate also made sure to design a campaign that a party of 4 Fighters could clear. For example, you don't have to put on a disguise or something to infilitrate the enemy strongholds, your tadpole takes care of that. Or later when you need to infiltrate a devil's domain in Hell, there just so happens to be an NPC that . In other words, Larian never has to "build a bridge" because they thought the game through at the outset.

But let's say they didn't think of that, and it was a tabletop game. How hard would it really be to create an NPC diabolist who can get you into Hell if one didn't already exist, using a ritual that the PCs have no way to replicate on their own? Because for me, that would be extremely easy. And the players still have agency because they can simply decide not to go (and deal with the consequences later.)


There are sections of Baldur's Gate 3 that become (un)available to players based on their character-building choices. It would be a worse game if it added bridges just because I chose to not have out of combat options.

Okay, name them. No, really.

Like maybe if you don't have someone who can fly, there's a treasure chest you can't reach or something. And even then, scrolls exist. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: The druid holes don't count, literally everywhere that has one has other means of getting into or out of that area, so no, try again.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, and in that same scenario if one of the PCs could cast plane shift they may have saved maybe a session and who knows how much in game time.

But also consider the "not so big barriers", players are exploring a unknown jungle and get to a huge chasm with a city floating in the middle, is flight the only conceivable option to get there? No. Is it the simplest one? Probably.
Sure but this is why my response was "it depends on the DM and players". Like... if it matters it matters, if it doesn't it doesn't.

It matters in the way that it matters that Frodo can't cast Teleport at the start of Fellowship of the Ring. They can still get to Mordor but it's going to be a harrowing journey and success isn't guaranteed.

Turns out that also happens to be the story and why we find it so entertaining.

And there's also all the sidetracking that ends up happening, maybe while doing the research for the planar portals the PCs come across some strange happenings in Candlekeep, and now the plane crossing adventures are on hold in favor of mystery solving in Candlekeep, because that's more appealing now.
Yes but this speaks to the point you made about player agency, which is why I replied that it goes further than that.

That is exactly how I try to design adventures, players with out of combat features will be able to access stuff that those without can't. If all players choose that then too bad. In an adventure I designed there was a ravine, I put a wooden suspension bridge over the ravine. But I made the bridge in a state of disrepair (because nobody had been there in years). The bridge could not support more than 300lbs, and some of the planks were rotted. The ravine was 30 feet across and 30 feet deep. The bridge could be reinforced to support more weight. The ravine could be climbed, and teleported across. Or even jumped across with a simple jump spell. There were tons of ways to cross the ravine. But the players all wanted to be pure-combat damage dealers and ended up having to take the long way around.
This sounds more punitive than anything. And I wonder... if the party happens to be all spellcasters, what do you do to ensure that there are consequences for that choice?

When I design an adventure and add a ravine, I don't then look at the player's sheets and think "wow they are not going to be able to cross this! I better add a bridge". Because A) they might surprise me, B) that would invalidate their choices.
But you do have to do something though, right? Because if they go around, you'll need to DM the surrounding region and any encounters they have that way, or if they decide to try and get mounts, you'll have to adjudicate that, or if they attempt to climb down the ravine and then back up on the other side, you'll have to do that. Or if they return to the quest giver that a ravine stopped them in their tracks, etc etc.

No matter what you will have to invent stuff to deal with the fact that your players don't have a spell that gets over the ravine you decided to put there.

[Mastikator]

Okay, name them. No, really.
Off the top of my head:
Make a party of all strength based fighters. You will not be able to defeat the dragon unless you are playing on explorer mode. They'll also REALLY struggle against Kethric Thorm, I would expect an honor mode to struggle to enter act 3 with all strength based GWM PAM fighters. The magma elemental will also be unbelievably tough (in honor mode it creates its own magma, so you need someone who can cancel out its regen).

There are certain outcomes with Kagha that are virtually impossible to get without having a druid (preferably, a high intelligence one).

There's the spiders in the goblin camp, you can get a certain outcome if you can talk to them. Relying on potions is IMO not reliable, there are more animals to talk to than potions. In fact having speak with animals in BG3 makes a massive difference.

There's an outcome with Auntie Ethel that requires someone in the party is good at charisma checks and/or can boost ability checks.

I'm sure there is more, but I'm equally sure it's not worth the time and energy to find them for the sake of this thread. (also, yes I know about save scumming, and no I don't consider it valid, you'd never be able to save scum at table top)

-



This sounds more punitive than anything. And I wonder... if the party happens to be all spellcasters, what do you do to ensure that there are consequences for that choice?
Aaaand this out of nowhere judgemental nonsense is exactly why I don't like posting anything about what happens in games on this board.
If the party is all spellcasters then yes I will ensure that there are fair consequences. No, I will not elaborate. Just assume nice things about me.


But you do have to do something though, right? Because if they go around, you'll need to DM the surrounding region and any encounters they have that way, or if they decide to try and get mounts, you'll have to adjudicate that, or if they attempt to climb down the ravine and then back up on the other side, you'll have to do that. Or if they return to the quest giver that a ravine stopped them in their tracks, etc etc.

No matter what you will have to invent stuff to deal with the fact that your players don't have a spell that gets over the ravine you decided to put there.
Of course I give them something. I always make sure to give many things. They could've literally climbed down and up the ravine, they had climbing gear. They were level 6. Some of them might have been able to JUMP across. One had misty step.

Am I supposed to railroad them? Into an obstacle?

[Luccan]

There are tables that don't exclusively play to the tune of the DM. Being able to effect narrative level changes instantaneously, as a class feature, and without needing any DM approval to make possible (beyond ensuring the spell exists in the game) definitely matters at a table that isn't being driven by a prewritten plot.

[Slipjig]

I think Plane Shift is kind of an outlier, in that it can easily serve as a "the plot stops unless you find a way to do this", and it also provides a capability that isn't really possible to duplicate other than through DM fiat (e.g. "here's a portal"). But I don't think either of those conditions apply to most spells.

Let's take Water Breathing. Sure, if the adventure is in a dungeon crawl in an underwater temple complex, the DM needs to provide some means for the PCs to breathe (if they don't have one). But there are also uses of Water Breathing that AREN'T "you can go to the place now". e.g. if you need to sneak into a place with a waterfront (or even just a river), being able to stay underwater for an extended period may get you past several layers of defenses. Or if you need to get through a long underwater tunnel, you can do it with Athletics checks, or you can spend spell slots on Water Breathing.

Spider Climb, Fly, Charm Person, Knock, Pass Without Trace, Legend Lore, Inbisibility, Locate Object... there are a lot of spells that can be used to overcome a challenge (in exchange for a spell slot) without being the ONLY way to overcome that challenge.

[Psyren]

Make a party of all strength based fighters. You will not be able to defeat the dragon unless you are playing on explorer mode. They'll also REALLY struggle against Kethric Thorm, I would expect an honor mode to struggle to enter act 3 with all strength based GWM PAM fighters. The magma elemental will also be unbelievably tough (in honor mode it creates its own magma, so you need someone who can cancel out its regen).

We're talking about plot and narrative here, not video game difficulty. Honor Mode is irrelevant.


There are certain outcomes with Kagha that are virtually impossible to get without having a druid (preferably, a high intelligence one).

No no, put those goalposts back down. You can resolve the Shadow Druids plotline regardless of party makeup; that's what matters. "Certain outcomes" is not the question being asked.



There's the spiders in the goblin camp, you can get a certain outcome if you can talk to them. Relying on potions is IMO not reliable, there are more animals to talk to than potions. In fact having speak with animals in BG3 makes a massive difference.

The plot there is "defeat the goblin leaders." Whether the spiders can help you or not is irrelevant, they are one small way of getting help with that plotline that isn't even needed.


There's an outcome with Auntie Ethel that requires someone in the party is good at charisma checks and/or can boost ability checks.

Same as above; "one outcome" or "certain outcomes" does not matter, you can resolve the Auntie Ethel story regardless of party makeup.


I'm sure there is more, but I'm equally sure it's not worth the time and energy to find them for the sake of this thread. (also, yes I know about save scumming, and no I don't consider it valid, you'd never be able to save scum at table top)

You haven't found any, nor will you.

[Dr.Samurai]

Aaaand this out of nowhere judgemental nonsense is exactly why I don't like posting anything about what happens in games on this board.
Whoa, easy. I actually misread your post and didn't realize you were talking about a choice made without the topic in mind. Meaning, I thought you were saying if someone doesn't have the means to cross a ravine, you might put a bridge, but you'd make it rickety, etc specifically because someone didn't have teleport or fly or whatever. So I misread the comment and I apologize.

That said... if you don't like judgy nonsense...


If out of combat options are not required, your campaign writing sucks.

Player choices have consequences. Bending over backward to ensure that their choices don't matter, good or bad, is simply poor campaign construction. End of. You may as well write a novel at that point.

If I got into a game and every time I came across a challenge my PC couldn't easily solve, and before I could think of getting around it the GM handed me a "Makes It Easy" button to solve it, I'd be pissed and probably leave that game. Because it's clear that GM has an extremely shallow understanding of problem solving and is unable to improvise in even the slightest way.

Yes, agreed. So if you write a campaign based around planar travel for the all Fighter party your campaign writing sucks.


I do mostly agree with Rynjin. Don't add a bridge just because the players suck at climbing and can't teleport/fly. They take the long way around the chasm.




Of course I give them something. I always make sure to give many things. They could've literally climbed down and up the ravine, they had climbing gear. They were level 6. Some of them might have been able to JUMP across. One had misty step.

Am I supposed to railroad them? Into an obstacle?
Sorry, I think something got misconstrued. I am not making a judgement on how anything was handled; I didn't even know you were referring to a real life game at the time.

I am saying that the "As a DM don't do anything special if your party doesn't have a spell" commentary only goes so far because you are going to have to do something one way or another, whether it's invent NPCs that they run into, terrain that they travel over, encounters that they have, etc. The game doesn't stop in the absence of certain spells. The argument is basically "I will do whatever the players initiate, but I will never give them a Wand of Flying" or something along those lines. It's like, sure, that's fine. But there's this tenor that the players are doing something WRONG for not having the Fly spell and it's like... suck it up and generate the way around as the player's use their agency to find it. Who cares if they're not using Fly?

It's basically expecting players to metagame and grab all of the utility spells, and then saying "Well I won't hold their hands if they don't!!". Yeah sure, don't threaten me with a good time lol. Screw spellcasting and this expectation that everything should be overcome easily and with the push of a button, or else you're doing it wrong.

[Rukelnikov]

I am saying that the "As a DM don't do anything special if your party doesn't have a spell" commentary only goes so far because you are going to have to do something one way or another, whether it's invent NPCs that they run into, terrain that they travel over, encounters that they have, etc. The game doesn't stop in the absence of certain spells. The argument is basically "I will do whatever the players initiate, but I will never give them a Wand of Flying" or something along those lines. It's like, sure, that's fine. But there's this tenor that the players are doing something WRONG for not having the Fly spell and it's like... suck it up and generate the way around as the player's use their agency to find it. Who cares if they're not using Fly?

It's basically expecting players to metagame and grab all of the utility spells, and then saying "Well I won't hold their hands if they don't!!". Yeah sure, don't threaten me with a good time lol. Screw spellcasting and this expectation that everything should be overcome easily and with the push of a button, or else you're doing it wrong.

The game ends when the players decide so, nothing in the game, not even a TPK spells the game's end. The question is not "Do you absolutely need to have OoC options?" the question is "Do OoC options matter?", well it depends on how matters is defined, but for me, if having some options can change the nature of the adventures being told, then there's not much more digging to do.

[Dr.Samurai]

The game ends when the players decide so, nothing in the game, not even a TPK spells the game's end. The question is not "Do you absolutely need to have OoC options?" the question is "Do OoC options matter?", well it depends on how matters is defined, but for me, if having some options can change the nature of the adventures being told, then there's not much more digging to do.
Sure, but this to me seems like a low bar and not actually what the OP was asking. The OP isn't asking "does not having OOC spells change the game?", in fact it assumes it does by saying you'll find another way.

The fact is, using spells is not intrinsically a superior way to do anything. Yes, we get across the ravine quicker sure. But what if the ravine holds magic items, enough XP to level up, NPC allies that grant us boons, etc? There can be a cost to "bypassing" stuff with the push of a spell slot.

My issues are:

1. This assumption that finding a workaround is the DM catering to the party. Flying mounts are a thing in fantasy settings, especially in D&D, and exist in the MM. Portals are a thing. NPC spellcasters exist. The list goes on of things in the world that exist that can allow you to bypass an obstacle without a spellcaster in the party, nevermind that real humans in the real world have accomplished the same without magic of any kind. Populating your world with these things is not catering; it's running the game.

2. The assumption that snapping your fingers to do something is intrinsically superior to not doing so. Not only do you need to get over this thing or teleport over here, but you need to do so RIGHT NOW. It's a best case scenario for the argument, sure. But as I mentioned above, you can be missing out on a bunch of other stuff. As a reminder, we're saying the DM should populate the world organically without assuming the players will be able to do or not do anything to progress. Well, then if your DM has populated creatures, encounters, treasure, magic items, and whatever else, and you just bypass it with a spell slot, congratulations, you've just paid a cost you didn't know about.

3. Framing everything around what spellcasters can do. Who cares? You can even play a spellcaster that doesn't even learn these critical spells. We're talking about a subset of a subset of PCs.

[Psyren]

My issues are:

1. This assumption that finding a workaround is the DM catering to the party. Flying mounts are a thing in fantasy settings, especially in D&D, and exist in the MM. Portals are a thing. NPC spellcasters exist. The list goes on of things in the world that exist that can allow you to bypass an obstacle without a spellcaster in the party, nevermind that real humans in the real world have accomplished the same without magic of any kind. Populating your world with these things is not catering; it's running the game.

2. The assumption that snapping your fingers to do something is intrinsically superior to not doing so. Not only do you need to get over this thing or teleport over here, but you need to do so RIGHT NOW. It's a best case scenario for the argument, sure. But as I mentioned above, you can be missing out on a bunch of other stuff. As a reminder, we're saying the DM should populate the world organically without assuming the players will be able to do or not do anything to progress. Well, then if your DM has populated creatures, encounters, treasure, magic items, and whatever else, and you just bypass it with a spell slot, congratulations, you've just paid a cost you didn't know about.

3. Framing everything around what spellcasters can do. Who cares? You can even play a spellcaster that doesn't even learn these critical spells. We're talking about a subset of a subset of PCs.

This sums up my take on it, especially #1.

[Rukelnikov]

Sure, but this to me seems like a low bar and not actually what the OP was asking. The OP isn't asking "does not having OOC spells change the game?", in fact it assumes it does by saying you'll find another way.

The fact is, using spells is not intrinsically a superior way to do anything. Yes, we get across the ravine quicker sure. But what if the ravine holds magic items, enough XP to level up, NPC allies that grant us boons, etc? There can be a cost to "bypassing" stuff with the push of a spell slot.

My issues are:

1. This assumption that finding a workaround is the DM catering to the party. Flying mounts are a thing in fantasy settings, especially in D&D, and exist in the MM. Portals are a thing. NPC spellcasters exist. The list goes on of things in the world that exist that can allow you to bypass an obstacle without a spellcaster in the party, nevermind that real humans in the real world have accomplished the same without magic of any kind. Populating your world with these things is not catering; it's running the game.

2. The assumption that snapping your fingers to do something is intrinsically superior to not doing so. Not only do you need to get over this thing or teleport over here, but you need to do so RIGHT NOW. It's a best case scenario for the argument, sure. But as I mentioned above, you can be missing out on a bunch of other stuff. As a reminder, we're saying the DM should populate the world organically without assuming the players will be able to do or not do anything to progress. Well, then if your DM has populated creatures, encounters, treasure, magic items, and whatever else, and you just bypass it with a spell slot, congratulations, you've just paid a cost you didn't know about.

3. Framing everything around what spellcasters can do. Who cares? You can even play a spellcaster that doesn't even learn these critical spells. We're talking about a subset of a subset of PCs.

#1 - I do no think, in most cases, that the party finding a workaround necessarily means the DM is catering to the players, though it may very well be, but more important I do not think this is really relevant to the question.

#2 - Superior again, needs to be defined, its more often than not the simplest and surefire way to do things, and sometimes that matters. Does the party want to go on a quest because 1 of the PCs wants to visit the Plane of Air out of curiosity to see what it's like? Maybe not, but if its just casting a spell, and we'll be back in an hour to do something else? Well ok, why not?

#3 - I'm not even sure what this point is trying to express.

Adventures can be have in as many ways as the imagination of the players allow, having spellcasters is not a necessity for having those or having fun. Treasure and XP can, and likely will, be gained no matter what avenues the party ends up pursuing, but having access to certain out of combat options can for sure make some avenues more readily available than others, and that's why I think having out of combat features (be those spells, utility items, whatever) does matter, especially in groups that play PC driven adventures in a persistent world the whole party plays and DMs in, it gives the players a level of agency that's much more direct.

[Mastikator]

I am saying that the "As a DM don't do anything special if your party doesn't have a spell" commentary only goes so far because you are going to have to do something one way or another, whether it's invent NPCs that they run into, terrain that they travel over, encounters that they have, etc. The game doesn't stop in the absence of certain spells. The argument is basically "I will do whatever the players initiate, but I will never give them a Wand of Flying" or something along those lines. It's like, sure, that's fine. But there's this tenor that the players are doing something WRONG for not having the Fly spell and it's like... suck it up and generate the way around as the player's use their agency to find it. Who cares if they're not using Fly?

It's basically expecting players to metagame and grab all of the utility spells, and then saying "Well I won't hold their hands if they don't!!". Yeah sure, don't threaten me with a good time lol. Screw spellcasting and this expectation that everything should be overcome easily and with the push of a button, or else you're doing it wrong.

I'm not just doing something, I'm doing a lot. I'm doing stuff regardless of whether the players happen to have out of combat options. I want to enable and reward creativity. If the players have a feature or spell that lets them bypass an obstacle, or create a solution that I couldn't even dream of then they can also do that.

What I'm not doing is adding even more stuff after I realize the players have all made characters with zero non-combat features. That is on them. When the session starts I am no longer the only one who can/should be creative at the table.

The only time I'm looking a PC sheets is when I'm using their character for story reasons. But that's to give them a hook, a reason to care, to make them pre-involved in the story.

Edit- as a corollary for the OP's example of plane shift I'll say this: if I'm making an adventure that takes the players to another plane then I'm adding means of accessing that plane, even if every single PC has plane shift. The spell would still be instrumental for them, since it will enable them to perform actions and take paths that are otherwise unavailable. But I'm always making sure there is a path from start to finish.

[Aimeryan]

The fact is, using spells is not intrinsically a superior way to do anything.

I agree with this, although I have a feeling we will disagree with why.

As I mentioned prior, the main reasons they may matter is because the DM may reward/punish capability amongst the party, and the players may enjoy having agency.
Neither of these are intrinsic, so by extention, spells (or indeed, any capability/agency) do not intrinsically matter.
However, while not intrinsic, it is very common that DMs encourage developing capability, and players to enjoy having agency.

As a DM, I want players using their character's capabilities to achieve things, rather than make me as a DM come up with ways for the party to achieve them. I'll put in side challenges that are not essential to solve, but if they do they get rewarded. I'll have challenges that need to be overcome to continue the campaign, but provide several paths of varying difficulty, with the more challenging solves costing less to the party if they pull them off (like time saved, etc.).

As a player, I very much find playing martials to be dull - it is not a lack of combat capability (where damage pretty much always solves the issue and 5e monster design is quite... uninspired), its the lack of out of combat capability. As a martial, I'm very much dependent on what the DM thinks is and isn't going to work, what the DC may be, etc. - my agency has been stripped. Now, if I had a DM that let me essentially DM by proxy, then I could come up with convoluted martial ways to make things happen and would have my agency back - but now I'm also the DM.

[Dr.Samurai]

#1 - I do no think, in most cases, that the party finding a workaround necessarily means the DM is catering to the players, though it may very well be, but more important I do not think this is really relevant to the question.
I think it is relevant when it's used to supplement the claim that it matters. "Yes it matters, because otherwise the DM is catering to the party and might as well be writing a novel".

#2 - Superior again, needs to be defined, its more often than not the simplest and surefire way to do things, and sometimes that matters. Does the party want to go on a quest because 1 of the PCs wants to visit the Plane of Air out of curiosity to see what it's like? Maybe not, but if its just casting a spell, and we'll be back in an hour to do something else? Well ok, why not?
It strikes me as odd though that there are protests that "I am not going to add stuff in just because the players don't have a certain spell" but there isn't a protest about "now I have to add in a whole side-quest jaunt to the Plane of Air just because a player has a certain spell".

#3 - I'm not even sure what this point is trying to express.
The idea that it's a "problem" if a party doesn't have out of combat spells is sort of setting these out of combat spells as a default state. There are plenty of parties that don't have them, such as the group I play with across multiple modules IRL. In my PbP games we have savvy optimizer players grumbling about the wizard's spell choices because they think some of the utility spells are better choices. So across many games, it's only some of them that have the casters that have the spells that will actually do what you're talking about.

Adventures can be have in as many ways as the imagination of the players allow, having spellcasters is not a necessity for having those or having fun. Treasure and XP can, and likely will, be gained no matter what avenues the party ends up pursuing, but having access to certain out of combat options can for sure make some avenues more readily available than others, and that's why I think having out of combat features (be those spells, utility items, whatever) does matter, especially in groups that play PC driven adventures in a persistent world the whole party plays and DMs in, it gives the players a level of agency that's much more direct.
As I said, it matters if it matters. To use your wording, quests will progress "no matter what avenues the party ends up pursuing".

I'm not just doing something, I'm doing a lot. I'm doing stuff regardless of whether the players happen to have out of combat options.
That is my point. The DM is always reacting to the players and having to run the world in response to their actions.

Edit- as a corollary for the OP's example of plane shift I'll say this: if I'm making an adventure that takes the players to another plane then I'm adding means of accessing that plane, even if every single PC has plane shift. The spell would still be instrumental for them, since it will enable them to perform actions and take paths that are otherwise unavailable. But I'm always making sure there is a path from start to finish.
Makes sense to me.

I agree with this, although I have a feeling we will disagree with why.

As I mentioned prior, the main reasons they may matter is because the DM may reward/punish capability amongst the party, and the players may enjoy having agency.
Neither of these are intrinsic, so by extention, spells (or indeed, any capability/agency) do not intrinsically matter.
However, while not intrinsic, it is very common that DMs encourage developing capability, and players to enjoy having agency.

As a DM, I want players using their character's capabilities to achieve things, rather than make me as a DM come up with ways for the party to achieve them. I'll put in side challenges that are not essential to solve, but if they do they get rewarded. I'll have challenges that need to be overcome to continue the campaign, but provide several paths of varying difficulty, with the more challenging solves costing less to the party if they pull them off (like time saved, etc.).

As a player, I very much find playing martials to be dull - it is not a lack of combat capability (where damage pretty much always solves the issue and 5e monster design is quite... uninspired), its the lack of out of combat capability. As a martial, I'm very much dependent on what the DM thinks is and isn't going to work, what the DC may be, etc. - my agency has been stripped. Now, if I had a DM that let me essentially DM by proxy, then I could come up with convoluted martial ways to make things happen and would have my agency back - but now I'm also the DM.
I am skeptical of the claim that you need to DM by proxy if you don't have certain spells, and I'm afraid the only solution we have here is to start throwing out examples and arguing over those examples.

I'm also skeptical that players don't have agency without certain spells.

I get the sense that we're talking about some spells that save time but are basically doing stuff that normal people can do (climb, open stuff, disguise, etc.), then there's the stuff like Plane Shift/Teleport, where we can argue if the DM putting alternatives in is catering (nevermind putting them in before the caster has these spells lol). What are the other spells that we're talking about?

[Sorinth]

I can say that because I have seen it? I've played the game multiple times and have seen options that require certain builds. Some were available to me in one playthrough but not in another. Easy example is the holes that require you to be tiny size. Druids and halflings (with potion/spell of dimunition) can go through the hole. A party of medium sized characters that have no means of becoming tiny have no chance of going through the hole.

Let me clarify here: I am not saying I know why they put bridges where they put bridges. I make no claim on that area. I have never made claims about that subject. And when I design dungeons I put bridges where I think there should be bridges.

I AM saying that they do not put bridges into the game while I am playing as a response to me not being able to cross a gap. If I can't cross a gap because of my character building choices then Larian is not going to add a bridge just for me. Do I need to have been to their board meetings to know that? Can't I just have played the game and seen it for myself?

When I design an adventure and add a ravine, I don't then look at the player's sheets and think "wow they are not going to be able to cross this! I better add a bridge". Because A) they might surprise me, B) that would invalidate their choices.

You said that there are sections of BG3 that are unplayable because of build-choices and your example is those small holes that only tiny creatures can use. That's false, none of the areas those holes go to are areas that are unplayable unless you can use the hole. So no BG3 doesn't add a bridge on the fly, but they very much planned out multiple paths to get to the same area in order to ensure that every area is playable regardless of the player's build choices. They placed climbable rocks or vines or ladders or yes even a bridge to ensure that you can walk the long way around to the same location and that all areas are playable.

[Blatant Beast]

But, yes, I agree with your premise, OP.
The story your DM wants to tell will accommodate the party as it needs to. If "do you know this spell?" is going to be a wall, the game just grinds to an immediate halt and no one has fun when that happens.

That is a big presumption, it is also a prime example of metagaming/deus machina/formulaic style thought . If I wanted to write a novel, I would, as a DM, I am not writing a novel. Many DM's I know, approach running a game as having a script of events that would play out, without player intervention: and then the rest of the campaign is essentially the player foiling, and altering those events.

One can also be an Elden Ring style DM. If the players have made decisions that has ground the game to a halt, then the players also bear the responsibility to make decisions that renders them unstuck, if they so chose.

Finding a long forgotten Teleportation Circle formula to Moil, is it's own special reward.
Quality of life wise, it is cooler if the party can use this directly. If the party can not, then perhaps, they can find a spellcaster that would be willing to cast the spell for them.

If the party killed the only spell caster capable of casting the spell, and getting to Moil is essential, well I guess that is how the story proceeds.....some of the best games I have been involved in, have been games where the Player Characters have made choices that had less than optimal results.

[Aimeryan]

I am skeptical of the claim that you need to DM by proxy if you don't have certain spells, and I'm afraid the only solution we have here is to start throwing out examples and arguing over those examples.

I'm also skeptical that players don't have agency without certain spells.

Not no agency, less. I acknowledge your skepticism, however, the fact of the matter is that the skill system - as well as exploration in general - is highly DM fiat. Something the player may think will work can fall down at a dozen points with a casual remark from the DM. Spells, on the other hand, do what they say they do.

[LudicSavant]

The more you can predict and control the outcome of your choice, the more agency you have.

[stoutstien]

The more you can predict and control the outcome of your choice, the more agency you have.

There is a point when having control of the outcomes starts reducing agency due to elimination of risk and costs. It's why we use dice in the first place.

[NichG]

Risk and costs don't contribute to agency. They can contribute to other aesthetics.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not no agency, less. I acknowledge your skepticism, however, the fact of the matter is that the skill system - as well as exploration in general - is highly DM fiat. Something the player may think will work can fall down at a dozen points with a casual remark from the DM. Spells, on the other hand, do what they say they do.
Well, if we're complaining about how much the skill system is up to DM fiat, I'll build the bandwagon myself and we can all hop on.

But that doesn't remove agency.

Players without a Fly spell don't approach a ravine and then slump down into unthinking and un-moving lumps that the DM then places around the map. And I think it's uncharitable to call it "co-DMing" because the DM has to adjudicate the actions the player is choosing to take. That's just the DM running the game.

If you cast Speak with Dead, the DM has to adjudicate how that corpse answers those questions. I wouldn't consider that as the spellcaster "co-DMing" because the DM now has to "entertain" your idea that this corpse might have some useful information.

[Segev]

Thinking about the example of traveling to the plane if fire, it isn't that it lets you go where the plot is. It is that it lets you go where the fiery enemy's boss is to try to go over his head. Maybe the DM meant for you to go there; maybe not. But when you can just do it, then you can do it on your own terms and when it is use full to you.

[Unoriginal]

Thinking about the example of traveling to the plane if fire, it isn't that it lets you go where the plot is. It is that it lets you go where the fiery enemy's boss is to try to go over his head. Maybe the DM meant for you to go there; maybe not. But when you can just do it, then you can do it on your own terms and when it is use full to you.

Being able to go in the Plane of Fire and talk to your enemy's boss requires more than "on your own term", whether you can cast a spell or find a portal.

Spells like Plane Shift requires you to have a plane-attuned tuning fork, and you need to know where the boss is pretty precisely. And the boss needs to exist in the first place, of course.

The dynamic is different, between "I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.

[Telok]

"I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help. They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

By comparison a party of people unable to cast plane shift is also much more likely to lack the intelligence modifiers, knowledge proficencies, and divinations for the basic information. That's in addition to not knowing if there's a conveniently nearby portal, not knowing how to activate it, and then fighting for or negotiating accesd to that portal.

The caster player is in a position to ask the GM a few questions, maybe cast some divinations and make a couple rolls, and (setting & GM dependent) make/buy/quest a tuning fork. The non-caster gets to ask similar questions, but then if the answer is yes (setting & GM dependent) the GM is far more likely to have to come up with the npcs, monsters, encounters, battle maps, and treasure that goes into the "find a sage to find a portal to travel to it to go through it" quest.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.

[clash]

I mean the portal and it's defenses seen like something that would already be prepared in a campaign that involves traveling to the plane of fire. Things like divination and knowledge dcs would likely have to be improvised on the spot (ie DM fiat) or over prepared in advance (also dm fiat) unless the dm is specifically catering to pc abilities when designing the campaign (very much DM fiat). I think the dm goes much more or of their way to accommodate the players with plane shift spell than those without.

[NichG]

The DM being involved is different than the DM planning something in advance.

With options like Plane Shift, the campaign may end up going to the Plane of Fire only because one of the players was interested in going there. Run the same campaign with a different player, and the party never goes to the Plane of Fire at all.

Spells certainly aren't the only way this can happen, but they're notable in that they're a bit of the game system that tells DMs 'hey, if a character casts this spell, this thing is gonna happen!'. A player could say 'hey, I'm a scholarly type, I go to the local library and research portals to the Plane of Fire' and the DM can say 'uh, why would you think that would work, there's no such things on record...'. They might even think that that's what they *should* do, what the game expects them to do in order to keep the group on track. Having something that says 'basically at this point, plane hopping is on the table as no big deal' establishes something about the kind of gameplay that players could expect at those levels.

In that sense, the 'it just works!' aspect establishes something about the sorts of games D&D supports in a way that something technically being possible if the player thinks to use a skill that way and if the DM agrees it should work doesn't.

[Aimeryan]

But that doesn't remove agency.

Theorectically? You're correct - the DM could rule in your favour every time, and the dice could roll in your favour every time.
Practically? Odds are it does. If spells were as wishy-washy as 'mother may I' and 'hope I roll well' then this would be different - thankfully, they aren't.

[Unoriginal]

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help.

Which divination spells are you saying will help with that task?

Locate Object doesn't have that big a range, and that's the only relevant spell I can think of.



They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

Indeed. And that is a DM intervention.



If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like Plane Shift, is using a setting without it, or is using a setting where tuning forks aren't conveniently located, then the casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do.

That's what I mean when I say both requires DM intervention.

Again, it is true that "we need to find a portal" is a very different dynamic/plot line than "I have a spell that can do the job". But that doesn't make one less DM-interventiony.

[Mastikator]

That is my point. The DM is always reacting to the players and having to run the world in response to their actions.

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.

[Unoriginal]

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.

Casting Fly, Teleport of Speak with Animals is an action at the table, though. And the DM will have to react to it.

If the DM wishes to ban Fly, Teleport or Speak With Animals, it is also up to them, but it is poor form to not inform players of that during session 0/during the campaign pitch.

[Mastikator]

Casting Fly, Teleport of Speak with Animals is an action at the table, though. And the DM will have to react to it.

If the DM wishes to ban Fly, Teleport or Speak With Animals, it is also up to them, but it is poor form to not inform players of that during session 0/during the campaign pitch.

So you agree with me. DM reacts to actions player take at the table.

Completely separate from DM preps as response to player having option on character sheet.

[Dr.Samurai]

Being able to go in the Plane of Fire and talk to your enemy's boss requires more than "on your own term", whether you can cast a spell or find a portal.

Spells like Plane Shift requires you to have a plane-attuned tuning fork, and you need to know where the boss is pretty precisely. And the boss needs to exist in the first place, of course.

The dynamic is different, between "I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.
Yes, this is a better example than my Speak with Dead example.

It isn't "more work" or "catering" or "co-DMing" with a party with a lack of spells. Unless of course... we just ignore things like spell components. Or we assume things like "this spell component will be easy to get".

We do a fair amount of assuming things will just work out for casters so maybe that's the point being made :smallconfused:.

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help. They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

By comparison a party of people unable to cast plane shift is also much more likely to lack the intelligence modifiers, knowledge proficencies, and divinations for the basic information. That's in addition to not knowing if there's a conveniently nearby portal, not knowing how to activate it, and then fighting for or negotiating accesd to that portal.

The caster player is in a position to ask the GM a few questions, maybe cast some divinations and make a couple rolls, and (setting & GM dependent) make/buy/quest a tuning fork. The non-caster gets to ask similar questions, but then if the answer is yes (setting & GM dependent) the GM is far more likely to have to come up with the npcs, monsters, encounters, battle maps, and treasure that goes into the "find a sage to find a portal to travel to it to go through it" quest.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.
Yeah see... this assumes like the tuning fork is a nonissue, but the portal will be an issue.

Theorectically? You're correct - the DM could rule in your favour every time, and the dice could roll in your favour every time.
Practically? Odds are it does. If spells were as wishy-washy as 'mother may I' and 'hope I roll well' then this would be different - thankfully, they aren't.
It's the other way around actually. This forum discussion is theoretical, and practical experience at the table is a party of non-spellcasters will get by just fine. And not because the DM is puppeteering them either.

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.
I think we're arguing two different points.

I'm arguing against the reply that a DM has to cater/work more/share DMing responsibilities with players that can't cast spells. So if we bullet point your reply there, point 3 will always lead back to point 1, whether they can cast spells or not. No difference.

[Aimeryan]

It's the other way around actually. This forum discussion is theoretical, and practical experience at the table is a party of non-spellcasters will get by just fine. And not because the DM is puppeteering them either.

Viability and agency are two completely different things.


I think we're arguing two different points.

I know this part was aimed at Mastikator, but yeah... yeah we are.

[Mastikator]

I'm arguing against the reply that a DM has to cater/work more/share DMing responsibilities with players that can't cast spells. So if we bullet point your reply there, point 3 will always lead back to point 1, whether they can cast spells or not. No difference.

I was trying to stay on topic. "Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions."
- clash

Whether they have the capacity to do out of combat stuff was to my understanding the subject of this thread. Whether they choose to use those options is off topic.

When you design an adventure that takes place in the City of Brass, do you look at the player character sheets to see if they have plane shift, and do you add a portal/NPC/item to plane shift them if they can't. Or do you just add the portal/NPC/item anyway, regardless of their ability. If you add it anyway, is the option to cast the spell actually matter. Or do you look at their ability to do out of combat options, and make an adventure based on those.

These are all decisions that happen before the adventure starts.

I think option 3 is too fragile, players can miss a session and leave the other players unable to go.
I think option 1 is too arbitrary and too much work.
So I always go for option 2. Make an adventure that any party can finish (and add multiple paths and outcomes that depend on out of combat options. But don't go crazy, just add enough details that the players can get creative, and they'll always surprise you, but again, off topic)

[Segev]

Well, if your position is not only that the DM will enable (for example) planar travel to the planes he has determined the plot will take the players to, but also that he will actively forbid spells that would allow them to get to planes he didn't specifically plan for non-spell ways to get to them, then yes, the caster abilities that enable the thing he DM will ensure do not work don't matter.

However, if the players tell the DM, "We would like to go the Plane of Fire," he may ask "why" but he also almost certainly will ask "how." And if the players say they are going to do research into planar portals, the DM decides whether they can find anything at all, and also where the portals are on both ends and how they are activated.

Sure, he can do a lot of the same if the players' answer is, "Wizmadoo will cast plane shift to get there," because he can make some of thise hoops they must jump through be to get the tuning fork. However, once Wizmadoo has the fork, he can cast the spell every day. Moreover, with a portal, Wizmadoo and party can get cut off from that portal, and have to find their way back, fighting or sneaking or whatever. If the party is stuck on the Plane if Fire with Wizmadoo, he can just cast the spell to go back home at any point he has a spell slot of the appropriate level available.

The DM's freedom to put them anywhere on the plane he likes is like the ability to set the portal location, but even that is unlikely to go to the same (undesirable) place every time. (A teleportation circle to target is a choice on the players' part whether to use or not, especially if they can create their own!)

These spells just put much more in the hands of the players, giving them more agency. Unless the DM essentially bans them.

[Rukelnikov]

There's a difference between the two examples being talked here.

One requires DM intervention to work, the other requires DM intervention to NOT work.

[clash]

There's a difference between the two examples being talked here.

One requires DM intervention to work, the other requires DM intervention to NOT work.

I would argue the spells require more dm intervention to work because as I've stated before the dm had likely accounted for the non spell route when creating the campaign. If the players require a tuning fork instead of using a portal chances are the dm needs to go out of his way to enable that alternate route.

Either way I don't think DM fiat is the measuring stick for if your spells actually have an impact.

[JNAProductions]

I would argue the spells require more dm intervention to work because as I've stated before the dm had likely accounted for the non spell route when creating the campaign. If the players require a tuning fork instead of using a portal chances are the dm needs to go out of his way to enable that alternate route.

Either way I don't think DM fiat is the measuring stick for if your spells actually have an impact.

What if the DM doesn't have a plot planned out?
What if the DM is reactive to what the players do, instead of having a set path in mind?

[clash]

What if the DM doesn't have a plot planned out?
What if the DM is reactive to what the players do, instead of having a set path in mind?

Then speaking as a DM it would be the same amount of work either way but would likely provide me more time to prepare for the planar adventure in the case where they are looking for a portal first. If the players want to get to the plane of fire in but going to say yes you can plane shift there but no one else in the world can help you get there if you don't know the spell.

I fail to see how getting there without the spell is requiring me to be more permissive

[Dr.Samurai]

Viability and agency are two completely different things.

I know this part was aimed at Mastikator, but yeah... yeah we are.
Seems clear to me that the OP is asking about viability, not agency.

And insofar as there is wealth to spend and NPC spellcasters, we're talking about an added step between the agency you allege to have, and the agency nonspellcasters have.

I was trying to stay on topic. "Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions."
- clash

Whether they have the capacity to do out of combat stuff was to my understanding the subject of this thread. Whether they choose to use those options is off topic.
You're confusing me, sorry to say.

The OP is saying that there is much made about how casters have these utility spells that let them overcome stuff that others can't. And the OP is saying "yeah but... you would just overcome it some other way without the spells, so does it really matter?"

When you design an adventure that takes place in the City of Brass, do you look at the player character sheets to see if they have plane shift, and do you add a portal/NPC/item to plane shift them if they can't. Or do you just add the portal/NPC/item anyway, regardless of their ability. If you add it anyway, is the option to cast the spell actually matter. Or do you look at their ability to do out of combat options, and make an adventure based on those.

These are all decisions that happen before the adventure starts.

I think option 3 is too fragile, players can miss a session and leave the other players unable to go.
I think option 1 is too arbitrary and too much work.
So I always go for option 2. Make an adventure that any party can finish (and add multiple paths and outcomes that depend on out of combat options. But don't go crazy, just add enough details that the players can get creative, and they'll always surprise you, but again, off topic)
I generally agree with this, as before.

The OP reads to my as if coming from the place where people assume that if the party doesn't have Plane Shift, they can't get to other planes, and this therefore adds a level of superiority and utility to those spellcasters that can access Plane Shift. But we, and the OP, are saying that Plane Shift is not the only way to the other planes, and the party will figure it out. And if the DM designed an adventure with no way to resolve unless a member of the party was:

1. a specific class
2. a specific level
3. and knew a specific spell

Then the DM set everyone up to fail when the party shows up and that specific character isn't in it.

Then speaking as a DM it would be the same amount of work either way but would likely provide me more time to prepare for the planar adventure in the case where they are looking for a portal first. If the players want to get to the plane of fire in but going to say yes you can plane shift there but no one else in the world can help you get there if you don't know the spell.

I fail to see how getting there without the spell is requiring me to be more permissive
Because it's common to view the game through "what can spellcasters do" lenses and think that everything revolves around casters. So this idea that the DM will have to react to the party not having a spell to do something as "burdensome" or "more work" and "co-DMing", but the DM reacting to an impromptu jaunt to another plane of existence, or casting Divination spells all the time, or reading people's thoughts, or speaking with every corpse, etc. is NOT more work for the DM is just a bias.

There is no difference between "We'd like to find a portal to the Plane of Fire" and "We'd like to find a tuning fork attuned to the Plane of Fire" as far as DM burden. The difference will be that the portal will take the players wherever the DM decides, whereas Plane Shift will take the players generally to the location they want to go to. This is the "agency" others are speaking of, but not, what I think, the OP was referring to.

Generally, I would agree with the other side that it matters insofar as timing and precision. But that's not how people talk about it online, and so it's not what the OP is referring to. We all have read countless posts about this and how martials can't do things because they don't have spells, and that's where this is coming from.

[Telok]

Yeah see... this assumes like the tuning fork is a nonissue, but the portal will be an issue.'

No, it assumes that the character with Plane Shift wants to use the spell and likely would have looked into getting tuning forks, thus starting with more than zero information. Also the bit I was responding to was about a game where the party decided to try going to another plane to solve something, not a preplanned off-plane adventure. Without people moving goal posts, yes it does need more GM work & intervention to add in the typical non-caster enabling portal mini adventure and travel than just finding a tuning fork.

If the GM wants to go totally off into "no you can't" or "yes and scene change you're there now" they can do so with equal ease for either case. They can demand that you have to have a tuning fork made of metal from the plane of fire and there are none on the prime just, as easily as they can have the party fall down a random hole through a portal to the plane of fire. But most won't do that level of absolute yes/no.

The question wasn't about whether the GM can be equally railroading scuzz or total floormat in either case. It was about if the GM had to do more to enable some party traveling to the planes. The GM when faced with "the party wants to travel to plane X" has two cases here; the party has the core PH rulebook spell that says yes and the GM decides how hard they want to make it, or the party has no inherent means and the GM uses an optional bit from the DMG including possibly having to change worldbuilding & setting before they decide how hard they want to make it.

I'm not interested in shuffling through every possible detail of someone else's hypothetic goal shifting scenario. The game's default by the core rules is that there's a Plane Shift spell and tuning forks that can be bought, found, or made. The optional stuff for portals is not an assumed default always on option and involves more work & intervention bt the GM to enable the party to go off into the planes. If I were running a game where I didn't pre-plan extraplanar stuff and the players got a bug to go off to the plane of whatever then if they have Plane Shift all I have to do it OK finding the tuning fork. If they don't then I have work to do just to enable them to get to another plane before they can do anything else.

This applies to pretty much everything beyond being able to just walk/sail to a location. If there are flying castles the GM adds extra stuff so the noncaster party can adventure there. If there is an underwater kingdom the GM adds extra stuff so the noncaster party can adventure there. Even if some adventure point is just far away the GM has to deal with the noncaster party possibly taking months just to get from point A to B and possibly never completing the trip at all. Its not better, or worse, or right, or wrong. Its just that the party with casters has more and better travel, investigation, social manipulation, and infiltration options by default of the PH being packed with spells to do that stuff.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, it assumes that the character with Plane Shift wants to use the spell and likely would have looked into getting tuning forks, thus starting with more than zero information. Also the bit I was responding to was about a game where the party decided to try going to another plane to solve something, not a preplanned off-plane adventure. Without people moving goal posts, yes it does need more GM work & intervention to add in the typical non-caster enabling portal mini adventure and travel than just finding a tuning fork.
Says who though? Where does it tell us in the books how difficult it is to source a tuning fork attuned to another plane? Or what the process of attuning that tuning fork is? That's all up to the DM. It's as difficult or easy as the DM wants it to be.

The question wasn't about whether the GM can be equally railroading scuzz or total floormat in either case.
When people are making claims that the DM has to do more and work harder, while ignoring that the DM also has to do more in the case of wizards, the question is relevant.

You mention changing the worldbuilding and setting... and yet you are assuming something akin to items shops, where a wizard can waltz in and request a tuning fork attuned to specific planes. "Sure sir, let me just check my bin of tuning forks, hang on, I'm pretty sure I have one that gets you to Gehenna somewhere around here. Hmm, where did it go? Planar Pete just stopped by and dropped off a new shipment just the other day, gave me three tuning forks for each plane of existence. That's right, I get 15th level spellcasters in here all the time looking for tuning forks hehehe!"


I'm not interested in shuffling through every possible detail of someone else's hypothetic goal shifting scenario. The game's default by the core rules is that there's a Plane Shift spell and tuning forks that can be bought, found, or made.
No, the game has a spell and it tells you what that spell requires. It has absolutely NO text about whether you can buy that tuning fork, find it, or make it. That the DM will have to determine if/when you decide to use that spell.

The optional stuff for portals is not an assumed default always on option and involves more work & intervention bt the GM to enable the party to go off into the planes.
Telok, you don't level up to 15 and suddenly find a nifty tuning fork in your pocket. You have to acquire it.

If we're talking about extraplanar jaunts that aren't pre-planned, then chances are you don't have the tuning fork. So the very first step in your wizard's journey is "DM, I'd like to locate a tuning fork attuned to XYZ plane".

This is no different to a fighter saying "DM, I'd like to locate a portal attuned to XYZ plane".

The DM has to provide input in both cases, it's not simply up to the player.

If I were running a game where I didn't pre-plan extraplanar stuff and the players got a bug to go off to the plane of whatever then if they have Plane Shift all I have to do it OK finding the tuning fork. If they don't then I have work to do just to enable them to get to another plane before they can do anything else.
This is the case if this same group of players get this bug at any time before level 15 though. I mean... does this happen often?

Its not better, or worse, or right, or wrong.
I agree, but that's not how everyone sees it.

Its just that the party with casters has more and better travel, investigation, social manipulation, and infiltration options by default of the PH being packed with spells to do that stuff.
Only at the point that they select those spells.

[InvisibleBison]

If we're talking about extraplanar jaunts that aren't pre-planned, then chances are you don't have the tuning fork. So the very first step in your wizard's journey is "DM, I'd like to locate a tuning fork attuned to XYZ plane".

This is no different to a fighter saying "DM, I'd like to locate a portal attuned to XYZ plane".

No, it is different. If the DM says no to the wizard, she's negating one of the character's class features. If the DM says no to the fighter, she's not negating one of the character's class features. And while the DM is technically allowed to negate a character's class features, it's a far bigger violation of the game's social contract than not letting a character do something that isn't on their character sheet, so much so that it's generally accepted that it can only be done if the DM has said ahead of time (ideally ahead of the game even starting!) that it's going to happen.

[Segev]

You know, all PCs' non-combat abilities are entirely superfluous. After all, if the DM wants them to be able to do something the PCs can't, he will just give them an NPC, magic item, or other plot coupon to do it for them!

[Rafaelfras]

The fork is a very relevant point. When you start to think about it, plane shift seems to be thought out as a check point instead of an enabler.

If the fork cannot be acquired by normal means the only way to get it would be traveling to the desired plane first and then once there attuning the fork there.
So caster or non caster will have to find a portal first, but if you have the caster you get the ability to leave and go back without needing the portal, so like a check point.

A DM that isn't interested on the journey to the desired plane can skip it for both caster or non caster. For caster here is a shop with your fork, for non casters here is a mage that will port you in and out whenever you need.


You know, all PCs' non-combat abilities are entirely superfluous. After all, if the DM wants them to be able to do something the PCs can't, he will just give them an NPC, magic item, or other plot coupon to do it for them!

I think more than anything non-combat abilities have a greater weight on the DM when creating an adventure. Instead of giving certain clues he will wait on the players to use divination. Instead of preparing planar portals he will let players use plane shift or portal. He will make a fortress very hard ( or impossible) to enter, so the assassin can use his level 9 ability. He will have to remember of spells like private sanctum and forbearance exist so teleport cant be an easy solution. While when these abilities aren't there, there will be specific solutions so the adventure can happen

[Unoriginal]

In Descent into Avernus, the PCs have to travel to Hell despite being ~level 5.

The way the module proposes to descend into Avernus? The NPC who helped the PCs realize they needed to go to hell knows an Archmage who has Plane Shift, the right tuning fork, and (IIRC) a favor they need to repay.

[Telok]

For me its just easier world building to have stuff like the baseline default spells function normally. If that means treating planar tuning forks like Boots of Flying then that's fine. But I wouldn't consider barring a sorcerer who picked Plane Shift for casting the spell to be reasonable. It'd be like saying there's no teleport circles anywhere ever if they chose the teleport spell. I may as well stiff the fighter by saying there's no magic weapons in the setting or changing all the strength saves to dexterity saves.

Having stuff like portals, just to make it so noncasters can go plane hopping, is either going to involve considering the effects of the portals on the setting or getting called out for bull **** when the crap world building fails fridge logic. Its flat out more work as a GM. If you're running a railroad plot then making sure the PCs can always get to the next plot point is required so things don't collapse if nobody rolls a wizard or something. But if you build sandboxes or hex crawls with stuff like flying cloud castles or underwater civilizations then you're either doing more work to enable noncasters to participate or locking out parties without the right spells.

Yeah, adding extra stuff to enable noncaster parties to play parts of the game is extra work for the GM. At that level the caster noncombat stuff matters. It also matters that if everything done by noncombat spells is available by other means, in order to let noncasters play at the same game as casters, then the casters can ditch those spell picks and load up on all the best combat spells all the time. Personally, I'm happy when a player of a caster agonizes over choosing combat vs noncombat spells because both are equally useful and they don't have enough picks to get both.

[Mastikator]

You're confusing me, sorry to say.

The OP is saying that there is much made about how casters have these utility spells that let them overcome stuff that others can't. And the OP is saying "yeah but... you would just overcome it some other way without the spells, so does it really matter?"And that would be like saying that teleport is meaningless because you can just walk. If teleport doesn't matter because you can just walk then it's a poorly written campaign. In this matter I 100% agree with Rynjin.


I generally agree with this, as before.

The OP reads to my as if coming from the place where people assume that if the party doesn't have Plane Shift, they can't get to other planes, and this therefore adds a level of superiority and utility to those spellcasters that can access Plane Shift. But we, and the OP, are saying that Plane Shift is not the only way to the other planes, and the party will figure it out. And if the DM designed an adventure with no way to resolve unless a member of the party was:

1. a specific class
2. a specific level
3. and knew a specific spell

Then the DM set everyone up to fail when the party shows up and that specific character isn't in it.That is putting the cart before the horse.
If the DM wants to run an adventure where the players go to another plane, then the DM should make that possible for any given party.
If the party wants to visit a plane, but doesn't have access to planeshift, then the DM is not *obliged to give them other means.
If the party wants to visit a plane, has access to planeshift but not the right tuning fork, they may **ask to craft or buy one, it's a much smaller ask from the DM than to put a whole archmage or portal.

The DM has many responsibilities, more than any of the players. More than all of the players. The DM can't possibly be asked to make the PCs for the players. The players need to pick up their end of the couch.


Because it's common to view the game through "what can spellcasters do" lenses and think that everything revolves around casters. So this idea that the DM will have to react to the party not having a spell to do something as "burdensome" or "more work" and "co-DMing", but the DM reacting to an impromptu jaunt to another plane of existence, or casting Divination spells all the time, or reading people's thoughts, or speaking with every corpse, etc. is NOT more work for the DM is just a bias.

There is no difference between "We'd like to find a portal to the Plane of Fire" and "We'd like to find a tuning fork attuned to the Plane of Fire" as far as DM burden. The difference will be that the portal will take the players wherever the DM decides, whereas Plane Shift will take the players generally to the location they want to go to. This is the "agency" others are speaking of, but not, what I think, the OP was referring to.

Generally, I would agree with the other side that it matters insofar as timing and precision. But that's not how people talk about it online, and so it's not what the OP is referring to. We all have read countless posts about this and how martials can't do things because they don't have spells, and that's where this is coming from.

TBH if the players have the means to impromptu planeshift then I'd probably end the session early, or take a 1-2 hour break to prepare stuff. It behooves the players to tell the DM what their plan is, so the DM can prep. If the players go off-rails then they should not be upset that the DM needs time to prepare, even if that interrupts the session.

There's four heavy burdens a DM must bear, two are affected by stuff like teleport and planar travel: Adventure prep and world building. Adventure prep takes time, if the players want to craft a tuning fork then that gives the DM time to prep. Then there is world building. The DM may decide that this is a world without friendly living archmages and a world without portals, the players have no right to change the theme of the world. It's a whole lot easier to justify a tuning fork than a portal or an archmage. A world with portals and archmages looks very different than a world without.
There is a huge difference between asking for a portal- ***a world defining element, and asking for a tuning fork.
The same is true for teleport, it's a lot easier to teleport to the other side of the planet, if the players do it without warning then they best get comfortable waiting for the DM to prep.


*the DM may still choose to, but they are not wrong for saying no.
**when they ask to craft a tuning fork they are giving the DM a chance to prep, this lowers the burden to the DM.
***what if the players don't care about that? Why can't we just have fun? You might wonder. Maybe this is what gets the DM excited, gets them motivated to DM. Why are players endlessly catered to and the DM (the one who does all the work) ignored? This deal seems completely lopsided to me.

[Vahnavoi]

This thread is a sad example of how focusing on "story" kills all sense of strategy and choice in a game.

It isn't just about casters, or non-combat solutions. It's about predestination of success that should have no place in a game.

All it takes for a choice to matter is that not all choices are equal. The basic paradigm is simple: a dungeon masters sets up a situation. The players choose their characters and actions based on what goals they're trying to accomplish in that situation. Either they choose well, in which case the game progresses towards those goals, or they choose poorly, in which case the game doesn't progress towards them. That's it.

You ruin it by adding in a presumption that the dungeon master will, or worse, should contrive events so that they always progress along the same line. As a player, starting with this presumption is a good way to waste your own agency.

As a dungeon master, it's just a silly way to run games. Stop making fragile, linear plots. Start making robust, non-linear ones. Somebody up thread, claimed it takes 10 times more prep than what sees play, as if that's a hard barrier to clear. Anybody who thinks that, cannot count. Look: if I design four encounters and then demand that players go trough them in exact sequence, I've prepared one possibility. If I design four encounters and then let players go through them in any order, I've now prepared 4! = 24 possibilities. Of those, the players will experience one - 1/24 of the overall game space. Some of those may end up in players losing. That is fine. It is completely normal for a game.

This is also the difference, to paraphrase NichG, between preparing content versus preparing processes to generate content. The latter is hardly foreign to 5e D&D, it has its share of random tables and what not. It just seems the player base is over a decade late to realizing why they are even present.

[Unoriginal]

This thread is a sad example of how focusing on "story" kills all sense of strategy and choice in a game.

It isn't just about casters, or non-combat solutions. It's about predestination of success that should have no place in a game.

All it takes for a choice to matter is that not all choices are equal. The basic paradigm is simple: a dungeon masters sets up a situation. The players choose their characters and actions based on what goals they're trying to accomplish in that situation. Either they choose well, in which case the game progresses towards those goals, or they choose poorly, in which case the game doesn't progress towards them. That's it.

You ruin it by adding in a presumption that the dungeon master will, or worse, should contrive events so that they always progress along the same line. As a player, starting with this presumption is a good way to waste your own agency.

A player who rolls a Wizard and decide to take Plane Shift as they level up is demonstrating agency.

If the campaign has nothing to do with the planes or planar travel, then the player wasted one of their Wizard's learn-a-spell-when-leveling options.

Same as the Wizard who took Water Breathing when the campaign happens entirely in a desert.

But the thing is, it doesn't make sense if "one of your teammates needs to have the right spell" is the ONLY way to progress toward a goal.

If the campaign involves the bad guys using an underwater temple, and none of the group's casters is able to cast Water Breathing, is the DM supposed to just go "well dang, guess you can't go deal with that temple."?

Despite the fact that the DMG shows *multiple* magic items that could help with it, and the fact that the casters in the group are not likely to be the only beings with relevant magic in the world?

What if the bad guy are using a temple which floats in the sky? Are the PCs dependent on one of their members taking the Fly spell for them to progress toward the "beat the bad guys who are using a sky temple" goal? Or is there multiple options in the world for sky travel, including magic items, creatures who can fly and transport humanoids at the same time, and practitioners of magic who aren't in the group?

Or heck, is capturing one of the bad guys and making them use the method the bad guys use to travel to the sky temple out of the realm of possibility, too?

Handing every solution for every problem on a silver platter isn't a good thing for a campaign or for GMing in general. But refusing the idea that there are solutions beyond "what's written on the character sheet" isn't a good thing for a campaign or GMing in general either.

[Vahnavoi]

But the thing is, it doesn't make sense if "one of your teammates needs to have the right spell" is the ONLY way to progress toward a goal.

Whether it makes sense is entirely situational. The actual important part is that whether players have just one or multiple good choices to pursue a goal, they can also blow those choices.


If the campaign involves the bad guys using an underwater temple, and none of the group's casters is able to cast Water Breathing, is the DM supposed to just go "well dang, guess you can't go deal with that temple."?

Despite the fact that the DMG shows *multiple* magic items that could help with it, and the fact that the casters in the group are not likely to be the only beings with relevant magic in the world?

You are loading the question. The fact that a dungeon master can place multiple ways to approach the temple, does not mean they have to - and regardless, as noted above, even if there are multiple, the players can just blow them all. It is, in fact, perfectly fair to note to players "you did not make any of the choices that'd allow you to pursue that goal, so either call it quits or pick another goal". Though if players are even mildly self-aware, they'll make the same observation on their own once their error becomes clear. As a player, being able to evaluate when a strategy has failed, and coming up with a new strategy, are what you are supposed to do.


Handing every solution for every problem on a silver platter isn't a good thing for a campaign or for GMing in general. But refusing the idea that there are solutions beyond "what's written on the character sheet" isn't a good thing for a campaign or GMing in general either.

You are arguing against a point that wasn't being made. What I said doesn't care about whether the options players are picking from are on their character sheet or somewhere else.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, it is different. If the DM says no to the wizard, she's negating one of the character's class features.
The wizard does not have a class feature that says "You will have a tuning fork for every plane of existence you may ever want to travel to."

This is a presumption that if your wizard decides they want to plane hop, having the means to do so is going to be easy peasy because they have a spell at level 15 that says they can travel to another dimension.

But when we're having a conversation about DM buy-in and players doing stuff without DM intervention, ignoring the tuning fork is having your cake and eating it too, pure and simple.


I think more than anything non-combat abilities have a greater weight on the DM when creating an adventure. Instead of giving certain clues he will wait on the players to use divination. Instead of preparing planar portals he will let players use plane shift or portal. He will make a fortress very hard ( or impossible) to enter, so the assassin can use his level 9 ability. He will have to remember of spells like private sanctum and forbearance exist so teleport cant be an easy solution. While when these abilities aren't there, there will be specific solutions so the adventure can happen
This sounds about right to me.

For me its just easier world building to have stuff like the baseline default spells function normally. If that means treating planar tuning forks like Boots of Flying then that's fine. But I wouldn't consider barring a sorcerer who picked Plane Shift for casting the spell to be reasonable. It'd be like saying there's no teleport circles anywhere ever if they chose the teleport spell. I may as well stiff the fighter by saying there's no magic weapons in the setting or changing all the strength saves to dexterity saves.
Two points; firstly there's a spectrum here. Like you can go from no magic items to magic item marts every town and hamlet. Secondly, your point is basically just saying that casters should be able to meet the requirements for their spells automatically because it's easier. But I don't understand how it isn't as easy to assume NPC spellcasters or portals or flying mounts, etc. I mean... where does the tuning fork come from? Can't the same person that has the tuning fork to sell or barter also cast Plane Shift?

I mean... the answer can be no, but if the answer is yes was that so difficult?

Having stuff like portals, just to make it so noncasters can go plane hopping, is either going to involve considering the effects of the portals on the setting or getting called out for bull **** when the crap world building fails fridge logic. Its flat out more work as a GM. If you're running a railroad plot then making sure the PCs can always get to the next plot point is required so things don't collapse if nobody rolls a wizard or something. But if you build sandboxes or hex crawls with stuff like flying cloud castles or underwater civilizations then you're either doing more work to enable noncasters to participate or locking out parties without the right spells.
Getting called out for BS sounds like a table issue.

And something that hasn't been said yet is that this is a huge level of entitlement to and pressure on the party spellcaster to use their spells known and spells prepared on specific utility spells. Sounds like a nightmare to play with people with such a strong sense of "how to play".

Personally, I'm happy when a player of a caster agonizes over choosing combat vs noncombat spells because both are equally useful and they don't have enough picks to get both.
Excellent point, because you'll find that the party overcoming an obstacle without spells is more common than this thread would suggest. Because wizards aren't just selecting every utility spell every level.

And FYI, finding scrolls or spellbooks to learn other spells is DM fiat :smallamused:.

And that would be like saying that teleport is meaningless because you can just walk. If teleport doesn't matter because you can just walk then it's a poorly written campaign. In this matter I 100% agree with Rynjin.
My my, how the tables have turned, Judge Mastikator.

Haven't played in a campaign yet that has required Teleport, a 7th level spell. I'll let my DM and the WotC devs know how poorly written their mods are...

That is putting the cart before the horse.
No, it's rebutting the claims in this thread.

The DM has many responsibilities, more than any of the players. More than all of the players. The DM can't possibly be asked to make the PCs for the players.
Who suggested this?


**when they ask to craft a tuning fork they are giving the DM a chance to prep, this lowers the burden to the DM.
Asking to search for an NPC or research a portal is also giving the DM time to prep.

[Aimeryan]

A consideration that is not being discussed is the ability for the players to go off the rails and craft solutions that the DM did not think up. If you are restricted to non-caster options then the solution space is smaller, so the player's ability to do this is smaller. Agency is not an on-off switch - its a scale. Many players want to come up with solutions, not just discover the ones the DM left.

Yet another consideration is that while the DM is indeed likely to provide ever-alternative routes to progressing the campaign (likely with mechanical or lore penalties - "As you decided to take the long way around the chasm the blight was able to reach Innocentchildrensville before you arrived."), no such viability-retention is likely to be given to side quests or rewards. So, even if you only consider viability important and agency not to matter, viability can still be lost in the optional content.

[Mastikator]

The wizard does not have a class feature that says "You will have a tuning fork for every plane of existence you may ever want to travel to."So you may as well ban it? Is that what you're saying?


I'll let my DM and the WotC devs know how poorly written their mods are...[QUOTE=Dr.Samurai;25996082]If you can't imagine a single time where having access to Teleport wouldn't have been massively impactful then I think that is due to a lack of trying.

[QUOTE=Dr.Samurai;25996082]No, it's rebutting the claims in this thread.Then you may be getting your posts mixed up. The one you posted where you quoted me is putting the cart before the horse.



Asking to search for an NPC or research a portal is also giving the DM time to prep.And?

[stoutstien]

Choice only matters if you have something to base it on otherwise it's just a blind gamble. Picking the right class, spell, or whatever isn't really a choice if it's just luck based if you pick the right option. Picking a number between 1 and 100 isn't a real choice but picking the likely number in a sequence is.

[Psyren]

There is a huge difference between asking for a portal- ***a world defining element, and asking for a tuning fork.

I would argue that the tuning fork is actually more work than the portal. Portals are completely in the DM's control - when they don't want to or aren't ready to do the planar adventure, they can just close it (temporarily or permanently), or tie its opening to a future cosmic event that the players can go gear up for, or they can have the entrance or exit move into the dungeon content they had previously prepared and so on. The tuning fork meanwhile puts the players squarely in the driver's seat - great if you have stuff ready to go for that plane at a moment's notice, not so much if life got in the way and the DM needs more than a long rest's worth of notice to get the planar session ready.

[NichG]

It was awhile back, but I remember making a thread to investigate this sort of thing more empirically. Here it is: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655038-Magical-MacGyver-side-by-side-comparison-game

If you want to see how out of combat options can matter, go through these scenarios with say a D&D wizard and a D&D fighter, run skills and ability checks however you think is reasonable, and see if it feels different to think through the scenarios with the different characters. How often does it feel frustrating, how often does it feel like there's stuff you're eager to try, how often do the character abilities shape how you'd approach it versus things any character can do, etc.

[Segev]

One of the most powerful characters I ever played was a shadow monk. Through relatively little use of class features, he wound up favor-trading with the fair folk and getting enmeshed in enough of their politics that he had fey vassals, fed one archfey to another by accepting an invitation to a banquet, and using the spoils of that to send an ancient dragon-queen and two of the three archfey of war-as-slaughter to the depths of space where they froze to death. That last was done to help enthrone the dragon-queen's sister, who paid our mercenary company expecting military aid, not a decapitation strike.

By the end of the campaign, he was quite likely on the way to becoming an archfey in his own right, given the holdings and narratives he was developing.


And that was just my character. We all had all sorts of soft power and political pull, and all gained through our deeds and roleplay. We never could have been so potent if we had just built the PCs at level 9, which is, I think, where we ended that campaign. (We started at third level.)

[Vahnavoi]

Choice only matters if you have something to base it on otherwise it's just a blind gamble. Picking the right class, spell, or whatever isn't really a choice if it's just luck based if you pick the right option. Picking a number between 1 and 100 isn't a real choice but picking the likely number in a sequence is.

And is picking your character and actions usually just a blind gamble to you? All of the classes, from the basic rules, inform you what they can and cannot do. As a character advances in a game, the player has opportunity to observe what is in the game world and choose their actions accordingly. They will see a mountain before they have to climb it, they can hear stories of sunken treasure or distant islands before they have the funds to buy a ship or learn Water Breathing, they will see creatures flying overhead way before learning how to fly themselves, and they will hear rumours of the Dark Lord's army long before facing them in combat. So on and so forth.

[stoutstien]

And is picking your character and actions usually just a blind gamble to you? All of the classes, from the basic rules, inform you what they can and cannot do. As a character advances in a game, the player has opportunity to observe what is in the game world and choose their actions accordingly. They will see a mountain before they have to climb it, they can hear stories of sunken treasure or distant islands before they have the funds to buy a ship or learn Water Breathing, they will see creatures flying overhead way before learning how to fly themselves, and they will hear rumours of the Dark Lord's army long before facing them in combat. So on and so forth.

Choosing a class that has plane jumping or not without knowing if it's going to be relevant is pretty blind. It just goes unnoticed because spell are free floating so you are rarely if every really in a place where you have to commit to something permanently. But if no one has those options you are now in the place the OP describes where you can't just readjust and start hopping meaning the GM now needs to adjust the world to progress.

However the tickler is if you do explicitly tell them that plane jumping is going to be involved in the campaign then they will just pick up those option anyways.

There isn't a real choice here for either the players or GM. It's wasted design space while also wastes the GMs time which is arguably the most important resource for actually playing the game.

[NichG]

One of the most powerful characters I ever played was a shadow monk. Through relatively little use of class features, he wound up favor-trading with the fair folk and getting enmeshed in enough of their politics that he had fey vassals, fed one archfey to another by accepting an invitation to a banquet, and using the spoils of that to send an ancient dragon-queen and two of the three archfey of war-as-slaughter to the depths of space where they froze to death. That last was done to help enthrone the dragon-queen's sister, who paid our mercenary company expecting military aid, not a decapitation strike.

By the end of the campaign, he was quite likely on the way to becoming an archfey in his own right, given the holdings and narratives he was developing.


And that was just my character. We all had all sorts of soft power and political pull, and all gained through our deeds and roleplay. We never could have been so potent if we had just built the PCs at level 9, which is, I think, where we ended that campaign. (We started at third level.)

(If you're replying to the scenario parameters:) Many of the people who responded did bring in characters with their history, connections, etc rather than building direct to level 9. While some of the scenarios explicitly don't allow for bringing in soft power, for others you can place those scenarios into the character's setting and take the soft power into account if you'd like.

Of course this all depends on what design question you're trying to answer. 'What amount of soft power is needed to match the sorts of options a spell list provides, so I can design my campaigns to make at least that much power available?' would be useful to ask for example, as well as 'Where are the limits of soft power in what sorts of things it lets a character interact with?' or 'How does it feel to wield soft power vs direct power in these different situations?'.

[Vahnavoi]

Choosing a class that has plane jumping or not without knowing if it's going to be relevant is pretty blind.

And is this usual for your games? In D&D, with its default of Great Wheel cosmology? A character, and player, can, at level 1, know there are other planes outside the Prime Material and start planning whether they want to visit them or not.


However the tickler is if you do explicitly tell them that plane jumping is going to be involved in the campaign then they will just pick up those option anyways.

You are falling prey to the presumption of predestination. Placing an element in a game as a place that can be visited, does not mean it will be visited - that choice can be left to the players. With the addition that there can be a window of opportunity for when they can make that choice - miss that window, and that place is off limits.

This starts far earlier than plane-hopping. These kind of strategic decisions begin at level 1, with mundane decisions such as which rooms of a dungeon to explore. It's neither a waste of design space nor a waste of time - a move space bigger than what a single play-through can cover is necessary for there to be choice at all and doesn't take more time to achieve than a fragile linear script. Again, consider the simple example of four encounters, played strictly in order versus played in any order.

[Dr.Samurai]

So you may as well ban it? Is that what you're saying?
Seriously? Not even close.

I'll post a more in-depth response when I have time.


And is this usual for your games? In D&D, with its default of Great Wheel cosmology? A character, and player, can, at level 1, know there are other planes outside the Prime Material and start planning whether they want to visit them or not.



You are falling prey to the presumption of predestination. Placing an element in a game as a place that can be visited, does not mean it will be visited - that choice can be left to the players. With the addition that there can be a window of opportunity for when they can make that choice - miss that window, and that place is off limits.
These two comments seem at odds to me. On the one hand, the mere existence of other planes of existence means that characters should consider going to the other planes when generating their characters. On the other hand, the mere existence of other planes of existence should not lead anyone to assume that they will travel there during the game.

Seems Stoutstein is closer than you're giving him credit for.

It's neither a waste of design space nor a waste of time - a move space bigger than what a single play-through can cover is necessary for there to be choice at all and doesn't take more time to achieve than a fragile linear script. Again, consider the simple example of four encounters, played strictly in order versus played in any order.
If casting Plane Shift is the only way forward, then you are arguing for the exact type of fragile linear script you're arguing against here.

[KorvinStarmast]

If spells were as wishy-washy as 'mother may I' and 'hope I roll well' then this would be different - thankfully, they aren't. Every spell that requires an attack roll or triggers the target's saving throw is subject to the same limitation.

If the DM wants to run an adventure where the players go to another plane, then the DM should make that possible for any given party. Or, the players need to pursue various In World contacts and options for opening that door.

A consideration that is not being discussed is the ability for the players to go off the rails and craft solutions that the DM did not think up. Yes. This is the meat of the game. [/quote] "As you decided to take the long way around the chasm the blight was able to reach Innocentchildrensville before you arrived.") [/QUOTE] Time management and ticking clocks, and even doomsday clocks, are tools for the DM to apply, but there needs to be a sense or a feel of time, and time passing, for the players to connect to it.

[JNAProductions]

Every spell that requires an attack roll or triggers the target's saving throw is subject to the same limitation.

That's not the same. At all.

If I cast Firebolt and roll a total of 22 to-hit, I hit anything with AC 22 or less and miss anything with AC 23 or more.
If I get an Arcana check of 22, I... What?

[stoutstien]

And is this usual for your games? In D&D, with its default of Great Wheel cosmology? A character, and player, can, at level 1, know there are other planes outside the Prime Material and start planning whether they want to visit them or not.



You are falling prey to the presumption of predestination. Placing an element in a game as a place that can be visited, does not mean it will be visited - that choice can be left to the players. With the addition that there can be a window of opportunity for when they can make that choice - miss that window, and that place is off limits.

This starts far earlier than plane-hopping. These kind of strategic decisions begin at level 1, with mundane decisions such as which rooms of a dungeon to explore. It's neither a waste of design space nor a waste of time - a move space bigger than what a single play-through can cover is necessary for there to be choice at all and doesn't take more time to achieve than a fragile linear script. Again, consider the simple example of four encounters, played strictly in order versus played in any order.

If that point of failure is PC creation it's a big ol failure in my book. it's shifting all the decisions to non game elements and onto rules. I don't consider anything you do prior to
the point character are making in game choices as actual game play. You shouldn't exclude over half the classes from a core part of the setting just because they don't have spells.

[Dr.Samurai]

If that point of failure is PC creation it's a big ol failure in my book. it's shifting all the decisions to non game elements and onto rules. I don't consider anything you do prior to the point character are making in game choices as actual game play. You shouldn't exclude over half the classes from a core part of the setting just because they don't have spells.
I agree with this.

And I again take issue with the framing that this is some sort of failure on the part of the player. There is no "game" without the DM and players, so there is no default assumption that you're going to have a utility spellcaster in the party.

It's so easy for people to say "you don't need a healer in 5E" and "you don't need a tank in 5E".

But the utility caster... all of a sudden you're changing world lore, you're being a burden on the DM, you have no agency!!!!

[stoutstien]

I agree with this.

And I again take issue with the framing that this is some sort of failure on the part of the player. There is no "game" without the DM and players, so there is no default assumption that you're going to have a utility spellcaster in the party.

It's so easy for people to say "you don't need a healer in 5E" and "you don't need a tank in 5E".

But the utility caster... all of a sudden you're changing world lore, you're being a burden on the DM, you have no agency!!!!

Im taking a different approach for my WIP and I categorized spells and other effects by their potential impact when they become available. Prevents a GM from reading everything 10x and cross referencing it everything else. (What level can a party start bypassing water based challenges with little/no cost? What level does distance become a inconvenience rather than a barrier?)

This allows having prepacked lists that you can match to theme as quick as just flipping a page.

That and the *big* stuff like potential plane hopping is just not on any class as a feature. Some can do it with less resources or with more accuracy but it's just something you can do if you follow the ritual.

[Psyren]

If the DM wants to run an adventure where the players go to another plane, then the DM should make that possible for any given party.



Or, the players need to pursue various In World contacts and options for opening that door.

I'm a little confused, aren't these the same thing? It's not like someone else is putting contacts/options in the world.


If the party wants to visit a plane, but doesn't have access to planeshift, then the DM is not *obliged to give them other means.
If the party wants to visit a plane, has access to planeshift but not the right tuning fork, they may **ask to craft or buy one, it's a much smaller ask from the DM than to put a whole archmage or portal.

I already covered the portal/NPC thing actually being easier on the DM than the tuning fork - but as far as "if the party wants to visit a plane" - why would they want that unless a quest or story beat is pointing/taking them there?

[NichG]

I agree with this.

And I again take issue with the framing that this is some sort of failure on the part of the player. There is no "game" without the DM and players, so there is no default assumption that you're going to have a utility spellcaster in the party.

It's so easy for people to say "you don't need a healer in 5E" and "you don't need a tank in 5E".

But the utility caster... all of a sudden you're changing world lore, you're being a burden on the DM, you have no agency!!!!

I mean, the fix is not to write systems where you can specialize in the combat bits of the game to the exclusion of all else. Every character should have access to a good set of (distinct) utility options, and being competent at out of combat things in at least some fashion should be considered the normal expectation. If a player wants to challenge themselves by refusing all the utility options, that's fine, but IMO it's like going to a D&D game and saying 'I'm going to play a pacifist who refuses to participate in combat in any way' - get explicit buy-in from the group.

Those options don't have to be spells, but they should be sufficiently well-defined that players can plan around them - it should be possible to at least somewhat know what you will and won't be able to do when it comes down to it, the way a Fighter would be able to say with some confidence 'I think I can take a half-dozen goblins' and can conceptualize the specific ways in which that might go wrong 'oh, but not if we're fighting in the dark' or 'oh, but if they have cleric support it could be dicey' or whatever.

Some things are close to this in 5e, others are much further away. Spells are very definite, you can definitely know if you'll be able to fly over a 100ft gap or not. Stuff like lockpicking is probably close enough to count - you might not know the DC in advance, but its pretty unlikely for the DC to be impossible, and given time you can be pretty sure you can get it. Something like scouting planar portals to Fire or digging up blackmail material on a noble to get an invitation to the royal court? There are lots of factors outside of your control or estimation - it wouldn't be reasonable to make a plan around those sorts of things without prior confirmation from the DM.

[Xetheral]

I agree with the posters who've said (and/or implied) that the impact of out-of-combat abilities can depend greatly on the style of campaign in question. I see two major ways that usually plays out.

First, the more freedom the players have to set their characters' long-term goals, short-term objectives, and choice of methods, the more likely it is that the presence or absence of out-of-combat abilities will be a significant factor in how the campaign unfolds. Upthread the example was raised of an underwater city. In a game where the DM sets the party's goals, and decides that the goal is to infiltrate the underwater city as part of some intrigue with the mainland, then it's true that knowing Water Breathing is going to be, at best, a time-saver (although see below for how that can still matter). If instead the underwater city and the intrigue with the mainland are part of the campaign world that the players can choose whether, when, and how to engage with, then knowing Water Breathing opens up a lot more options. A party that doesn't have the ability to breathe underwater (or have easy access to allies that can provide that capability) has more constrained choices in how to engage (if at all) with that intrigue, but that's fine--not all options need to be equally available. Indeed, part of the fun of such campaigns is applying your limited resources to solve or bypass the obstacles to accomplishing the goals you've chosen. Maybe such a party tries negotiating with the underwater city, or recruits other underwater factions to oppose the city, or allies with the underwater city, or concludes that the opportunity cost of obtaining the ability to breathe underwater for an infiltration simply isn't worth the time--instead choosing some other goal that their resources are better suited to tackle.

Secondly, the less static the campaign world is, the more likely it is that out-of-combat abilities will be significant. Primarily, that's because such a game world doesn't wait for the PCs, and opportunities or make a difference are often time-limited. Time-saving abilities thus can make goals and objectives achievable that would otherwise be mutually exclusive. Furthermore, in some cases saving time can dramatically increase the PCs' ability to impact a single, large-scale situation. For example, if an enemy nation is invading on multiple fronts, the PCs might ordinarily be able to pick a single axis of advance and thwart it, but can't be everywhere at once, and so the broader invasion continues. With Teleport, the distance/time factor changes radically, and the PCs can indeed impact multiple threat axes. The enemy may not care much if one advance force gets stymied (they simply reinforce an axis where they did break through), but if all their advance forces get stopped that's going to profoundly affect their strategic options and planning. So time-saving out-of-combat abilities can still matter, even in a game where the DM picks the party's goals. Of course, in a more static campaign world where time isn't as much of a factor, time-saving abilities can indeed be more irrelevant.

One last point I'd like to make though is one that hasn't been raised yet. The more an out-of-combat ability can impact how a campaign unfolds, the more that ability becomes a party-level resource, rather than just a character-level one. The Wizard who uses their high-level spells slots to Teleport the party to multiple battlefields in time to make a difference to the outcomes enables the party to be spectacularly more impactful to the war effort, but once that capability is available the whole party gets to participate in figuring out how best to make use of it. The same can be true with other abilities like Fabricate, various divinations, Fly, and a whole host of other abilities. Importantly, that switch from character-level resource to party-level resource has a profound impact on intraparty balance. The Wizard in a party that makes good use of Teleport (in a campaign run in a style where that matters) is providing essential capability, but arguably isn't stealing the show to the same extent they would be if they routinely cast encounter-ending spells in a series of combat encounters. Indeed, in some cases, intraparty balance in such circumstances can disfavor the casters if they (e.g.) feel relegated to the role of taxi. Balance is so inherently subjective that I'm not trying to make any broad conclusions here. I'm just trying to point out that, counter-intuitively, running a campaign in a style that enables out-of-combat abilities to have more impact doesn't necessarily magnify balance concerns between classes that have more such abilities and classes that have fewer.

[Telok]

It's so easy for people to say "you don't need a healer in 5E" and "you don't need a tank in 5E".

But the utility caster... all of a sudden you're changing world lore, you're being a burden on the DM, you have no agency!!!!

Funny thing, I'd disagree with all three statements unless you have a pretty good GM who will intervene in the usual & expected game defaults to enable nonstandard parties. You can write adventures to not require any specific spells from PC casters pretty easily (not discussing if its done well or badly in any specific instance). But the combat paradigm of tank + heals + dps is less obvious, more assumed, and kind of baked in to the "adventuring day" stuff.

Like if you're running the usual 3-4 hard fights per "day" on small restricted maps (because indoors or outdoor VTT/battlemat maps or official module maps) with negligible meaningful cover (walk around/ jump over/ flying/ so small) then then as soon as you're past the "6 goblins in a bush" type of stuff healing becomes required and someone to take attacks from 3+ melee monsters a round is quite important. I'd be facinated to hear from anyone who ran a full published campaign past level 5 (out of the abyss, etc.) where the party never had any "tanks" and/or "healers" and the GM ran it as a neutral arbiter rather than changing it to fit the party.

[Vahnavoi]

.
These two comments seem at odds to me. On the one hand, the mere existence of other planes of existence means that characters should consider going to the other planes when generating their characters. On the other hand, the mere existence of other planes of existence should not lead anyone to assume that they will travel there during the game.

Seems Stoutstein is closer than you're giving him credit for.

There is nothing paradoxical about noting that possible actions and actual actions are different: there being a mountain on the horizon means I can consider climbing it as soon as I know it is possible to climb mountains, it does not mean I will climb that mountain or even always be in the condition to climb that mountain regardless of everything else I might choose to do.


If casting Plane Shift is the only way forward, then you are arguing for the exact type of fragile linear script you're arguing against here.

I'm not arguing for any given method to be the only way to do anything - the same points apply even if there are multiple methods to do any given thing. Again: players can blow all their options. It's perfectly fair to go "you didn't take any of the choices that'd allow you to pursue this goal, either call it quits or pick another goal".

---


If that point of failure is PC creation it's a big ol failure in my book. it's shifting all the decisions to non game elements and onto rules. I don't consider anything you do prior to
the point character are making in game choices as actual game play. You shouldn't exclude over half the classes from a core part of the setting just because they don't have spells.

Yes, having all strategic decisions front-loaded before play starts is not great. Is that usually the case for Plane Shift? Last I checked, it isn't, it's a late character option that can reached even by a character that starts as a non-caster via multi-classing. Sticking to a character that can never get Plane Shift isn't a choice you make at level 1, it's one you make continuously during play as you choose other advancement options.

Furthermore, half of classes not gaining a thing is not the same as half of characters being excluded. If a character is part of group, it's sufficient for one member of that group to be able to supply the thing. The example of Plane Shift is a strategic resource that not everyone needs to have in order to benefit from it, and the consideration for some people in a group to NOT have it stems from the incentive towards specialization. Such strategic considerations are very much part of gameplay, regardless of when exactly they happen.

[Unoriginal]

I have to say that a lot of people tend to overestimate the actual power of those out-of-combat options, when they talk about them.

Take the spell Teleport, for example.

Teleport can affect the caster + 8 willing targets at max. It cannot affect unwilling targets, and 9 individuals is a big number for a PC group but that's still fairly limited as far as transportation go.

Teleport has a 100% chances of success if and only if you have the code for a permanent circle or a tiny chunk of the place where you want to go.

Teleport has only 75% chances of success for a place the caster is very familiar with, including somewhere they're currently watching. It means that statistically, 1 out of 4 teleportation attempts to somewhere you're very familiar with will go wrong one way or another.

You have 12% chances the teleport is merely Off Target. How bad is Off Target? Well, it depends on what the dice says and the environment is at the end point, but you're ending up anywhere between 1% and 100% of the distance of your teleportation away from the end point you wanted to go to.

To put things in perspective, Waterdeep is about 500 miles from Baldur's Gate. In other words, attempting that Teleport has a significant chance of ending up with you thrown several dozens if not hundreds of miles in the Sea of Swords.

You have 8% chances the teleport brings you to a Similar Area. You arrive in any place that is "visually or thematically similar to the target area", with the spell description stating that while it's usually the closest area of that type, there is no guarantee to it and you could end up anywhere so long as it's on the same plane.

And you have 5% chances a Mishap happens. A Mishap will hurt everyone, though not a *huge* amount of damage for any character who can cast Teleport on their own, but keep in mind a Mishap means you have to re-roll on the table too and take that result. So, yeah.


Now take the "Seen Casually" chances. 56% chances to be on target, so slightly better than a coin toss. The mishap chances are now 33%, or 1 out of 3 attempts to use Teleport. 9% chances to end up in a similar area, anywhere on the plane. And off target is also 9%.

I dunno about you, but to me that makes clear teleportation via the Teleport spell is a *very* unreliable transportation method, unless you have a token of the place or the number for the right circle.

And yet, that unreliability is almost never talked about when people bring up how Teleport change the group's travel.

To be clear, I've no doubt Teleportation *does* change the group's travel, but let's not act as if getting where you want to go either demands to set things up in advance or is up to luck and DM's arbitration.

[Silly Name]

If the party wants to visit a plane, but doesn't have access to planeshift, then the DM is not *obliged to give them other means.
If the party wants to visit a plane, has access to planeshift but not the right tuning fork, they may **ask to craft or buy one, it's a much smaller ask from the DM than to put a whole archmage or portal.


One of the baseline assumptions of the game is that other planes of existence exist and that there are ways to travel between them, with many of those methods already outlined in the PHB and DMG.

So, sure the DM doesn't have to literally hand the players a Planar Travel Device, but it should be possible to find a way to travel to another plane even if none of the PCs knows Planeshift. How hard or easy it's going to be is a DM call, but there are other methods for planar travel (including "find an NPC mage who can cast it for you" as the simplest one).

If the DM wants to "ban" those options, it's fine, but I expect them to communicate it as part of the pitch. I once made a setting where travel to the Upper and Lower planes was barred, and this was explicitly stated.

The worldbuilding implications of "there are mages capable of casting Planeshift", "there are planar portals" and "it's possible to buy or craft a tuning fork for Planeshift" are all pretty much the same: planar travel is possible.

[JackPhoenix]

Which divination spells are you saying will help with that task?

Locate Object doesn't have that big a range, and that's the only relevant spell I can think of.

Divination or Contact Other Plane to ask someone who should know where to find the thing.


As a dungeon master, it's just a silly way to run games. Stop making fragile, linear plots. Start making robust, non-linear ones. Somebody up thread, claimed it takes 10 times more prep than what sees play, as if that's a hard barrier to clear. Anybody who thinks that, cannot count. Look: if I design four encounters and then demand that players go trough them in exact sequence, I've prepared one possibility. If I design four encounters and then let players go through them in any order, I've now prepared 4! = 24 possibilities. Of those, the players will experience one - 1/24 of the overall game space. Some of those may end up in players losing. That is fine. It is completely normal for a game.

That assumes there's any significant difference depending on the order you run the encounters. The encouters themselves are still the same. That doesn't sound like 24 possibilities to me.


The worldbuilding implications of "there are mages capable of casting Planeshift", "there are planar portals" and "it's possible to buy or craft a tuning fork for Planeshift" are all pretty much the same: planar travel is possible.

Not necessarily. Just because the same (general) end result is possible doesn't mean the implications are all the same in all cases. If you need a (fairly powerful) mage to cast the spell, the impact on the world is rather different from having portal(s) anyone from either side can use up. If the forks are easily available to each of those mages, the result is again rather different than if only a single archmage in the entire world knows how to access a certain plane.

[LudicSavant]

My take:


I have to say that a lot of people tend to overestimate the actual power of those out-of-combat options, when they talk about them.

Take the spell Teleport, for example.


Teleport has a 100% chances of success if and only if you have the code for a permanent circle or a tiny chunk of the place where you want to go.

This function alone is already sufficient to make Teleport extremely powerful. Well worth the higher slot level than stuff like Word of Recall.


I dunno about you, but to me that makes clear teleportation via the Teleport spell is a *very* unreliable transportation method, unless you have a token of the place or the number for the right circle.

Unreliable, perhaps, but I wouldn't say very. A failure to arrive with your initial teleport is not the same thing as a failure to arrive. Indeed, even in the face of mishaps you're likely to arrive much more swiftly than someone without access to such tools.

[Unoriginal]

Divination or Contact Other Plane to ask someone who should know where to find the thing.


Divination can only be cast by a Cleric, but you're correct, it could answer the question (maybe cryptically, but always truthfully).

Contact Other Plane, assuming success when casting, gets you 5 questions, but most of the answers will be "yes", "no", "maybe", "never", "irrelevant" or "unclear", so not that useful to narrow down where the fork is in an efficient manner. However, since it is a ritual, I suppose a Wizard has the luxury to not be efficient and just keep asking "is there a tuning fork of X plane at Y place", waiting for a "yes", then narrow it down.

In any case, thank you for reminding me of those two spells.



This function alone is already sufficient to make Teleport extremely powerful. Well worth the higher slot level than stuff like Word of Recall.

There is no denying that it is powerful (and it is equally undeniably more powerful than Word of Recall), but unreliable power is less power, and so is "reliable but only under those conditions" power.

My point is that travel through teleportation is significantly more messier and bumpier than how it's generally talked about in internet debates.



Unreliable, perhaps, but I wouldn't say very. A failure to arrive with your initial teleport is not the same thing as a failure to arrive. Indeed, even in the face of mishaps you're likely to arrive much more swiftly than someone without access to such tools.

If speed is the one criteria that matters, true.

But I don't think it's the only criteria that should be mentioned.

[LudicSavant]

Time converts into many other resources. If you're saving a month off a trip, you can generally take one of those days (or less) to handle almost any inconvenience of teleportation mishap, and still come out far ahead.

For the example of traveling between major cities like Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate though, you would just use an associated object (simple enough for any destination that trades with the place you're at).

[Skrum]

I kinda feel like this whole discussion is just about
1) is DnD about the destination, or
2) is DnD about the journey

If it's (1), then I'd so no, out of combat things don't matter a ton. Or at all. Unless the game is a true sandbox (which are rare by my estimation), then regardless of what classes the players are playing, regardless of what abilities they have, they're gonna end up at the [top of the tower, in the lowest dungeon, in the 7th circle of circle of Bataar, etc], fighting the BBEG. Or what have you. There's absolutely some truth to the DM will make sure you end up in where you need to be, implying that out of combat stuff doesn't matter-matter.

But if it's (2), and I think it is, than out of combat stuff matters a lot. At the absolute minimum, what characters are doing out of combat changes the flavor of how the game is experienced. Maybe the warlock took Mask of Many Faces and likes to spend their time in town running small-time cons on unsuspecting merchants. Maybe the rune knight took fire rune for the crafting bonus and owns a prosperous basket weaving business. Maybe the wizard always keeps an unseen servant around as a first line of defense against traps. And if the DM is even half way decent, these kind of abilities will shape and influence how the story unfolds. It might not change the climactic battle, but how the players got there is likely to look very different.

(martial classes' lack of out of combat stuff can definitely contribute to them feeling pretty flat. Kick in the door style play, they're pretty fun. Lots of intrigue and rp and investigation? Kinda don't have a class at that point, it's just theater of the mind)

[NichG]

Not sure why there's all this disbelief that people would run games without having a destination in mind... It doesn't have to be some kind of radical sandbox for the players to be party to the decision of where things end up.

Do people really not know how to run games like that so much that it's unbelievable that someone could without an impossible amount of effort?

I mean, maybe this is my counter-bias, but I would say well over half of what I play and 100% of what I run, the players (and their characters, and everything about their characters) are party to determining the destination. It's not just the GM. Like, I have no idea how my campaigns are going to end when I start them. I haven't generated the NPCs who are likely to be relevant in the last session by the start of the game in the first. Everything the players do, even if its not intentional on their part, contributes to determining 'what does an ending look like for these people?'.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Skrum: I think it's both; the journey and the destination.

And I think there's merit in both journeys that make use of magic and those that don't.

And honestly I think that a lot of this just has to do with expectations. Like all the things you listed can be done without magic, but I suspect a lot of games/players/DMs don't have the patience for that, so magic as a quicker version of mundane tasks becomes the standard for doing mundane things.

Old school D&D had a lot of out of combat stuff, without nearly as many out-of-combat-buttons to press (as I understand it, casters were much more restricted back then).

Same with this notion that the DM's world has to be organic, completely divorced from player character choices. Meanwhile, back in the day a module straight up told you "it would be very helpful if you had an elf and a cleric in the party; don't try this adventure if you don't have a cleric of x level".

All to say that... this seems like a matter of taste or preference. I don't particularly care if a DM puts something in the game or not specifically because of party composition. I can't imagine playing at a game once a week for months on end only to find out we never stood a chance because no one in the party chose to play a Super Mage-Master Caster from the very beginning. It would feel like a bad joke that only the DM was in on.

[Rukelnikov]

All to say that... this seems like a matter of taste or preference. I don't particularly care if a DM puts something in the game or not specifically because of party composition. I can't imagine playing at a game once a week for months on end only to find out we never stood a chance because no one in the party chose to play a Super Mage-Master Caster from the very beginning. It would feel like a bad joke that only the DM was in on.

This is the line of thought that I think misses the point a bit. Never stood a chance of what? If the DM is forcing an encounter on the players, then usually that should be a encounter that PCs can walk away alive from*, and if the DM is not forcing an encounter and its the players that are looking for it, whether they stand a chance or not should depend on what the encounter is in the first place, if a 5th level party decides to go to an evil great wyrm's lair to slay the dragon, the players won't stand much of a chance, and that's fine it was their decision to do so.

*Not always, but usually, and if they regularly can't their feeling of agency will dissipate really fast.

[Skrum]

Not sure why there's all this disbelief that people would run games without having a destination in mind... It doesn't have to be some kind of radical sandbox for the players to be party to the decision of where things end up.

Do people really not know how to run games like that so much that it's unbelievable that someone could without an impossible amount of effort?

I mean, maybe this is my counter-bias, but I would say well over half of what I play and 100% of what I run, the players (and their characters, and everything about their characters) are party to determining the destination. It's not just the GM. Like, I have no idea how my campaigns are going to end when I start them. I haven't generated the NPCs who are likely to be relevant in the last session by the start of the game in the first. Everything the players do, even if its not intentional on their part, contributes to determining 'what does an ending look like for these people?'.

My assumption is that most games are roughly like Balder's Gate 3 in terms of structure. There's lots of ways to get there, but every playthrough is gonna end in a big fight with the elder brain . There is some sense in saying that out of combat abilities don't "matter" because you'll end up fighting the same boss or bosses no matter what.

Could also think of it this way: even in a sandbox game, I (the DM) am not going to spend a ton of time developing content the players can't access. I'm not going to write up a location filled with NPC's, quest hooks, a mini BBEG, what have you, in a place the PC's have no chance of getting to. Or if I did, I'd make sure there's a way for the PC's to get there regardless of what their character sheet had written on it.

In a strictly destinational way, out of combat abilities don't "matter" because the players get to where they need to go, one way or another. But that to me is missing the point: DND is about the journey, not the destination. What the players do with their time is literally is the game, and that means out of combat abilities matter very much.

[NichG]

My assumption is that most games are roughly like Balder's Gate 3 in terms of structure. There's lots of ways to get there, but every playthrough is gonna end in a big fight with the elder brain . There is some sense in saying that out of combat abilities don't "matter" because you'll end up fighting the same boss or bosses no matter what.

Could also think of it this way: even in a sandbox game, I (the DM) am not going to spend a ton of time developing content the players can't access. I'm not going to write up a location filled with NPC's, quest hooks, a mini BBEG, what have you, in a place the PC's have no chance of getting to. Or if I did, I'd make sure there's a way for the PC's to get there regardless of what their character sheet had written on it.

In a strictly destinational way, out of combat abilities don't "matter" because the players get to where they need to go, one way or another. But that to me is missing the point: DND is about the journey, not the destination. What the players do with their time is literally is the game, and that means out of combat abilities matter very much.

If I or others say that's not how our games work, do you believe us? That's what I'm finding odd - plenty of people have said in this thread that they don't see games as being structured this way, but that seems to just be rejected?

Like, in the (non-D&D) campaign I was running that just finished up, the premise was 'you're supervillains, set four goals for yourselves of exponentially increasing magnitude - you gain power when you hold progress in your goal, otherwise do as you want'. I didn't prepare an endboss or lots of locations or things like that before the campaign began. I prepared the broad strokes of the setting, enough of the thematics and metaphysics so that I knew how I would add things when I needed to add things, and then basically followed the players' leads.

The campaign before that (which was D&D-based) had a bit more structure but not all that much - characters were each candidates for becoming the avatar of their own myth (or being subsumed by an existing myth if they failed to distinguish themselves), with a bunch of empires each up to their own bit of aggrandizement in various places in the world and a bit of secret lore behind why this stuff about becoming myths was a thing. While the 'mythic ascension is a thing you're involved in' bit was a (wide) bottleneck that would be relevant over the course of the campaign, characters could ascend their myths by doing any number of impactful things or they could go and find the keys to break the whole system - something I dropped a few vague hints about without actually knowing how it would all fit together at the time. In the end, the PCs did pull at those hints, and that *made* me detail those things (as opposed to 'I had detailed those things in advance, and they uncovered them') and as a result the campaign became about fixing the mistakes of the past. I didn't think 'ah, their BBEG fight is going to be against Apophis' when I came up with the campaign, but effectively that sort of was what happened.

The *most* structured campaign I've ever run was a group of circus performers in Planescape climbing the Infinite Stair and going to a different plane every game. I maybe planned 3 sessions in advance at most at any point in that campaign. Around the halfway point of the campaign the players had figured out enough stuff to be dangerous, and all planning basically stopped - it was their decision that the 'destination' there, suggested to them by what they learned on their journey, was to try to directly manipulate belief by going to Pandemonium and using a magical location there to whisper a message to everyone on the planes at once. The BBEG I had originally planned ended up being their ally in distracting and holding off the particular gods who objected to the party's spontaneous 'lets alter reality with subliminal messaging' idea.

Are people not having these kinds of experiences? It seems surreal to me that there's this idea that the DM truly knows anything whatsoever about the last session before the game even starts, and that somehow that's the default expectation.

[Telok]

Old school D&D had a lot of out of combat stuff, without nearly as many out-of-combat-buttons to press (as I understand it, casters were much more restricted back then).

Casters were on a tighter leash. Harder to cast, fewer spells, more risk, etc. But its interesting to note that practically all of the out of combat utility spells are the exact same spells of 40 years ago. In fact, we've lost some of the (admittedly more specialized and corner case) noncombat spells. Most of the spell bloat in 5e seems to be just variations on combat damage spells. All the "issues" in this thread were solved long ago by various other people or games.

I like world building that doesn't turn out totally incoherent and need constant fig leaf excuses. I also like fantastic stuff like flying castles, portals to demon realms, worlds inside magic bottles, and other stuff. If my players choose characters that can't deal with some aspect of the world then that's fine. I let them know they've chosen to play hardcore mode and keep going. I'm not breaking my setting rules about stuff like teleportation, interfering godlings, or economics to accommodate a party that can't deal.

If they want to go plane hopping, there's no convenient planar portals, and they don't have the magic to go... well they find some way that's already in the setting or they don't get to go. I put effort into a setting that has the level of internal consistency I want. I'm not intervening to give them extra freebie abilities just because they picked a noncaster class. That sounds harsh, but if the classes are balanced well enough then it isn't an issue. 5e classes probably aren't balanced enough, but that's not my problem since I don't run D&D and don't play noncasters in 5e.

[Rynjin]

My my, how the tables have turned, Judge Mastikator.

Haven't played in a campaign yet that has required Teleport, a 7th level spell. I'll let my DM and the WotC devs know how poorly written their mods are...


Nobody said Teleport was required. People said that if it doesn't matter, your campaign sucks.

If it takes the party a week to arrive at a location, but they can arrive instantly with Teleport and it doesn't help them at all, your campaign has zero sense of timing or urgency. It provides no chance for the party to prepare the battlefield or amass resources.

If additional time does not matter, nothing matters.

[Vahnavoi]

That assumes there's any significant difference depending on the order you run the encounters. The encouters themselves are still the same. That doesn't sound like 24 possibilities to me.

You think it's safe to assume there will not be a difference? The point of advice to the dungeon master was to stop making sure everything goes the same no matter what.

Furthermore, while a simple mathematical example omits details, adding in those details typically creates more possibilities, not less. Consider resource management loops typical to games like D&D: if a party chooses encounter A first, they will have different resources to use for it than if they picked encounter A second, third, or last. This can additionally be influenced by which encounter(s) precede(s) it - it's not safe to assume going from B to A is the same as going from C to A or D to A. So on and so forth.

This feeds to player strategy. Consider a simpler version of D&D with only four classes. With four players, that means 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256 different party compositions to consider for completing the set of encounters. This then combines with the amount of possible paths to create 6,144 scenarios. Maybe you can find some underlying symmetries to eliminate some of them - for example, maybe your players are boring and each player plays each class the same way, meaning every party of three wizards and one fighter is the same as any other. You will still end up with hundreds of possibilities.

What psychic ability do you command to confidently proclaim no "significant" differences occur between these?

[JackPhoenix]

You think it's safe to assume there will not be a difference? The point of advice to the dungeon master was to stop making sure everything goes the same no matter what.

And you don't do that merely by switching the order of encounters. Any differences there are only superficial.


Furthermore, while a simple mathematical example omits details, adding in those details typically creates more possibilities, not less. Consider resource management loops typical to games like D&D: if a party chooses encounter A first, they will have different resources to use for it than if they picked encounter A second, third, or last. This can additionally be influenced by which encounter(s) precede(s) it - it's not safe to assume going from B to A is the same as going from C to A or D to A. So on and so forth.

This feeds to player strategy. Consider a simpler version of D&D with only four classes. With four players, that means 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256 different party compositions to consider for completing the set of encounters. This then combines with the amount of possible paths to create 6,144 scenarios. Maybe you can find some underlying symmetries to eliminate some of them - for example, maybe your players are boring and each player plays each class the same way, meaning every party of three wizards and one fighter is the same as any other. You will still end up with hundreds of possibilities.

Irrelevant to how the encouters themselves are set up. If encounter A is a 30'x30' room with 10 orcs, it's a 30'x30' room with 10 orcs regardless of if you go there before or after you go in an encounter B, which is a room with 3 ogres. Whether the party wizard is able (and willing) to cast a Fireball doesn't make it a different scenario any more than the fighter missing 5 times in a row instead of getting 5 crits in a row during the encounter. It doesn't matter.

[LudicSavant]

Noncombat abilities are top tier in BG3, and that's *with* a more fixed destination than many tabletop campaigns have (since unlike a videogame, they don't need to program everything beforehand).

[Skrum]

If I or others say that's not how our games work, do you believe us? That's what I'm finding odd - plenty of people have said in this thread that they don't see games as being structured this way, but that seems to just be rejected?

Like, in the (non-D&D) campaign I was running that just finished up, the premise was 'you're supervillains, set four goals for yourselves of exponentially increasing magnitude - you gain power when you hold progress in your goal, otherwise do as you want'. I didn't prepare an endboss or lots of locations or things like that before the campaign began. I prepared the broad strokes of the setting, enough of the thematics and metaphysics so that I knew how I would add things when I needed to add things, and then basically followed the players' leads.

The campaign before that (which was D&D-based) had a bit more structure but not all that much - characters were each candidates for becoming the avatar of their own myth (or being subsumed by an existing myth if they failed to distinguish themselves), with a bunch of empires each up to their own bit of aggrandizement in various places in the world and a bit of secret lore behind why this stuff about becoming myths was a thing. While the 'mythic ascension is a thing you're involved in' bit was a (wide) bottleneck that would be relevant over the course of the campaign, characters could ascend their myths by doing any number of impactful things or they could go and find the keys to break the whole system - something I dropped a few vague hints about without actually knowing how it would all fit together at the time. In the end, the PCs did pull at those hints, and that *made* me detail those things (as opposed to 'I had detailed those things in advance, and they uncovered them') and as a result the campaign became about fixing the mistakes of the past. I didn't think 'ah, their BBEG fight is going to be against Apophis' when I came up with the campaign, but effectively that sort of was what happened.

The *most* structured campaign I've ever run was a group of circus performers in Planescape climbing the Infinite Stair and going to a different plane every game. I maybe planned 3 sessions in advance at most at any point in that campaign. Around the halfway point of the campaign the players had figured out enough stuff to be dangerous, and all planning basically stopped - it was their decision that the 'destination' there, suggested to them by what they learned on their journey, was to try to directly manipulate belief by going to Pandemonium and using a magical location there to whisper a message to everyone on the planes at once. The BBEG I had originally planned ended up being their ally in distracting and holding off the particular gods who objected to the party's spontaneous 'lets alter reality with subliminal messaging' idea.

Are people not having these kinds of experiences? It seems surreal to me that there's this idea that the DM truly knows anything whatsoever about the last session before the game even starts, and that somehow that's the default expectation.

OK so you're playing a sandbox, the concept of which I literally addressed. Directly. The Dm is coloring in the road the players are on just ahead of them...and that is exactly what I said. The DM isn't going to spend a ton of time rendering places in the world the players couldn't possibly reach, because that would be a huge waste.

I personally run a more world-forward game. Like, before the first game begins I come up with a couple different locations, make up the relationship between them, and then introduce some kind of event, NPC or NPC's acting upon the area, what have you. The idea being that this world existed before the players showed up, will continue to exist after they leave, and the NPC's have an agenda of their own. I'll probably have something like a Main Antagonist that's got some plan, and they'll make moves to carry out that plan, and the players can figure out how they want to interact with that. I.e., if I read my players and their characters correctly, they're probably gonna be fighting Vladdic VonVillainGuy at some point.

Also, modules. A lot of DM's use modules for their games. That's a great example of "can take lots of paths, but the paths end up in certain place."

[JellyPooga]

Magic (whether they're spells or otherwise) falls into two categories;
1) Normal things done differently
2) Things that can't be done normally

The former covers a vast majority of spells. Any effect that only deals damage, lifts or moves things, transports items or creatures, heats, heals or any other process that can be done manually or by natural means. Yes, this even includes travelling to other planes in settings where portals and astral pools exist. Mage Hand or Telekinesis, for example, can be replicated by walking over to the thing and lifting or moving the thing. Likewise, Conjure Bonfire or Flame Sphere can be replicated by making fire the regular old "sticks and tinderbox" way. Just because the spell did it quicker, bigger, with different damage types or whatever, the effect can have happened whether the magic existed or not.

The latter covers those effects that no amount of regular action could have achieved. The truly impossible. Speak with Plants is one such spell. Without it or its effect, nothing can speak to the roadside shrubbery. Period. Animate Dead, Polymorph, Resurrection and Magic Jarwould also be examples of such effects. Even if one went on a quest to visit the underworld to retrieve the spirit of a dead loved one and implored their deity to return them from death, that deity is still using Resurrection (or similar magic) to restore their life. Similarly, without Animate Dead or a similar spell to create an undead creature, nothing is animating that pile of bones as an undead abomination (one might be able to create an automaton or machine out of them, but not an undead).

Category (1) magic doesn't matter and in sufficient abundance is just background noise; a setting detail as notable as the sand in a desert or trees in the forest. You could remove it from the game and nothing would really change. Eldritch Blast is just a magic arrow. Teleport is just a really fast travel montage.

Category (2) magic does matter, because it changes the possibilities of what can be true. Without magic that raises the dead, there is no quest to restore the queens life after her assassination, because such things are not possible, not even by gods. Without magic that creates undead, the Lich with his undead horde is just a creepy necromancer talking to corpses, slowly going mad with delusions of eternal life. Cat-2 magic changes the assumptions of a setting, not just what it looks like.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is the line of thought that I think misses the point a bit. Never stood a chance of what?
The idea being put forth is that the DM has created this world and the world is unaffected by character creation. Meaning, the DM doesn't make any changes to the world based on what the players decide to play.

Well, then it turns out that in order to save the world or beat the bad guy or whatever, the players will have needed a specific high level spell that they do not have access to and cannot gain access to because the DM has already decided on their world building in advance and has a principle that they will not make changes on account of the players.

So the party has lost since session 0 of the campaign, but still went through the motions to get there.


That sounds harsh, but...
I don't think it matters if it sounds harsh or not. I'll just repeat myself from my original post on the topic, it matters if it matters, and it doesn't if it doesn't.

In your case, it would matter greatly if no one had access to certain spells. But the point is, that's not "the game". That's you, and your particular world building and your approach to the matter and what you want to add, include, etc.

It matters because you have decided it matters.

Nobody said Teleport was required. People said that if it doesn't matter, your campaign sucks.
Yeah, it's the same argument, just veiled.

Obviously you can't say it's required because that would mean every party needs a caster that grabs Teleport and every DM needs to run a game that makes Teleport necessary. That's unreasonable of course.

Instead you say "well, it's not required, but if it wouldn't make a difference your game sucks". Not very compelling.

Just going by my current games, only two are high enough level for some poor sap to feel the incredible pressure or learning Teleport. One takes place in Avernus, and I don't even think teleport works well there. In the other game, teleport might be useful for "refueling", but the module already gives you a way to travel to each location (a magical "chain" that teleports you). Also, our level 13 caster there is a druid, so doesn't have access to it anyways (oopsy, session 0 failure I guess).

The other three games we're level 10, 6, and 4 respectively. The level 10 one is in Castle Ravenloft, so takes place in Barovia. Not sure how useful Teleport would be. The other two are actual hex crawls, so I bet Teleport would be rather useful. One will end at around level 9 as per the DM so no luck there. The other has been ongoing for years and the party is level 6 so... looking forward to someone learning Teleport in the next decade or so...


Anyways, not every campaign is going to be a race against the clock in this way. And for those that are, not all of them will have a wizard or sorcerer with Teleport. Doesn't mean they suck, and the DM sucks, and the players suck, etc etc.

[NichG]

OK so you're playing a sandbox, the concept of which I literally addressed. Directly. The Dm is coloring in the road the players are on just ahead of them...and that is exactly what I said. The DM isn't going to spend a ton of time rendering places in the world the players couldn't possibly reach, because that would be a huge waste.

I personally run a more world-forward game. Like, before the first game begins I come up with a couple different locations, make up the relationship between them, and then introduce some kind of event, NPC or NPC's acting upon the area, what have you. The idea being that this world existed before the players showed up, will continue to exist after they leave, and the NPC's have an agenda of their own. I'll probably have something like a Main Antagonist that's got some plan, and they'll make moves to carry out that plan, and the players can figure out how they want to interact with that. I.e., if I read my players and their characters correctly, they're probably gonna be fighting Vladdic VonVillainGuy at some point.

Also, modules. A lot of DM's use modules for their games. That's a great example of "can take lots of paths, but the paths end up in certain place."

Sure, and if someone said 'I run modules and I don't find out of combat abilities to matter' I wouldn't blink. But somehow this became something like 'of course everyone only runs modules, so how can out of combat abilities matter?'

Like people stopped believing in games that aren't modules being a thing. That's weird to me.

I mean heck, out of the three campaigns I described I'd only call the first an actual sandbox. The other two are just 'campaigns'. There's stuff that's going to matter no matter what, but there's lots more stuff that comes about because of what characters do rather than because of planning in advance. I guess you could call that a sandbox but it doesn't seem very far on the sandbox spectrum to me - like, 'it's not a railroad therefore it's a sandbox'?

Like, the infinite stair campaign was very much 'serial TV series' for the first half in structure, with almost no agency about where the next week's episode was going to take place. But if the characters wanted to do their act and get out, investigate the strange reluctance of people to look at the night sky, or steal everything and flee, or recruit talented people into their troupe, it's up to them. Even when it's something like walking into a Harmonium military occupation, do you perform for the troops or do you spread the ideals of the resistance or do you spy on the Harmonium commander or do you say 'skip this one, we stay on the stair'?

[Vahnavoi]

And you don't do that merely by switching the order of encounters. Any differences there are only superficial.

The space for encounter design is vast, possibly uncountably so. It isn't hard to pick encounters that play differently based on the order they're played. As noted, a lot of common game mechanics already drive the game in that direction. There is no reason for the differences to be superficial.


Irrelevant to how the encouters themselves are set up. If encounter A is a 30'x30' room with 10 orcs, it's a 30'x30' room with 10 orcs regardless of if you go there before or after you go in an encounter B, which is a room with 3 ogres. Whether the party wizard is able (and willing) to cast a Fireball doesn't make it a different scenario any more than the fighter missing 5 times in a row instead of getting 5 crits in a row during the encounter. It doesn't matter.

I can tell you've never done any real analysis on such scenarios.

Meeting the orcs first, with every resource intact, plays differently than meeting them second, after expending, say, all Fireball spells on the ogres. It may be a Fireball would've allowed the party get rid of all the orcs in one go, now they have to be fought one by one at a chokepoint. On the other hand, maybe the party would not have been able to win against the ogres without Fireballs, so meeting the orcs first and ogres second would've meant either fleeing or having to negotiate terms of surrender with the ogres.

Likewise, a Fighter who misses 5 times a row may experience several more counter-attacks than they otherwise would've, leaving them worse for the wear for next encounter - or dead. A Fighter who makes five critical hits, on the other hand, might down as many opponents, thus preventing them from attacking him - leaving him at significantly better position. The difference between this and a Fireball is that using a spell slot is a true choice, while missing and hitting are chance. The comparable choice for a Fighter is who to attack, since it isn't all the same which order he does it in. For example, if there are two foes, one that can be downed with a 80% chance and another that can be downed with 20% chance, attacking the first is a better choice, since that leaves smaller chance of both surviving for another round.

If you say these things don't matter, your idea of "superficial differences" that "don't matter" covers vast majority of tactical decisions and their consequences in a D&D-like game.

[Telok]

In your case, it would matter greatly if no one had access to certain spells. But the point is, that's not "the game". That's you, and your particular world building and your approach to the matter and what you want to add, include, etc.

It matters because you have decided it matters.

That raises an interesting question: Did I decide to make it matter that some classes have out of combat magic and others don't?

Because I wrote a relatively mainstream setting with flying castles, underwater civilizations, pocket dimensions, planes, and a limited number of links between them. Some of the world building and adventure potential that arose from that is predicated on things like there not being convenient planar portals, commercial teleport services, easily acessible flying critters to carry armored riders, or common herbs to allow people the breath underwater. I didn't do that to screw over noncasters or make having noncombat spells matter, I just didn't consider it because the game already gives the options to do all the stuff right in the PH.

So did I choose to make noncombat spells matter by not thinking about adding stuff inconsistent with my setting to enable a party of guy-at-the-gym characters to go everywhere and do everything? Or does the base default settings of the game make it matter by giving the standard and assumed fighter-mage-priest-thief party the noncombat abilities to do that stuff?

I think that the game is designed to give characters everything they need to go on all the adventures within the default PH rules. The game design makes the noncombat spells matter because they're the usual way to do stuff like access the planes and explore underwater dungeons. Adding handicap access for parties without noncombat spells is the optional extra stuff in the DMG that the GM can choose to use or not, as it fits their campaign and setting.

Aside: as time goes on I'm getting more interested in if the game can be played past lower-middle levels without the assumed tank & healer stuff, or how much bending and alteration to published campaigns has to be done to enable that sort of play.

[Darth Credence]

Aside: as time goes on I'm getting more interested in if the game can be played past lower-middle levels without the assumed tank & healer stuff, or how much bending and alteration to published campaigns has to be done to enable that sort of play.

It absolutely can. Recently had a group at level 15 with two wizards and a drakewarden ranger. Some things were easy, some were hard, but the game functioned just fine. Not a published campaign.

[JackPhoenix]

I can tell you've never done any real analysis on such scenarios.
Why would I? I set up a scenario, it's up to players to decide how they'll deal with it. Wasting time trying to account for every possible player decision and outcome of every possible roll is beyond pointless.


If you say these things don't matter, your idea of "superficial differences" that "don't matter" covers vast majority of tactical decisions and their consequences in a D&D-like game.

That is correct. The tactical decisions the players make and the random outcome of the rolls in combat are irrelevant to how the encounter itself is set up.

[Silly Name]

Aside: as time goes on I'm getting more interested in if the game can be played past lower-middle levels without the assumed tank & healer stuff, or how much bending and alteration to published campaigns has to be done to enable that sort of play.

I would argue that, since higher-level characters have more "staying power", it's actually easier to forgo healers and tanks at higher level than at lower ones. Most casters also get the option to just summon tanks at higher levels, and other classes obtain various forms of limited self-healing, damage avoidance and reduction.

[Dr.Samurai]

That raises an interesting question: Did I decide to make it matter that some classes have out of combat magic and others don't?
Well, it's probably more accurate to say that you made some decisions that resulted in non-combat magic mattering a lot.

Because I wrote a relatively mainstream setting with flying castles, underwater civilizations, pocket dimensions, planes, and a limited number of links between them. Some of the world building and adventure potential that arose from that is predicated on things like there not being convenient planar portals, commercial teleport services, easily acessible flying critters to carry armored riders, or common herbs to allow people the breath underwater. I didn't do that to screw over noncasters or make having noncombat spells matter, I just didn't consider it because the game already gives the options to do all the stuff right in the PH.
To clarify, I don't think this requires any malice for it to be "on you", so to speak.

There are flying mounts in the game. There's a ranger subclass that gets the ability to locate portals at 3rd level. There are portals to all the planes from Sigil, the City of Doors, the Astral Plane, and Infinite Staircase, etc. So the default settings like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms assume portals to the Material Plane. Eberron has Manifest Zones that can let you travel to other planes under the right conditions.

I appreciate that people make settings without these trappings. That's fine, I'm not knocking that in any way. But it's a choice. These are not "handicap" choices; these are fantasy elements.

Alice didn't need 7th level spells to get to Wonderland, nor did the children need Plane Shift to get to Narnia. Nor did Frodo need Teleport to get to Mordor, despite the urgency of growing evil and coming war.

We can't project the settings/choices some DMs make, onto the game as a whole.

Aside: as time goes on I'm getting more interested in if the game can be played past lower-middle levels without the assumed tank & healer stuff, or how much bending and alteration to published campaigns has to be done to enable that sort of play.
This is another thing that will matter depending on the nature of the game being run.

[Mastikator]

Yeah, it's the same argument, just veiled.

Obviously you can't say it's required because that would mean every party needs a caster that grabs Teleport and every DM needs to run a game that makes Teleport necessary. That's unreasonable of course.

Instead you say "well, it's not required, but if it wouldn't make a difference your game sucks". Not very compelling.

Just going by my current games, only two are high enough level for some poor sap to feel the incredible pressure or learning Teleport. One takes place in Avernus, and I don't even think teleport works well there. In the other game, teleport might be useful for "refueling", but the module already gives you a way to travel to each location (a magical "chain" that teleports you). Also, our level 13 caster there is a druid, so doesn't have access to it anyways (oopsy, session 0 failure I guess).

The other three games we're level 10, 6, and 4 respectively. The level 10 one is in Castle Ravenloft, so takes place in Barovia. Not sure how useful Teleport would be. The other two are actual hex crawls, so I bet Teleport would be rather useful. One will end at around level 9 as per the DM so no luck there. The other has been ongoing for years and the party is level 6 so... looking forward to someone learning Teleport in the next decade or so...


Anyways, not every campaign is going to be a race against the clock in this way. And for those that are, not all of them will have a wizard or sorcerer with Teleport. Doesn't mean they suck, and the DM sucks, and the players suck, etc etc.

Teleport and plane shift are not the only high impact out of combat spells.

Speak with animals is available to druids from level 1 and is extremely powerful for information gathering. Animals can serve as witnesses and can be bribed into short recon missions. Feather fall is available from level 1 and lets you defeat fall damage. Invisibility is available at level 3. Revivify is available at level 5. Speak with dead is available at level 5.

If the adventure is a murder mystery then a party of barbarians will have to work real hard, they may as well be commoners. A single 5th cleric can cast one spell and solve it as an action.

I'm willing to bet revivify, speak with dead, feather fall, invisibility, speak with animals are extremely useful in Curse of Strahd.

[Psyren]

That raises an interesting question: Did I decide to make it matter that some classes have out of combat magic and others don't?

Because I wrote a relatively mainstream setting with flying castles, underwater civilizations, pocket dimensions, planes, and a limited number of links between them. Some of the world building and adventure potential that arose from that is predicated on things like there not being convenient planar portals, commercial teleport services, easily acessible flying critters to carry armored riders, or common herbs to allow people the breath underwater. I didn't do that to screw over noncasters or make having noncombat spells matter, I just didn't consider it because the game already gives the options to do all the stuff right in the PH.



I appreciate that people make settings without these trappings. That's fine, I'm not knocking that in any way. But it's a choice. These are not "handicap" choices; these are fantasy elements.

Alice didn't need 7th level spells to get to Wonderland, nor did the children need Plane Shift to get to Narnia. Nor did Frodo need Teleport to get to Mordor, despite the urgency of growing evil and coming war.

We can't project the settings/choices some DMs make, onto the game as a whole.


^ What Samurai said but I'll add - nobody said alternate routes to spellcasting have to be "convenient." Just attainable. Finding a portal or scroll or a magical creature willing to serve as a mount or a capable NPC could in fact be a huge pain in the donkey relative to having someone who can plane shift on staff. Or they might be equally difficult in entirely different ways. Neither approach locks you into a specific permutation of worldbuilding, especially not one you don't want to be.

[Vahnavoi]

Why would I? I set up a scenario, it's up to players to decide how they'll deal with it. Wasting time trying to account for every possible player decision and outcome of every possible roll is beyond pointless.

Why would you? To answer questions such as "do these options matter?". If you never do that, you end up arguing from ignorance.

Exhaustive analysis is not necessary to set up a game, though. If I set up four encounters that the players can tackle in any order, I can be confident there are at least 4! paths through the game even if I never explicitly list them. That's part of the appeal of setting up processes to create content, rather than creating content: I don't have to think up what happens next beforehand, because play will produce the answer.

Players deciding how to deal with a given situation is part and parcel with that, as already explained. I'm simply telling you why it matters which path players decide to follow.


That is correct. The tactical decisions the players make and the random outcome of the rolls in combat are irrelevant to how the encounter itself is set up.

They are very much relevant when tactical decisions and chance events from earlier encounters have effect on the current one. Facing ten orcs in a square room becomes different situation based on whether a Wizard is willing and able to use that Fireball, etc.. By failing to understand that, you fail to understand the advice given.

[JackPhoenix]

Players deciding how to deal with a given situation is part and parcel with that, as already explained. I'm simply telling you why it matters which path players decide to follow.

It doesn't. No matter what path they take, they will always face the same 4 encounters.


They are very much relevant when tactical decisions and chance events from earlier encounters have effect on the current one. Facing ten orcs in a square room becomes different situation based on whether a Wizard is willing and able to use that Fireball, etc.. By failing to understand that, you fail to understand the advice given.

No, it doesn't. You're still facing ten orcs in a square room. The situation is exactly the same, your approach does not change that. The advice you're giving is simply wrong.

[Mastikator]

It doesn't. No matter what path they take, they will always face the same 4 encounters.



No, it doesn't. You're still facing ten orcs in a square room. The situation is exactly the same, your approach does not change that. The advice you're giving is simply wrong.

I think this is a prime example of why out of combat options not mattering is sure sign of bad campaign. If you got passwall and clairvoyance and can't ever possibly use it to skip an encounter, then the campaign is trash. Honestly. It's a railroad and the train carts are full of trash.

[Rafaelfras]

I already covered the portal/NPC thing actually being easier on the DM than the tuning fork - but as far as "if the party wants to visit a plane" - why would they want that unless a quest or story beat is pointing/taking them there?

To see if the soul of their avenged father went to haven after they defeated their nemesis death knight...

Make mont Celestia NOW!
True Story

[JackPhoenix]

I think this is a prime example of why out of combat options not mattering is sure sign of bad campaign. If you got passwall and clairvoyance and can't ever possibly use it to skip an encounter, then the campaign is trash. Honestly. It's a railroad and the train carts are full of trash.

But it's not railroad if you can go through the encounters in a different order! Or decide whether or not you use Fireball in one of them! That makes it a completely different encounter!

[Dr.Samurai]

Teleport and plane shift are not the only high impact out of combat spells.

Speak with animals is available to druids from level 1 and is extremely powerful for information gathering. Animals can serve as witnesses and can be bribed into short recon missions. Feather fall is available from level 1 and lets you defeat fall damage. Invisibility is available at level 3. Revivify is available at level 5. Speak with dead is available at level 5.
I think the OP's point when they say "do they matter" is about whether you can get by without them. Judging from the context in the comment.

If the adventure is a murder mystery then a party of barbarians will have to work real hard, they may as well be commoners. A single 5th cleric can cast one spell and solve it as an action.
But it can hardly be called a "murder mystery adventure" if the murder is solved within 6 seconds of discovering the body. In this sense, these out of combat spells are really much more about the destination than the journey.

Also, and this is a tangent, I find that people often assume the game world knows exactly as much about magic as needed to make it as effective as possible. In this case, the murderer doesn't think about foiling Speak with Dead, so the spell is just assumed to solve an entire adventure in a single casting.

I'm willing to bet revivify, speak with dead, feather fall, invisibility, speak with animals are extremely useful in Curse of Strahd.
Probably not a bad bet to take.

But I don't think the OP is saying these spells can't be useful.

^ What Samurai said but I'll add - nobody said alternate routes to spellcasting have to be "convenient." Just attainable. Finding a portal or scroll or a magical creature willing to serve as a mount or a capable NPC could in fact be a huge pain in the donkey relative to having someone who can plane shift on staff. Or they might be equally difficult in entirely different ways. Neither approach locks you into a specific permutation of worldbuilding, especially not one you don't want to be.
This is a good point to make, and goes back to journey vs destination.

And if "convenient" is meant to be a bad thing, get a load of these spells that can whisk you away in the blink of an eye, and solve an entire murder mystery plot before you can say "whodunnit".

I think this is a prime example of why out of combat options not mattering is sure sign of bad campaign. If you got passwall and clairvoyance and can't ever possibly use it to skip an encounter, then the campaign is trash. Honestly. It's a railroad and the train carts are full of trash.
Ok so let me keep track here:

Level 1 Spells
Charm Person
Comprehend Languages
Detect Magic
Disguise Self
Feather Fall
Find Familiar
Unseen Servant
Identify

Level 2 Spells
Augury
Knock
Misty Step
Suggestion

Level 3 Spells
Clairvoyance
Fly
Speak with Dead
Water Breathing

Level 4 Spells
Dimension Door
Divination
Fabricate
Locate Creature?? Arcane Eye??

Level 5 Spells
Contact Other Plane
Passwall
Teleportation Circle
Scrying??


Where is the combat stuff? And if you remove some of these spells to get the combat stuff, does the campaign now suck because you can't deal with out of combat stuff with one of the spells you didn't grab? Many of these spells have been mentioned in this thread, so just trying to understand what these wizards look like. And remember, we're not co-DMing here and we don't want DM fiat, so don't assume you're scribing extra spells into your spellbook from scrolls and other books!

[Mastikator]

Level 1 Spells
Charm Person
Comprehend Languages
Detect Magic
Disguise Self
Feather Fall
Find Familiar
Unseen Servant
Identify

Level 2 Spells
Augury
Knock
Misty Step
Suggestion

Level 3 Spells
Clairvoyance
Fly
Speak with Dead
Water Breathing

Level 4 Spells
Dimension Door
Divination
Fabricate
Locate Creature?? Arcane Eye??

Level 5 Spells
Contact Other Plane
Passwall
Teleportation Circle
Scrying??


Where is the combat stuff? And if you remove some of these spells to get the combat stuff, does the campaign now suck because you can't deal with out of combat stuff with one of the spells you didn't grab? Many of these spells have been mentioned in this thread, so just trying to understand what these wizards look like. And remember, we're not co-DMing here and we don't want DM fiat, so don't assume you're scribing extra spells into your spellbook from scrolls and other books!

If that is a wizard's spellbook and they never get to meaningfully use those spells then yes, the campaign sucks. I'd put the bar at around 25%, if you don't meaningfully contribute at least 6 times with those spells then it's a bad campaign.

Where's the combat stuff? In the other PCs character sheet. Combat is only 1 of 3 pillars. And you are only 1 of 3-6 players. A wizard with that spellbook is a godsend to a party in a well written campaign.

Edit- I feel I need to stress this. It's not all or nothing, sort of. It's something or nothing. A DM who wants the players to go to another plane but doesn't make that possible will have to get comfortable with failure. But if it doesn't even matter that the cleric just so happens to have the right tuning fork, then we have a problem.

[clash]

I think this is a prime example of why out of combat options not mattering is sure sign of bad campaign. If you got passwall and clairvoyance and can't ever possibly use it to skip an encounter, then the campaign is trash. Honestly. It's a railroad and the train carts are full of trash.

The question is more posed at the outcome. I'm not suggesting that you force the players on one exact route and that their choices don't change how they get there. Moreso that all of these spells don't actually give casters this huge advantage that it appears to be. Whether you fight the ogres, charm then or skip them entirely you're still able to get past that encounter. This is true of linear or sandbox worlds. If there's a flying city, someone at one point made it there so in my world building having the flight spell isn't going to be a prerequisite to each it(in fact it probably wouldn't work anyways). It's specifically because I'm not tailoring the world to match the parties capabilities that having the spells or not having them can both achieve the same result.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, it's the same argument, just veiled.



No, it isn't. It is just about the exact opposite.

I get it's convenient to pretend someone holds an opinion so you can get on your soapbox arguing against it, but I'm not your strawman bud.

If you want to put some actual effort into addressing what I actually said instead of regurgitating the pre-canned response you thought up a while back but only works if you pretend I hold a different, contradictory opinion, be my guest. Otherwise I'm finding it pretty much impossible to take you seriously.




Edit- I feel I need to stress this. It's not all or nothing, sort of. It's something or nothing. A DM who wants the players to go to another plane but doesn't make that possible will have to get comfortable with failure. But if it doesn't even matter that the cleric just so happens to have the right tuning fork, then we have a problem.

Samurai's here to argue (poorly), not discuss. That's why his posts lack any hint of nuance or understanding of what the topic is even about. Don't bother.

[Psyren]

To see if the soul of their avenged father went to haven after they defeated their nemesis death knight...

Make mont Celestia NOW!
True Story

You don't have to, like, demand your DM make an entire portal/map to Celestia to learn that though :smalltongue: Just have your avenged father visit your dream set on a bright sunny cloud or something. (Oh look, something else you don't need a spell for!)



Also, and this is a tangent, I find that people often assume the game world knows exactly as much about magic as needed to make it as effective as possible. In this case, the murderer doesn't think about foiling Speak with Dead, so the spell is just assumed to solve an entire adventure in a single casting.

Yeah, and I think both can be fun. Some murders should be solveable instantly by "lol we have a cleric" and others should involve a murderer who actually grew up in that world with more than two brain cells and thus knows these things exist. The problem arises when you take a group that is expecting one and put them up against the other, or when you don't put enough thought into either to make them satisfying.


If that is a wizard's spellbook and they never get to meaningfully use those spells then yes, the campaign sucks. I'd put the bar at around 25%, if you don't meaningfully contribute at least 6 times with those spells then it's a bad campaign.

Where's the combat stuff? In the other PCs character sheet. Combat is only 1 of 3 pillars. And you are only 1 of 3-6 players. A wizard with that spellbook is a godsend to a party in a well written campaign.

Edit- I feel I need to stress this. It's not all or nothing, sort of. It's something or nothing. A DM who wants the players to go to another plane but doesn't make that possible will have to get comfortable with failure. But if it doesn't even matter that the cleric just so happens to have the right tuning fork, then we have a problem.

So a party that lacks a full caster but still wants to participate if the adventure involves mystery-solving and planehopping = tough cookies, they made their choice;

But a party whose wizard (or worse, anything with fixed spells known) that loaded up on utility spells and therefore is practically down a member when it comes to combat = the DM who doesn't accommodate that choice runs bad campaigns and should feel bad.

Isn't there a bit of a double standard there?

[Rynjin]

So a party that lacks a full caster but still wants to participate if the adventure involves mystery-solving and planehopping = tough cookies, they made their choice;

But a party whose wizard (or worse, anything with fixed spells known) that loaded up on utility spells and therefore is practically down a member when it comes to combat = the DM who doesn't accommodate that choice runs bad campaigns and should feel bad.

Isn't there a bit of a double standard there?

I'm not entirely sure why you and Samurai feel this is a zero-sum game where a Wizard can be either 100% utility or 100% combat with no in-between.

Your average Wizard would have a mix of both. They might prepare Fireball, Haste, and Summon Monster for their combat spells, and Knock, Spider Climb, and Speak With Dead as their utility spells.

If the circumstances where the three utility spells would come up make them completely useless, again, your campaign sucks. There is nothing more frustrating than being in an ancient ruin or whatever, casting Speak With Dead, and watching the GM fumble simple questions like "Who are you?" and "What happened here?" because they didn't actually plan any explanations for those two things AT ALL and have zero improv skills to bull**** an answer. You've gotta at least have one of the two as a GM, and preferably both.

If you're too lazy to accommodate utility spells, at least have the courtesy of being upfront and banning them so I don't spend a 3rd level spell slot for you to say "This guy knows nothing" about literally any question.

[Mastikator]

So a party that lacks a full caster but still wants to participate if the adventure involves mystery-solving and planehopping = tough cookies, they made their choice;

But a party whose wizard (or worse, anything with fixed spells known) that loaded up on utility spells and therefore is practically down a member when it comes to combat = the DM who doesn't accommodate that choice runs bad campaigns and should feel bad.

Isn't there a bit of a double standard there?

The only double standard on display in this thread is that the DM should bend over backwards to allow PCs to thrive out of combat when they picked absolutely zero out of combat features. But a PC that has out of combat features? Not only should they contend with being worse in combat, but irrelevant out of combat too.

[Rafaelfras]

You don't have to, like, demand your DM make an entire portal/map to Celestia to learn that though :smalltongue: Just have your avenged father visit your dream set on a bright sunny cloud or something. (Oh look, something else you don't need a spell for!)


I was the DM.
Our cleric took an opportunity, to craft and attune the rods to several planes on a place of many doors that we visited, way before tragedy befall on his father.
I have good enough knowledge of the planes, but the "I cast plane shift to Celestia really came suddenly,so to say haha.
But yeah, I have used some of those solutions (dreams, visions etc) when needed.

The only double standard on display in this thread is that the DM should bend over backwards to allow PCs to thrive out of combat when they picked absolutely zero out of combat features. But a PC that has out of combat features? Not only should they contend with being worse in combat, but irrelevant out of combat too.
The DM needs to make sure his players are able to participate in the story he wants to tell, the adventure he wants to run and the game he wants to play. Nothing more nothing less

[Psyren]

I'm not entirely sure why you and Samurai feel this is a zero-sum game where a Wizard can be either 100% utility or 100% combat with no in-between.
...
If the circumstances where the three utility spells would come up make them completely useless, again, your campaign sucks.

Except we're not the ones making them "completely useless" - you guys are.

If your Wizard (or even Sorcerer, since I like my players to have options) picked Knock, Spider Climb and Speak With Dead as their utility set, and the utility challenge was something like "locate an object", I wouldn't grind the adventure to a halt in punishment because you either didn't think to or didn't have room to pick up Locate Object. I'd have another way in my campaign for you to find that object. I'd have 3 in fact. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) One of those would reward you for having the foresight to pick the most expedient spell for the job as part of your build, sure, but the other two would still be viable.


There is nothing more frustrating than being in an ancient ruin or whatever, casting Speak With Dead, and watching the GM fumble simple questions like "Who are you?" and "What happened here?" because they didn't actually plan any explanations for those two things AT ALL and have zero improv skills to bull**** an answer. You've gotta at least have one of the two as a GM, and preferably both.

This seems to be some kind of personal historical trauma whose bearing on the current topic I can't fathom.


I was the DM.
Our cleric took an opportunity, to craft and attune the rods to several planes on a place of many doors that we visited, way before tragedy befall on his father.
I have good enough knowledge of the planes, but the "I cast plane shift to Celestia really came suddenly,so to say haha.
But yeah, I have used some of those solutions (dreams, visions etc) when needed.

Well that's different, if I saw the player was making a point of "attuning rods" (which ones do you mean?) for planar travel I'd certainly be ready to pay that off. Even if there are 3 ways to get to Celestia, clearly he has his heart set on that one specifically.

[Rynjin]

Except we're not the ones making them "completely useless" - you guys are.

If your Wizard (or even Sorcerer, since I like my players to have options) picked Knock, Spider Climb and Speak With Dead as their utility set, and the utility challenge was something like "locate an object", I wouldn't grind the adventure to a halt in punishment because you either didn't think to or didn't have room to pick up Locate Object. I'd have another way in my campaign for you to find that object. I'd have 3 in fact. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) One of those would reward you for having the foresight to pick the most expedient spell for the job as part of your build, sure, but the other two would still be viable.

And, again, I am trying top fathom why you are conflating the two very different ideas of "utility options need to matter" and "utility options must be required" despite the fact that the difference has been explained to you ad nauseam.

[Psyren]

And, again, I am trying top fathom why you are conflating the two very different ideas of "utility options need to matter" and "utility options must be required" despite the fact that the difference has been explained to you ad nauseam.

You can make those choices matter without punishing the parties that didn't take them. That's all I'm saying; I won't speak for Samurai but I don't think he's far off that either.

[Rynjin]

You can make those choices matter without punishing the parties that didn't take them.

Natural consequences aren't punishments. If a group doesn't have Teleport, the consequence is they gotta walk places or take other transport. Maybe they can pay a Wizard or something to do it, in which case the consequence is they gotta pay money.

If the party Wizard teleports the group somewhere and the response is "well whatever you would have gotten here anyway" it shows a general contempt from the GM in my opinion.

[Skrum]

Sure, and if someone said 'I run modules and I don't find out of combat abilities to matter' I wouldn't blink. But somehow this became something like 'of course everyone only runs modules, so how can out of combat abilities matter?'

Like people stopped believing in games that aren't modules being a thing. That's weird to me.

I mean heck, out of the three campaigns I described I'd only call the first an actual sandbox. The other two are just 'campaigns'. There's stuff that's going to matter no matter what, but there's lots more stuff that comes about because of what characters do rather than because of planning in advance. I guess you could call that a sandbox but it doesn't seem very far on the sandbox spectrum to me - like, 'it's not a railroad therefore it's a sandbox'?

Like, the infinite stair campaign was very much 'serial TV series' for the first half in structure, with almost no agency about where the next week's episode was going to take place. But if the characters wanted to do their act and get out, investigate the strange reluctance of people to look at the night sky, or steal everything and flee, or recruit talented people into their troupe, it's up to them. Even when it's something like walking into a Harmonium military occupation, do you perform for the troops or do you spread the ideals of the resistance or do you spy on the Harmonium commander or do you say 'skip this one, we stay on the stair'?

Yeah I really don't think we're on the same page - I don't feel that anything you've said about what I'm saying accurately reflects what I actually said (or meant).

In case this was missed, what I think is the most true about DND is that out of combat abilities matter a lot. Even in more restrictive, less player-driven games, what characters can do out of combat will flavor the game and change how the game feels (in a similar way to how the personalities of the characters will change the way the game feels). And that's at the absolute minimum; in most games, out of combat abilities will have a greater impact than that as they will change how and where the players interact with the world and thus shape how the story unfolds.

I don't think getting to destinations or crossing canyons or whatever is the correct way to think about out of combat abilities "mattering." One way or another, the game moves on. Dr. Samurai's example of "losing during character creation," like no DM would do that. If the characters can't do a particular thing, the game will just natural go in a different direction, under the influence of what the characters can do and choose to do.

[Psyren]

Natural consequences aren't punishments.

Sure, but unnatural alternatives get to exist too. D&D worlds are full of things that wouldn't be "natural" by our standards. Like... portals.


If the party Wizard teleports the group somewhere and the response is "well whatever you would have gotten here anyway" it shows a general contempt from the GM in my opinion.

Yet again - I think you're projecting some kind of bad GMing experience onto this conversation that has no alignment with my viewpoint :smallconfused:

[Rynjin]

Yet again - I think you're projecting some kind of bad GMing experience onto this conversation that has no alignment with my viewpoint :smallconfused:

Your viewpoint, presumably, aligns with the OP. Who expressed the idea that utility options don't matter because the GM will just provide a solution anyway, so the only thing that matters is combat efficacy.

If that's not the case, not sure why you're expressing disagreement with my assertion that this would be poor GMing.

[Psyren]

Your viewpoint, presumably, aligns with the OP. Who expressed the idea that utility options don't matter because the GM will just provide a solution anyway, so the only thing that matters is combat efficacy.

If that's not the case, not sure why you're expressing disagreement with my assertion that this would be poor GMing.

Yeesh, now who's being zero-sum... :smalltongue:

No, I neither hold the OP's view nor yours. The GM providing an alternative solution doesn't mean that said alternative is equivalent to the standard solution. There can be tradeoffs.

[NichG]

Yeah I really don't think we're on the same page - I don't feel that anything you've said about what I'm saying accurately reflects what I actually said (or meant).

In case this was missed, what I think is the most true about DND is that out of combat abilities matter a lot. Even in more restrictive, less player-driven games, what characters can do out of combat will flavor the game and change how the game feels (in a similar way to how the personalities of the characters will change the way the game feels). And that's at the absolute minimum; in most games, out of combat abilities will have a greater impact than that as they will change how and where the players interact with the world and thus shape how the story unfolds.

I don't think getting to destinations or crossing canyons or whatever is the correct way to think about out of combat abilities "mattering." One way or another, the game moves on. Dr. Samurai's example of "losing during character creation," like no DM would do that. If the characters can't do a particular thing, the game will just natural go in a different direction, under the influence of what the characters can do and choose to do.

Yeah I think we agree here. The idea that 'the game can go a different direction' is the important bit. That's what seemed to be being rejected from the start in this thread as a whole...

[clash]

Your viewpoint, presumably, aligns with the OP. Who expressed the idea that utility options don't matter because the GM will just provide a solution anyway, so the only thing that matters is combat efficacy.

If that's not the case, not sure why you're expressing disagreement with my assertion that this would be poor GMing.

I never asserted that I only think combat efficacy matters. In fact I would argue there same premise that combat efficacy doesn't really matter all that much either so long as you win in the fact that it doesn't really matter if you fireball your way through the bar guys health or chop them down with a sword or stun them long enough for someone else to. Where it has an impact is in your personal fantasy for your character. As long as the options both in and out of combat represent that I don't see them being a great help or hindrance to the game one way or the other.

[Rafaelfras]

Well that's different, if I saw the player was making a point of "attuning rods" (which ones do you mean?) for planar travel I'd certainly be ready to pay that off. Even if there are 3 ways to get to Celestia, clearly he has his heart set on that one specifically.
The ones used to cast Plane Shift.
Yes, once he asked me to do that, I knew it was a possibility going forward (and had a strong feeling that he would go to Celestia sooner or later)
Lucky for me I even had the perfect soundtrack of "If someday they end up on the upper planes I will use this" in my head. My player think to this day that I had planned it all along.

https://youtu.be/iT-ZAAi4UQQ?si=ZHv475EekGok5d5M

[Rukelnikov]

The idea being put forth is that the DM has created this world and the world is unaffected by character creation. Meaning, the DM doesn't make any changes to the world based on what the players decide to play.

Well, then it turns out that in order to save the world or beat the bad guy or whatever, the players will have needed a specific high level spell that they do not have access to and cannot gain access to because the DM has already decided on their world building in advance and has a principle that they will not make changes on account of the players.

So the party has lost since session 0 of the campaign, but still went through the motions to get there.

Will there be things the party can't do because of their build choices? Of course, that's why they are choices in the first place.

Can this lead to an automatic lost scenario? I don't think its possible to lose in TTRPGs, same as you can't win. You can succeed or fail at a particular goal, but as a game it's impossible to win or lose.

[Ignimortis]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

Oh damn, I'm late to such a tasty thread question.

Yes, yes they do a whole lot. It's not about what's required, it's about what your players can do to affect the situation around them. Yes, if your party of Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian and Paladin cannot Plane Shift and that is also somehow absolutely required by the plot you have in mind, you'll have to provide it - or cut the subplot of planar travel. However, if your party has Plane Shift by default, the dynamic changes. The players feel like they're in charge of how to proceed, and also can be sure that they can return at almost any time, or go to any plane they need, rather than hope the GM provides the means for them. Also, any costs of such solutions now boil down to "1 spell slot now and 1 spell slot later" rather than "do this sidequest to procure a couple charges of Plane Shift".

The same applies to the rest of out-of-combat options, because if they don't matter, that means the players either don't use them, or the players using them don't get any positive feedback from that, which in turn means the GM is shutting them down every single time. Which would mean the issue is with the GM, not with spell access.

Consider that Plane Shift can be useful not only to go to a planar dungeon, but also to visit multiplanar metropolises to make contacts and procure magic gear, or seek solutions to a problem that could be solved without planar travel (but the other plane can have methods for it that are much faster or easier!). Consider that Wall of Stone is okay in combat, but it also lets players build basic fortifications with unmatched speed. Consider that Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion can feed several hundred people per day if the food inside is rationed properly. Consider that Speak with Dead sometimes might outright circumvent a murder mystery or a "oh no, X died and didn't tell us crucial info" subplot. Consider that Teleport reduces travel times between civilized cities to exactly zero or at worst 24 hours, when the trek might take a month or two normally. The list goes on.

If the players can't find a way to use their spells to their non-combat advantage where there would be none without a spell, either their spell selection is very combat-focused, or the spell usage is being stifled by the GM. And the second part of this equation is that if you don't have spells, you don't get anything in return, non-combat-wise.

[Dr.Samurai]

If that is a wizard's spellbook and they never get to meaningfully use those spells then yes, the campaign sucks. I'd put the bar at around 25%, if you don't meaningfully contribute at least 6 times with those spells then it's a bad campaign.

Where's the combat stuff? In the other PCs character sheet. Combat is only 1 of 3 pillars. And you are only 1 of 3-6 players. A wizard with that spellbook is a godsend to a party in a well written campaign.

Edit- I feel I need to stress this. It's not all or nothing, sort of. It's something or nothing. A DM who wants the players to go to another plane but doesn't make that possible will have to get comfortable with failure. But if it doesn't even matter that the cleric just so happens to have the right tuning fork, then we have a problem.
That wasn't the point of the spell list.

In order for these spells to matter, you are saying the campaign has to be running on some sort of doom clock. That way, being able to teleport, or plane shift, or immediately gain information, is valuable and matters.

If you don't do these things, then your campaign sucks or you're lazy, as you and others have said throughout this thread.

My point with the spell list is that even if you have a wizard in the party, they are not going to know all of these utility spells. So at some point, even with a wizard, you're going to run across a scenario where they can't do the thing quickly. Say instead of grabbing Water Breathing, they grab Haste. Or instead of Fly, they grab Hypnotic Pattern.

So in order to stay consistent with the notion that Water Breathing must be impactful or the campaign sucks, the DM can't provide a way for the characters to breathe water that is outside of their own features and abilities. Similarly, without Fly, the DM can't do anything to provide a way to a castle in the sky. Otherwise they are lazy and the campaign writing sucks. The players are co-DMing and you might as well write a novel, etc etc.

My point with the spell list is that this is going to be true for any number of out of combat things for which the wizard did not choose the correct spell for. If it has to matter, then you're basically saying "run the campaign on a clock" or "the only way to do this is with a spell". And I don't think you can mandate that for everyone's game at their table. And if you do, you're condemning every game where the wizard chose to learn something else instead of Fly, Water Breathing, Speak with Dead, Contact Other Plane, Sending, etc etc etc etc.

Now, if you go further and say what Mastikator has said, which is that if the campaign requires going to another plane, as an example, he ensures during the worldbuilding part that there are multiple ways to get there, and then the players figure it out themselves, then you are agreeing with the premise of the OP. Which is that it doesn't really matter because they are getting there one way or another.

Now, doing it quicker might have an impact, or it might not. Which is why my reply was "it matters if it matters, and it doesn't if it doesn't". We don't know unless we know the specifics of the game.

However, some people in this thread have required that it have an impact, otherwise... they attack you and your game.

No, it isn't. It is just about the exact opposite.

I get it's convenient to pretend someone holds an opinion so you can get on your soapbox arguing against it, but I'm not your strawman bud.

If you want to put some actual effort into addressing what I actually said instead of regurgitating the pre-canned response you thought up a while back but only works if you pretend I hold a different, contradictory opinion, be my guest. Otherwise I'm finding it pretty much impossible to take you seriously.
Hey, you raise a good point Rynjin. Let me improve my discourse.

*puts on Thinking Cap, sets dial to HIGHBROW INTELLECTUAL*

Ok, let's see what arguments I can make now:

"...your campaign writing sucks."
"You may as well write a novel at that point."
"...that GM has an extremely shallow understanding of problem solving and is unable to improvise in even the slightest way."
"So if you write a campaign based around planar travel for the all Fighter party your campaign writing sucks."

Hey it worked, I feel like one of the smart guys now! All I had to do was attack the people I'm arguing with and tell them they suck over and over and over again!

The only double standard on display in this thread is that the DM should bend over backwards to allow PCs to thrive out of combat when they picked absolutely zero out of combat features. But a PC that has out of combat features? Not only should they contend with being worse in combat, but irrelevant out of combat too.
I don't think anyone is pushing this position forward...

[Rynjin]

Hey it worked, I feel like one of the smart guys now! All I had to do was attack the people I'm arguing with and tell them they suck over and over and over again!.

I didn't call anyone out specifically, but yes if you are putting people on a rigid railroad and refuse to allow any deviation or out of the box problem solving, your campaign sucks.

Don't take it personal if the shoe fits. Maybe look to improving your campaigns.

[Telok]

The DM needs to make sure his players are able to participate in the story he wants to tell, the adventure he wants to run and the game he wants to play. Nothing more nothing less

True... if and only if the GM wants to tell a story and wants to run an adventure. I'm an odd one out when I GM. The game I play is to set a world, build a simple intro dungeon, and then let PC actions and NPC reactions drive things. No plot, no prepped adventure, completely emergent story.

I've had a lich with a hidden strongbox type place accessible only by teleportation and known to nobody else in the world. A dragon nursery & day care in what was effectively a magma submarine. A wind-mage's home flying in a permanent hurricane. A demon lord using tarrasques as ammo. An invisible brick wall in front of the landing spot on the other side of the barely jumpable chasm. Anything resembling normal PCs simply can't deal with some stuff without certain abilities that noncaster classes don't have.

Of course then there was the not-mount-Olympus where gods literally hung out partying a lot of the time. No form of magic would get anyone to the top, and no form of anything would save them from the consequences. But hey, a high level fighter could at least try to get noticed. Plane shifting was much safer, you show up at the front door and the flunkies kick you out instead of popping onto the dance floor and getting stepped on. Weirdly, magic also didn't help much if you wanted to join the fire breathing arctic dire bear calvary.

[Vahnavoi]

I think this is a prime example of why out of combat options not mattering is sure sign of bad campaign. If you got passwall and clairvoyance and can't ever possibly use it to skip an encounter, then the campaign is trash. Honestly. It's a railroad and the train carts are full of trash.

You failed to notice that JackPhoenix is simply wrong due to admitted unwillingness to do any real analysis on it.

Again, you have four encounters you can go through in any order. Why can you go through them in any order? An ability such as Passwall might already factor into that - which in turn means not choosing Passwall necessitates a particular ordering.

But why would you not pick Passwall? Maybe because you used Clairvoyance to check which four encounters are present. Of course, using Clairvoyance may be out of your budget for dealing something else. So, the reality where you use Passwall to skip A in favor of doing B, C or D first, may be mutually exclusive with the reality where you use Clairvoyance to determine a better strategy, and both may be mutually exclusive with yet other strategies that would require those spell slots to be used for something else.

That's not a railroad.

And again, a simple mathematical example omits detail, but adding in those details typically adds more variance, not less. If you can, say, use Charm Person to sway the ogres to fight the orcs, or the orcs to fight the ogres, you've added another fork to the game tree. A fight where it's you plus three ogres versus ten orcs, is not the same as the fight with you plus ten orcs versus three ogres. Player choices combine with encounters materials to create new possibilities.

Some combinations may converge on similar outcomes, but the case where all of them converge on the same one is a special solution and the actual advice is about averting that. Focusing on that special solution is hence a strawman.

[Rukelnikov]

True... if and only if the GM wants to tell a story and wants to run an adventure. I'm an odd one out when I GM. The game I play is to set a world, build a simple intro dungeon, and then let PC actions and NPC reactions drive things. No plot, no prepped adventure, completely emergent story.

I've had a lich with a hidden strongbox type place accessible only by teleportation and known to nobody else in the world. A dragon nursery & day care in what was effectively a magma submarine. A wind-mage's home flying in a permanent hurricane. A demon lord using tarrasques as ammo. An invisible brick wall in front of the landing spot on the other side of the barely jumpable chasm. Anything resembling normal PCs simply can't deal with some stuff without certain abilities that noncaster classes don't have.

Of course then there was the not-mount-Olympus where gods literally hung out partying a lot of the time. No form of magic would get anyone to the top, and no form of anything would save them from the consequences. But hey, a high level fighter could at least try to get noticed. Plane shifting was much safer, you show up at the front door and the flunkies kick you out instead of popping onto the dance floor and getting stepped on. Weirdly, magic also didn't help much if you wanted to join the fire breathing arctic dire bear calvary.

These are the kinds of games I run and (largely) play. I don't write a story, I create a setting.

[tokek]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

.

On the whole I think these spells are simply one way in which you remove aspects of the game which it was time to move on from anyway.

Teleport is a nice flashy way to not spend the session dealing with bandits and whether you have enough feed for your mounts. But by tier 3 you shouldn’t be spending your session time on that stuff anyway.

As a DM I’m not going to spend all that time on tier inappropriate stuff anyway.

[Segev]

On the whole I think these spells are simply one way in which you remove aspects of the game which it was time to move on from anyway.

Teleport is a nice flashy way to not spend the session dealing with bandits and whether you have enough feed for your mounts. But by tier 3 you shouldn’t be spending your session time on that stuff anyway.

As a DM I’m not going to spend all that time on tier inappropriate stuff anyway.

Why not? Why is that inappropriate? The ways that higher-level characters deal with such problems are also choices.

I'm not saying you should be dealing with them at that tier, either, but to say you shouldn't suggests there's a reason why you shouldn't.

If that reason is that the PCs have abilities to trivialize them, then those abilities aren't meaningless. But if that reason is that the DM doesn't want to be bothered so will ignore them or hand out stuff to trivialize them, the question arises as to why that is something the DM thought was once okay but now thinks is not appropriate game time.

In other words: it's quite possible that they do become trivial as player characters gain abilities to trivialize them. But the thing that makes them inappropriate to spend game time on is how trivial they have become, not the tier just because it's the tier. I feel like saying "cars are irrelevant because by the time people have them they're at an age where walking 100 miles being an obstacle is inappropriate, so they shouldn't have to deal with that anyway." No, having a car has made those 100 miles a 90-minute trip, rather than something that will take days of travel. Assuming that distance just is inappropriate to have as a challenge because you're 16 years old and thus having a car is irrelevant kind-of misses the point of what made that 100 mile trip suddenly no longer a multi-day problem.

[Psyren]

I'll also point out that Bandits are very far from the only appropriate encounter you can run into during overland travel. Things like a hungry dragon, a drow surface raid, a Shadowfell Incursion, or a bound fiend that just broke free of its wizard's tower are all things that could feasibly pop up in the wilderness while being appropriate challenges for a T3 party.

[Vahnavoi]

Segev & tokek: I think it would be better to say that abilities that act as shortcuts or eliminate some aspect of the game, exist as optional rewards for playing those aspects out.

This was pioneered by D&D to a degree but is ubiquitous, especially in videogames, and has been for a long time. What I mean is this: a game expects you to do a thing or get to a place the hard way for the first few times. Once that's done, an optional method is given that makes that particular thing take less time or effort. Teleportation is the most obvious example: whether you talk of D&D or Legend of Zelda, it's common for a game to reward the player with a method to get to key locations fast after they've completed the initial challenge.

A player who prefers the scenic route, obviously retains that possibility, and there may be other advantages to doing so (such as hunting for hidden treasure). In a D&D-like game, where the amount of abilities might exceed what a character can actually have, this also involves players thinking of and expressing their priorities. It's worth noting, though, that if nothing new comes around to fill the gap, this just reduces the game and its aspects. Many powerful abilities in 5e are grandfathered in from earlier editions of D&D, where characters were meant to transition from vagrant dungeoneers to managers of their own domains and keeps at about the same time those abilities become available. A game where characters are expected to remain vagrant dungeoneers likely shouldn't have them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't call anyone out specifically...
Ah, the age old "but I'm not touching you" argument. Truly we are learning at the feet of the masters!

True... if and only if the GM wants to tell a story and wants to run an adventure. I'm an odd one out when I GM. The game I play is to set a world, build a simple intro dungeon, and then let PC actions and NPC reactions drive things. No plot, no prepped adventure, completely emergent story.
With respect, I want to point out that these factors are not really relevant, in my opinion. You can do these things and also include ways that don't make magic the only path forward.

I've had a lich with a hidden strongbox type place accessible only by teleportation and known to nobody else in the world. A dragon nursery & day care in what was effectively a magma submarine. A wind-mage's home flying in a permanent hurricane. A demon lord using tarrasques as ammo. An invisible brick wall in front of the landing spot on the other side of the barely jumpable chasm. Anything resembling normal PCs simply can't deal with some stuff without certain abilities that noncaster classes don't have.

Of course then there was the not-mount-Olympus where gods literally hung out partying a lot of the time. No form of magic would get anyone to the top, and no form of anything would save them from the consequences. But hey, a high level fighter could at least try to get noticed. Plane shifting was much safer, you show up at the front door and the flunkies kick you out instead of popping onto the dance floor and getting stepped on. Weirdly, magic also didn't help much if you wanted to join the fire breathing arctic dire bear calvary.
This all sounds like a lot of fun.

And I suspect that your players enjoy it as much as you do. And I think this is reinforcing behavior. Players might know when they sit at your table that they're going to need spells in order to interact with the things you have in mind. And it just becomes self-fulfilling.

But I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking all games are like this or have to be like this. Or that these same encounters/scenarios can't exist in a different game without spellcasters, and they have to use other means to engage.

On the whole I think these spells are simply one way in which you remove aspects of the game which it was time to move on from anyway.

Teleport is a nice flashy way to not spend the session dealing with bandits and whether you have enough feed for your mounts. But by tier 3 you shouldn’t be spending your session time on that stuff anyway.

As a DM I’m not going to spend all that time on tier inappropriate stuff anyway.
There are random encounter tables for all levels of play though, and a DM can also just put whatever they want during travel.

It's really just up to the DM what they find interesting or appropriate. We can't say for all games.

I'll also point out that Bandits are very far from the only appropriate encounter you can run into during overland travel. Things like a hungry dragon, a drow surface raid, a Shadowfell Incursion, or a bound fiend that just broke free of its wizard's tower are all things that could feasibly pop up in the wilderness while being appropriate challenges for a T3 party.
Agreed.

I mean, a lot of this is just preference or style related.

Take the utterly ridiculous claim made recently that a campaign around a group of all fighters traveling the planes sucks and is bad writing. This is preposterous. There are magic items that let you travel through the planes. Have we never seen stories about a guy or a group of people using a device to travel to other dimensions? A campaign of martials plane-hopping could be a blast to play and run.

Unless you have very specific and narrow ideas about how people should play D&D, and insist that if people are going to plane-hop, it MUST be through the Plane Shift spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not entirely sure why you and Samurai feel this is a zero-sum game where a Wizard can be either 100% utility or 100% combat with no in-between.

Your average Wizard would have a mix of both. They might prepare Fireball, Haste, and Summon Monster for their combat spells, and Knock, Spider Climb, and Speak With Dead as their utility spells.
My Lore bard had a mix of combat, healing, and utility. We didn't have a wizard; as the primary arcane caster she had to do a bit of a balancing act. I almost drove myself nuts with the choices for Magical Secrets (and I posted here asking for help in the 5e sub forum). My 'analysis paralysis' has cropped up again with the warlocks I play. (Own goal, but that's me...)

My "speak with dead" at will has been incredibly useful. (Eldritch Invocation).

The DM needs to make sure his players are able to participate in the story he wants to tell, the adventure he wants to run and the game he wants to play. Nothing more nothing less "The story he wants to tell"
Hmm. The stories I want to tell is "what the players did during the game." Some of that will fit with pre gen encounters that I build, and some of it is stuff that the players come up with on their own. Plots aren't all that necessary, but world events that inexorably move forward on their own might be "a plot" though I tend to call it a 'situation' ... since I am not sure what the players will do.

These are the kinds of games I run and (largely) play. I don't write a story, I create a setting. It's a good way to do things.

[Rafaelfras]

Hmm. The stories I want to tell is "what the players did during the game." Some of that will fit with pre gen encounters that I build, and some of it is stuff that the players come up with on their own. Plots aren't all that necessary, but world events that inexorably move forward on their own might be "a plot" though I tend to call it a 'situation' ... since I am not sure what the players will do.
It's a good way to do things.

Sure, it is as valid as any other way to do things. But even your pre gen encounters have to be done in a way that your players can participate, or else why even bother to build then in the first place. I don't think a plot is required either but some times will scale up from a encounter that you have made.

In my case we play in the forgotten realms, I have read the FRCSG 3rd and SCAG (and several other books) so I know about a lot places and adventure hooks that my players don't have any idea about but I can pick up the moment they chose to go to some of these places. (FR even had its own inaccessible lich, Larloch in the warlock crypt)
That said I like plots and for our current campaign we are facing a vile curse that befell on our home kingdom and the witches that unleashed it.
Because we are high level (18) I have to take into account a lot of spells and abilities that my players have access to, like teleport, plane shift and all their divinations, and my villains have to be the ones that are prepared to those kind of things. So there are places that are warded against planar travel, spells that block divination and while the curse is up no one can be bough back to life (and so they will have to lift the curse first to be able to bring back beloved npc's that already died during these events).
At the same time simply countering everything they have will lead to frustration so there must be places where these counter measures are not in place.

That's why I said earlier that out of combat abilities have greater impact on the DM because he has to take then into account, while it is very simple to create options when they would be needed but aren't there

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's why I said earlier that out of combat abilities have greater impact on the DM because he has to take then into account, while it is very simple to create options when they would be needed but aren't there

I think this is right, and you can see lots of places in various published adventures where the module writers haven't taken these abilities into account, or assumed that the players wouldn't use them, or forgot they existed entirely. It's a balancing act, and a very tricky one.

My experience, generally, is that it doesn't matter which character has the ability as long as all the players are contributing equally. Player A has the plan, Player B casts speak with dead, Player C composes the specific questions, Player D makes the rolls. Players A and C aren't rolling dice but they're equal partners in what's happening. What you don't want, and as a GM need to take steps to avoid, is Player A having no directly useful abilities and checking out of play until there's something written on their sheet they can use.

[Rynjin]

Ah, the age old "but I'm not touching you" argument. Truly we are learning at the feet of the masters!

I made the post(s) you're taking so personally close to 24 hours before you ever posted in this thread. Hell of an ego to assume they're directed at you.


My Lore bard had a mix of combat, healing, and utility. We didn't have a wizard; as the primary arcane caster she had to do a bit of a balancing act. I almost drove myself nuts with the choices for Magical Secrets (and I posted here asking for help in the 5e sub forum). My 'analysis paralysis' has cropped up again with the warlocks I play. (Own goal, but that's me...)

My "speak with dead" at will has been incredibly useful. (Eldritch Invocation).

Yeah, Wizard was just an example. Pretty much any caster should IMO be built the same. Even a dedicated blaster should have slots for utility, because in any good campaign problem solving will involve more than combat.

[rel]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

Not every GM carefully prepares the game world with the PC's in mind.

- Some game worlds such as persistent campaign settings simply exist, irrespective of any PC's that happen to explore them.
- Some are shared worlds explored by many PC parties.
- Some are generic published worlds the GM and other players pick up and use, largely unchanged.
- Some might be somewhat tailored to the PC's, but still have background and scenery elements that have no such customization.

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.

When resolving a combat challenge, the PC's require in combat options with which to actually interact with said challenge. Similarly, when resolving a non-combat challenge, the PC's require non-combat options to interact with said challenge.

Seeing as the vast majority of non-combat options are spells, to the point that an argument could be made that spells are the only significant class specific non-combat options available to PC's, I would say that
caster out of combat options matter. They matter for the same reasons caster combat options matter.

Just as caster combat options allow the caster to participate in combat challenges, caster non-combat options allow the caster to participate in non-combat challenges; the roughly 2/3 of the obstacles in a standard game that cannot be reduced to some variation of 'Do X HP of damage to thing Y'.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work.

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work.

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, it is as valid as any other way to do things. But even your pre gen encounters have to be done in a way that your players can participate, or else why even bother to build then in the first place.
Most of my pregen encounters are someone in the world, usually a group, doing something for their own reasons. how the players engage with that varies.
Some of my pregen stuff doesn't get much interaction, but I can keep it for the future if I want to.

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work. Some of their adventure books are pretty good. I liked both ToA and Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential. The quality varies. And as an aside, Curse of Strahd is one of those adventures that can live up to the game's potential, or, it can sour people on the game.
We have had three people now quite our CoS campaign. (I am a player in it).
Their complaint? They don't like the feel. (We had two others stop due to RL scheduling conflict).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

Sure. As a DM designing your own adventures you're not bound by what's in published modules. My point is that, while the developers say they expect a 2/3 - 1/3 noncombat to combat split, I don't see that reflected in what has been designed for the system. The DMG, for one, doesn't have any guidance or advice for creating noncombat encounters in its Creating Encounters section -- there's some explanation of why encounters should happen, but otherwise it's all about combat.

[Skrum]

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

[NichG]

The key to that is to design things in terms of ways that characters can change state and then have dynamic, responsive chains of states that lead to different places rather than pass/fail barriers.

HP like mechanics are a simple example of a general state graph like this (and it's what 4e tried to go with for it's skill challenges), but something like positioning has more traction with the world and is less abstract.

I'd probably go with factor sets - a scenario consists of a set of Factors that apply, and actions generally swap certain Factors for other Factors, and you're trying to navigate the composition of the set into a configuration that makes success possible.

[Dr.Samurai]

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.
I don't think the OP is saying there shouldn't be these out of combat challenges.

It's a question of do they need to be solved by magic, and/or does solving it by magic have to have some impact over solving it another way.

There's an assumption that the players will have the chance to achieve their goals without needing magic, and some people are arguing that there then needs to be a consequence for not solving these problems through magic.


I made the post(s) you're taking so personally close to 24 hours before you ever posted in this thread. Hell of an ego to assume they're directed at you.
I think it's pretty clear which posts were directed at me :smallamused:

Look, nothing anyone says here has any impact on my game whatsoever, and I'm not the type of person that takes the comments of a rude and overly confident stranger on the internet to heart; they're a dime a dozen :smallwink:. But for the sake of discussion on this forum, I don't like arguments that amount to "I know the right way to play make believe, and anyone that disagrees is doing it wrong and sucks at writing". I generally don't like bullies and know-it-all's on principle, and enjoy calling out bad arguments when I see them.

I don't think your comments disparaging the games and writing of those that play differently to you were directed at me (they can't be as I don't run 5e games). But I do think they're in poor form, and not persuasive, and I do think it's ironic that you then went ahead and accused me of arguing poorly and having bad intentions. But I'm not surprised, as anyone trying to support a weak side will inevitably resort to these sort of tactics :smallcool:.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

I think, in that scenario, it'd depend on what was happening that went into that Athletics roll. Are they trying to jump across? Is that the only way to get across the crevasse? Because I think at my table a player who tries to jump across a crevasse and fails to do so just... falls the 700 feet and dies, so they're trained to not try to do that if they don't have to. Presumably they could throw something across to use as an anchor -- lasso a rock or something, I dunno -- or construct a temporary bridge, or go around to somewhere easier. And if I, as the DM, know the crevasse is 700' deep and that it's a long way to the other side, I'm going to have to communicate that in a way that makes them make intelligent decisions, because I don't want to be responsible for my player thinking it's a trivial jump when it's not. There have to be multiple ways to get across that ravine, and if there aren't there's gotta be a reason why.

[Vahnavoi]

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

It shouldn't be that difficult. But if 5e's own advice doesn't get you there, let's see if I can fetch you something else.

Let's presume you don't want to stray top far from basic probabilistic model: skills are primarily used by adding modifiers and die rolls together. The first additional mechanic would be to add a resource, similar to hitpoints - it can just be hitpoints, depending on context (we'll get to that). Other widely applicable resource costs are time and money, with money being able to take the form of various forms of equipment.

An interesting development here is the unit of Lume, from Veins of the Earth supplement for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lume, to put it simply, is light, food, heat and money boiled down to a single abstract unit. So all time spent and actions taken have a direct cost.

In addition, Veins proposes a particular way of mapping three-dimensional cave systems. Without explaining all the details, this system results in flowchart-like maps, where each individual cave connects to one or more other caves in various ways. This, in addition to the expanded climbing system*), naturally creates branching choices. Whenever there's more than one path, it isn't just that they lead to different locations (they might or might not), the easy path might take more time (costing more Lumes) while the hard path might require abandoning equipment behind. Some paths don't have the same difficulty in both direction (generally, climbing up through the ceiling is harder than descending down through the floor), so only a specialist might be able to make the trip both ways. Playing it safe, preparing each route so they don't require rolling, is technically possible, but might be prohibitively costly - so at a point, the players have to take risks to avoid certain failure by attrition. Saved Lumes might have to paid in lost hitpoints, equipment or characters - and vice versa.

You may think "but that's only climbing", but it should be easy to set up comparable systems for anything involving movement through space. Classic hexcrawls do a comparable thing with travel through the wilderness.

*) the basics are nothing special, it just varies time taken to prepare a route and the number needed on a d6 roll based on angle and method of climbing. Most of the additional detail is in what happens when a climbing check fails. It would be trivial to translate the odds to d20 based system of 5e.

[Theodoxus]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.

[Rukelnikov]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.

The magic replicating science in DnD is treated as spells, when Artificers use science to replicate magic, they are doing that, science not magic magic, but the thing about this is the setting wide repercussions, a setting where the Portal Creator 3000 is relatively easy to obtain is gonna be very different from one where its not.

[Dr.Samurai]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.
I generally agree with all of this.

Though my attitude toward the magic item thing is a bit different.

Firstly, because it's a staple of fantasy, I just give it a huge pass. I've mentioned in other threads that the whole "you don't need magic items" attitude bugs me because for me it's such a huge part of the fantasy aesthetic. That's not to say that I think there should be magic marts everywhere and every game needs to take place in Eberron. But I don't consider it some sort of concession that the fighter finds a magic sword or shield, and a ring that lets him see invisible creatures, etc. That's a large part of the fun of exploration and defeating bad guys and a reward for braving dangers and killing monsters.

Secondly, we can, in some ways, divorce these items from "magic" so to speak (though it will still be "magic" of a kind or another, just not necessarily a spellcaster doing it). But I'm thinking of something like Guts' sword, which has been "tempered by the malice" of all the evil demons Guts has slain with it and is now capable of harming even more powerful evil entities. The sword has taken on magical qualities by killing all of these supernatural creatures. Now, someone could argue that it's still supernatural "magical" creatures making the sword magical, but I'd argue that it's actually Guts, who is capable of killing all of these demons all of the time, that is facilitating this transformation of the sword. In other words, hand the sword to a normal person, and you're not getting a magic sword out of it. Hand the sword to a high level fighter like Guts, and it will probably be a +10 Crushing Vorpal Fiend-Slaying Greatsword Maulblade by the time the manga is over.

On a similar note, the Dragon Hoard items from Fizban's are another way of making magic items without a spellcaster. Items that have been lost in strange places, like a sacred grove, a cursed place, can take on magical properties by the time our heroes, who have braved the dangers to find it, encounter it. Or items that are used in auspicious acts, like heroic sacrifice, or lethal betrayal, etc, can take on magical qualities.

This way the magic originates more from what the item has experienced or been used for, as opposed to the more traditional "a wizard made this". And in the case of something like Gut's Dragonslayer, it's directly tied to how powerful the warrior is, and the feats they perform with it.

[Theodoxus]

Sure, but it's just pushing what 'magic' means. It's like the origin of life. If life originated somewhere else in the universe, and life on earth was seeded by a rogue comet - that doesn't actually answer the question on the origin of life.

My own solution was to make 'magic' super science through augmented reality, nanites, and sophisticated programming code aka spells. Then, super geeks back in the day opened portals to the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, and the Outer Planes, causing energies; arcane, divine, and primal to infuse the nanites with supernatural energies.

But anyone with enough gumption can work out how to craft a spell and get an augmented reality affect, if they so cared. There is a bit more of a cost than standard D&D; I still hate the idea of 'easy magic'.

[NichG]

Giving other archetypes strong out of combat options that are as definite and determined as spells would be a great idea (IMO), and would definitely make it not be the case that spells are so central to out of combat agency.

5e D&D didn't really do it though...

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused. Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.

So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure, but it's just pushing what 'magic' means. It's like the origin of life. If life originated somewhere else in the universe, and life on earth was seeded by a rogue comet - that doesn't actually answer the question on the origin of life.
Well, my two thoughts on this are I don't think "magic" is a bad thing that shouldn't be a part of the equation, and maybe we need to push the concept of what "magic" is in the game. I tend to agree with you that it's simply too easy and without real cost. Maybe widening that access to magic is one step in the right direction. Third edition had locations that, if you did something while there, would grant you some extraordinary or supernatural ability.

I just don't really see the difference between an action hero using a gun, getting a better gun, riding a car, etc. and a fantasy knight using a magic sword and riding a fantasy mount.


Giving other archetypes strong out of combat options that are as definite and determined as spells would be a great idea (IMO), and would definitely make it not be the case that spells are so central to out of combat agency.

5e D&D didn't really do it though...

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused. Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.
I think expanding out of combat options would be great. I don't see anything wrong with high level fighters having tremendous social/political/military pull in game, that makes sense to me.

The "hunt across space and time" stuff is not a foregone conclusion for me, so I wouldn't mind it as an option for people, as opposed to the end state for all hunters, as an example. Honestly, the point for me is that we just need more options, and let people choose what they want to play. Fourth edition had a great Epic Destiny in which you knew the shortest route to your quarry, and could travel across space/time to reach them within 24 hours, no matter where they were, even on other planes (IIRC). Pretty sweet concept. But it was a choice. We need more options to choose from.

So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.
Yeah this sounds about right. That said... I always just wonder about stuff like this.

How do you solve for a drought with spells that isn't simply "I cast this spell"? I suppose that using combinations of spells to do stuff that will solve for the drought in a way that isn't merely "I pushed the button and solved this problem" is going to require DM buy in. In which case, anyone can do it. Unless it requires magic.

[Rukelnikov]

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused.

The problem with these kinds of features is again setting implications, I've had settings where the largest settlement known to anyone was about 250 ppl, and the highest lvl person there was lvl 7. And even in a more standard setting, what happens if the party are branded enemies of the realm? There are systems where these kinds of features are commonplace (most WoD systems), but I think adding them to 5e would require a pretty big rework of how interactions with NPCs work.


Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.

OTOH I think more stuff like this would be awesome, a thief so good they can steal someone's scent, or an even better one that can steal a memory or a feeling.


So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.

I largely disagree with this, if you want combat to be the only solution to a diplomatic dinner, the only thing you need to do is declare an attack against someone.

[NichG]

Yeah this sounds about right. That said... I always just wonder about stuff like this.

How do you solve for a drought with spells that isn't simply "I cast this spell"? I suppose that using combinations of spells to do stuff that will solve for the drought in a way that isn't merely "I pushed the button and solved this problem" is going to require DM buy in. In which case, anyone can do it. Unless it requires magic.

As a DM, push-button solutions can be okay too if they have consequences, or if they're very expressive, or both.

But, for a drought scenario, the sorts of things I'd do to resolve it with magic would be...

- Short term, you care about the consequences of the drought (are people starving because of crop failures? dying of dehydration? losing their land to forest fires?). Those are all things which there are push-button interventions using magic. People are starving or dying of thirst? Create Food and Water! Doesn't permanently resolve the situation, but its a powerful move - it buys time more or less indefinitely. Forest fires? All sorts of fun with Move Earth to make fire breaks quickly, dig channels to nearby water sources if any exist, etc. Control Weather to direct the wind so the fire doesn't spread towards settlements (and hey, maybe even make some rain!). At lower levels, even stuff like Ice Storm, Sleet Storm, Wind Wall, even Create or Destroy Water for spot treatments.

- Long term, two paths occur to me - change the weather patterns or change the dependence of people on the weather. Move Earth to make giant cisterns and do a Dune? Cut some channels in mountains that are casting a rain shadow on the area? Invite (or enslave) some water elementals to move in using Planar Binding/Contact Other Plane/Planeshift/Gate? Is magic item crafting on the table? Then make some Decanters of Endless Water. Some of these things are kind of push-button, others are more extended. A lot of the push-button ones still have side-effects that make for interesting play - is the party really willing to part with the resources to make 10 decanters of endless water? If the party enslaves a bunch of water elementals, are they going to piss of the marids or something?

Could a fighter do these things? Some of them, eventually, sure. But to the same kind of extent that, say, the mayor of the town could do it.

[Skrum]

- snip -

Well lemme tell you my skill challenge journey :smallwink:

The table I play at attempted to bring skills to a more central role in the game. So, DMs started doing simple skill challenges: the DM would describe a scenario, and then each player would get the opportunity to narrate how they contribute. The DC would be set at some number (+/- 15 usually), and each character could use a skill of their choice. And the object of it was to get X successes before Y failures. It was fun enough, at first, but the fact that people can choose any skill they want led to some narrative contortions (we'd joke about Athletics being used to "set the pace, power ahead, blaze a trail...).

DMs got fancier and more complicated with it over time; some would dictate more specific scenarios where the party had to use 1 of maybe 3 specific skills, so players couldn't just constantly use their best skill. That was an improvement IMO, but there's still a "funny time" quality to it; like the game was pausing to do this little skill challenge mini game.

And that brings me to my complaint about skills that I haven't thought of a good way to fix: skills are dumb luck. There's almost no satisfaction is rolling a good skill check, and no particular agency in their use. Classes like barb might be notoriously limited in what they can do, even in combat, but even a barb gets to decide things round to round - movement, grapples, using GWM, shoving, etc etc etc. Yes, heinous rolls can ruin even the best-laid plans but there's still a good deal of agency involved. Skills just don't have that. Getting the "option" to use athletics to jump a river or persuasion to convince the toll collector to let you use the bridge isn't much of a choice if your athletics is +9 and persuasion is -1. There's hardly ever meaningful choice in skill checks, as one of a couple things happens

1) The DM calls for a check you're good at. Yay!
2) The DM calls for a check you're bad at. Oh noes!
3) The DM describes a scenario and asks what you want to do. You narrate how you can use the skill you're good at.
3) A) The DM buys it. Yay!
3) B) The DM says that's dumb. Oh noes!

None of that to me is being tactical, or expressing real choice, not in the way combat choices are a choice.

And like, skill checks don't have to be literally as complicated with as robust a system as combat. But some way to bring actual agency to the skill system would be awesome.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, skills drive me crazy too. I think it's the bounded accuracy aspect - where the roll of the die has far more meaning than the bonuses you bring to it, without a decent amount of specialization for the particular skill... which vastly limits how specialized you can get with other skills.

I'm toying with the 'every skill DC is 15', if you fail by 5 or less, you succeed with a drawback. If you succeed by 5 or more, you have a critical success. But I'm also thinking of using 3rd Ed style Skill Points, maximizing 1 per character level. If your Skill Points equal your current level, you don't have to roll for that skill, you just succeed as normal. But you can roll if you'd like, for the chance at a critical success. Skill points probably wouldn't provide a bonus to the roll, just determine your ability to even make the attempt, and if you can auto succeed or not. Rolling will always just be d20+Mod+PB.

I'm also looking at incorporating a Luck stat, but I think I'm gonna drop that on the homebrew forum, looking for feedback.

[NichG]

Well lemme tell you my skill challenge journey :smallwink:

The table I play at attempted to bring skills to a more central role in the game. So, DMs started doing simple skill challenges: the DM would describe a scenario, and then each player would get the opportunity to narrate how they contribute. The DC would be set at some number (+/- 15 usually), and each character could use a skill of their choice. And the object of it was to get X successes before Y failures. It was fun enough, at first, but the fact that people can choose any skill they want led to some narrative contortions (we'd joke about Athletics being used to "set the pace, power ahead, blaze a trail...).

DMs got fancier and more complicated with it over time; some would dictate more specific scenarios where the party had to use 1 of maybe 3 specific skills, so players couldn't just constantly use their best skill. That was an improvement IMO, but there's still a "funny time" quality to it; like the game was pausing to do this little skill challenge mini game.

And that brings me to my complaint about skills that I haven't thought of a good way to fix: skills are dumb luck. There's almost no satisfaction is rolling a good skill check, and no particular agency in their use. Classes like barb might be notoriously limited in what they can do, even in combat, but even a barb gets to decide things round to round - movement, grapples, using GWM, shoving, etc etc etc. Yes, heinous rolls can ruin even the best-laid plans but there's still a good deal of agency involved. Skills just don't have that. Getting the "option" to use athletics to jump a river or persuasion to convince the toll collector to let you use the bridge isn't much of a choice if your athletics is +9 and persuasion is -1. There's hardly ever meaningful choice in skill checks, as one of a couple things happens

1) The DM calls for a check you're good at. Yay!
2) The DM calls for a check you're bad at. Oh noes!
3) The DM describes a scenario and asks what you want to do. You narrate how you can use the skill you're good at.
3) A) The DM buys it. Yay!
3) B) The DM says that's dumb. Oh noes!

None of that to me is being tactical, or expressing real choice, not in the way combat choices are a choice.

And like, skill checks don't have to be literally as complicated with as robust a system as combat. But some way to bring actual agency to the skill system would be awesome.

Going back to the 'factor set' thing I mentioned before, imagine setting up the drought scenario within that framing.

The initial factor cards are:
- Crop Failure: If this card is still in play in two weeks, it converts to the Food Shortage card. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Wildfires: While this card is in play, each week 10% of the population will need to evacuate the area or die, and a major building will be destroyed. Fires may also strike at random, preventing any plans that involve construction. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Water Shortage: While this card is in play, 10% of the population will die of thirst each week. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Heatwave: While this card is in play, any actions taken by PCs or locals incur one level of Exhaustion per hour unless the character is protected from extreme heat. So long as this card is in play, the Wildfires and Water Shortage cards return each week if otherwise temporarily dealt with. Reduces local labor power by 2 levels.

- Rainshadow: Local weather patterns mean that air coming down off of the nearby mountain is dry and hot. Heatwave Factor - if there are at least three Heatwave Factor cards present, the Heatwave card returns each week.
- Summer Weather: It is currently the hot and dry time of year. As long as this persists, this card is a Heatwave Factor
- Pyromancer Enclave: A group of pyromancers are doing large-scale fire magic nearby, amplifying the hot and dry circumstances. This card is a Heatwave Factor
- Vanishing Snowmelt: Permafrost in the nearby mountains has reduced over past years, and snowmelt is not providing enough water for the old riverways to run. This card is a Heatwave Factor.

Other relevant factor cards:
- Food Shortage: While this card is in play, 5% of the population will die of hunger each week. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Rampant Disease: If over 100 people die and are not properly buried or cremated, this card appears. Reduces local labor power by 2 levels.

Scenario Goal:
- Remove the Heatwave card.

Then you have resource pools:

- Local cooperativity: 0 is neutral, modified down to -2 by Crop Failure and Water Shortage. Must be positive for any plan involving local participation. Must be 3+ for any plan involving local sacrifices.
- Local labor: 3 baseline, reduced 2 due to Heatwave to 1. Determines the manpower (and therefore speed of completion) for projects involving locals working to help. At 1, you might get a local to guide you around. A small work crew of 10 people could be spared at 2, a large work crew of 100 at 3, etc.

Then, you can have a number of skillful actions that interact with these states. Morale-boosting or diplomatic acts can increase Cooperativity in mechanically specified ways. Sourcing supplies of food or water could temporarily remove those shortages and free people up for larger plans. Building permanent lines of trade or diverting a river could permanently remove shortages. An individual character might not be able to do things like make fire breaks to remove the Wildfires danger (but maybe a high enough level/stat/etc character could?) but if you can hit the minimum local labor rating required you can just have a work crew do it - at 2 it might take a month but at 3 it could be done in 3 days, so it matters a lot as far as how much damage the wildfires will do in the end.

Some actions might convert one card into another. Setting up lines of trade to transport water over might create a card Water Trade - As long as the town has wealth, the Water Shortage card is suppressed. Maybe there's something you can do to redirect a river towards the town, effectively converting the Vanishing Snowmelt card into Flash Flooding. Etc.

Yes, its still going to be the DM adjudicating what sorts of transformations happen. But there's a bit more of a framework saying 'why is this situation happening', 'what does movement through the space of situations look like?', etc. You could make it more quantitative, focusing on general rules for things like local labor that will apply across all scenarios, or you could drop or abstract those elements into a single card like 'Local Panic - as long as there are immediate threats to life and limb, the locals will not lend aid to your plans' or just leave it to narration and table discussion.

5e skills aren't really quite the right skills for this kind of thing though. Honestly, just having lots of examples of big things you can do - organize a trade route; construct a building, a channel, a bridge; determine the causes of a natural phenomenon and how it could be interferred with; etc, would help. With those bigger scope examples, you wouldn't necessarily need to be so detailed with the factor cards and their transformations because it would be implied by the more expansive text. Yes, your character with proficiency in Survival can redirect a river or cause a landslide with a week's labor. Or is it Strength + Architecture? ...

[Skrum]

I'm toying with the 'every skill DC is 15', if you fail by 5 or less, you succeed with a drawback. If you succeed by 5 or more, you have a critical success.

I've thought of this too, but every time I've considered it in practice it becomes a massive headache. What the drawback is, what super-success is, like that's specific to not only the skill being used but even the particular context. The social skills are relatively easy to imagine in this regard, but what does it mean to "crit success" jumping over a ravine? Or sneaking? And then there's knowledge skills: now the DM has to come up with 2, 3, 4 layers of info to correspond to varying levels of success. TBC, I've done this before (esp. for knowledge checks), but it's time consuming and only easily works for some skills.



But I'm also thinking of using 3rd Ed style Skill Points, maximizing 1 per character level. If your Skill Points equal your current level, you don't have to roll for that skill, you just succeed as normal. But you can roll if you'd like, for the chance at a critical success. Skill points probably wouldn't provide a bonus to the roll, just determine your ability to even make the attempt, and if you can auto succeed or not. Rolling will always just be d20+Mod+PB.

Some things I've toyed around with (but never play tested)

1) Untrained skills have a DC cap of 8 + proficiency bonus. DC's above that cannot be attempted by someone without proficiency in that skill
2) Expertise grants a "take 10" feature; instead of rolling, the character may count the check like the rolled a 10. This cannot be used in combat or other hostile situation
3) Not really a mechanical change but a table of DC's to use as a reference is really needed. My general opinion is skills tend to be too high of a DC; someone who is trained in something should probably be succeeding at that thing like 75% of the time. The norm DC should be in the 10-12 range; higher is notably hard things to do
4) Yeah, something like total fail, partial fail, success, and total success would be nice (but see above comments)

But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.

[JellyPooga]

But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.

This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in . It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances[i] those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

[Rynjin]

It's something a lot of other systems do very well. Anybody who thinks they'd enjoy that kind of mechanic, I suggest you try out Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition. Savage Worlds has a bit of that as well, with things like your Fighting skill being directly tied to your ability to DEFEND yourself against melee attacks as well.

[Theodoxus]

I've thought of this too, but every time I've considered it in practice it becomes a massive headache. What the drawback is, what super-success is, like that's specific to not only the skill being used but even the particular context. The social skills are relatively easy to imagine in this regard, but what does it mean to "crit success" jumping over a ravine? Or sneaking? And then there's knowledge skills: now the DM has to come up with 2, 3, 4 layers of info to correspond to varying levels of success. TBC, I've done this before (esp. for knowledge checks), but it's time consuming and only easily works for some skills.

First, I'll just say I really don't like skill granularity. By which I mean, I don't like 'Jump' or 'Climb' or 'Arcana' as skills, because it limits what skills you have to the list available, and if I wanted 'Climatology' or 'Electrical Systems', it means I'm opening up the skill system to either so many choices (with fewer selections) that it becomes analysis paralysis, or at best FOMO for not picking 'the right skills' for the campaign. As such, I far more prefer attribute based checks from the DMG.

However, to address your concern in your opening paragraph, I think it requires a paradigm shift in what 'success' looks like for each skill. For instance, I'd downgrade a jump success from 'you make it over the ravine and go along your merry way' to 'you jump over the ravine, but end up prone.' A success with drawback would be 'you barely make it across, finding a shrub or tree to grab onto. It's going to take you a round to scramble up over the edge of the ravine.' A crit success becomes the new normal 'you make it over the ravine and go along your merry way'.

Stealth and any other opposed check is actually pretty easy, imo - drawback: opposed has advantage; success: opposed is normal; critical success: opposed has disadvantage. That's the mechanical side though. Describing the why of those three results might be a bit harder on the DM though...




Some things I've toyed around with (but never play tested)

1) Untrained skills have a DC cap of 8 + proficiency bonus. DC's above that cannot be attempted by someone without proficiency in that skill
2) Expertise grants a "take 10" feature; instead of rolling, the character may count the check like the rolled a 10. This cannot be used in combat or other hostile situation
3) Not really a mechanical change but a table of DC's to use as a reference is really needed. My general opinion is skills tend to be too high of a DC; someone who is trained in something should probably be succeeding at that thing like 75% of the time. The norm DC should be in the 10-12 range; higher is notably hard things to do
4) Yeah, something like total fail, partial fail, success, and total success would be nice (but see above comments)

1) I like that, if you're using the skill system as presented, there should be a mechanical advantage (not Advantage) to being trained that's more than just 'you have a slightly better chance at success than some uneducated bumpkin.'
2) As an option, or replacing the double proficiency bonus? I like options... I'm not sure I'd like it completely swapped.
3) One reason I really like the flat DC 15 for everything. Removes the need for tables of DCs and replacing it with a smaller list of drawbacks and crits ;)
4) see 3 ;)


But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.

I think it also depends on how the table runs skills. If the DM is running the story and then comes to a decision point and states "you've come to a walled dead end, there's a gap at the top the party can squeeze through, roll Strength (Climb)" it definitely takes away agency, as the players more than likely won't question it, and just roll climb checks and continue on. If instead, the DM says "you've come to a walled dead end, what do you do?" Then the players might start rolling perception checks and climb checks or cast spells... less is definitely more when it comes to options and agency. I don't recall if there's anything explained that way in the DMG. I'm sure Psyren could point to the exact page number, if it exists. But it's a skill (no pun) that DMs learn over time, if they didn't learn it while playing at the feet of good master.



This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in . It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances[I] those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

100%, it's why I'm moving away from skill checks to just blanket ability checks. "Can I make an Intelligence check to figure out how this puzzle was put together" is more engrossing than "I make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. What do I find?"


It's something a lot of other systems do very well. Anybody who thinks they'd enjoy that kind of mechanic, I suggest you try out Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition. Savage Worlds has a bit of that as well, with things like your Fighting skill being directly tied to your ability to DEFEND yourself against melee attacks as well.

The only pushback I have on this suggestion is that the community (at least in my neck of the woods) that engage in anything other than D&D is trifling small... I think it's why there's such a vibrant D&D modding community - when everyone knows the base rules of the game, it's easier to bring in ideas from other games, instead of trying to change what game people are actually playing. I wish there was a more robust gaming culture I could connect with... but it's really 5E + homebrew, or nothing.

[Vahnavoi]

@skrum: to me it seems obvious why you don't get branching scenarios or sense of agency that way. You're focusing on the wrong thing. You've set rolling a number of dice as the objective, when you should instead pay attention to what each die roll represents.

Consider, again, Veins of Earth. Getting from cave A to cave B technically requires X successes before Y failures - but each roll, and hence each success and failure, means a distinct move through the cave system. Furthermore, there may be more than one route from A to B. Agency stems from those paths not being equal to one another. One route might go down through the floor - possible to do with a jump in one direction, but coming back up requires setting up ropes etc.. A second route might be a long crawl to cave C and then back to B - slow and difficult, but largely the same going in and out.

Importantly, all routes might use the same skills. It's the difficulty, costs and pay-offs that change. For example, on one hand nobody's taking fall damage going through the crawl, succeed or fail, but on the other, nobody's getting stuck in the middle of a tunnel, blocking everyone else, when jumping down the hole or climbing up the rope.

This is what's missing from your analysis. You noted it's not much of a choice, persuading a guard versus jumping over a ravine, if your social skills suck and your athletics skills rule. I'd say, yeah, if your modifiers are that far from one another, you clearly made a strategic choice earlier (when building your character) to not do much talking but do a lot of jumping. You don't feel a lot of agency in the moment, because your earlier choice dictates your later one. But what about other uses of the athletics skill? Why'd you jump over the ravine, where failure means falling into water, versus jumping over the tollgate, where failure means you get caught in the act? Your modifier for the check is the same either way, but the odds of success and the price of failure might not be.

Compare and contrast with combat. You might use the same weapon and attack bonus throughout a fight, but have multiple available targets. Hence possibility of mutually exclusive payoffs for two different checks that both use the same die and modifier.

[Rynjin]

The only pushback I have on this suggestion is that the community (at least in my neck of the woods) that engage in anything other than D&D is trifling small... I think it's why there's such a vibrant D&D modding community - when everyone knows the base rules of the game, it's easier to bring in ideas from other games, instead of trying to change what game people are actually playing. I wish there was a more robust gaming culture I could connect with... but it's really 5E + homebrew, or nothing.

This is why you need to get yourself a consistent core group of players. When you're not playing PUGs people are willing to give anything a try as long as you're running it. =)

I'd say that also goes for a wider community, to a lesser extent. If you've got a couple dozen people that frequent your FLGS, chance are you can find 2-4 brave souls willing to try anything...again, as long as you're willing to run it.

[Skrum]

This argument feels a little bit like complaining that Wizards aren't great grapplers, or that Paladins or Monks aren't great archers. Yeah, they can participate, but it's a bit of a craps shoot and their contribution, even if they succeed, pales by comparison to what they could or arguably should be doing instead. "There's no agency in . It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can" is an statement that suggests your agency was in building what your character is obviously best at, because it applies to just about anything in the game.

Build choices are a choice, sure. My point though is that skills themselves have no particular choice involved. It's just "roll this check." Even one-note classes are faced with an array of decisions each turn. Skills are literally d20, pass, fail.

Do I think elaborate skill-based scenarios sound awesome? Yes! Do I think that if I were to use them, I'd have to make them up (well, take inspiration from other games and then convert it into 5e)? Big yes! And that, among other reasons, is why I criticize 5e's skill "system." It's not a system at all. There's almost nothing there, and what is there is just the player hoping that their build choices match up with what the DM is asking for.



I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. Few Class or Race features actually interface with the use of skill proficiencies and those that do, usually serve to either specialise them (e.g. Expertise) or negate them (e.g. Natural Explorer). This creates a divide between the "push button, do thing" features and the "roll dice, do thing" ability checks, in which the former are usually preferred because all that's needed is to expend the resource (which is usually replenished easily and without consequence, by resting).

I agree with this. Many of background abilities are awful in that regard. They remove a lot of potential for tension and drama.



You already pointed out upthread one aspect of the game in which skills actually do interface remarkably well with the game and that's grappling; by making it an Athletics check, it opens up any feature or ability that enhances[i] those to also impact the ability to move and restrain opponents. It offers Acrobatics as an alternative defence, which by extension means Dexterity comes into play as well as Strength, speed and what you can actually do with the condition. Where else in the game is a skill proficiency really tied to another aspect of play that isn't just a skill challenge? Introducing more of this kind of system integration where skill, or more accurately ability, checks play a more central role in gameplay, rather than the resource management of spell slots and rest-based class features, is how to "fix" the perception of skills and IMO the game as a whole (such as the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; a problem created by having better and more varied "I win" buttons as a resource rather than a roll).

Also agree! I should've added this to my list of things to do with skills....dig up Complete Scoundrel from 3.5e and move as many of the skills tricks as possible into 5e. Give skills explicit uses. Say how hard it is to do that thing. Etc.

[sambojin]

I tend to look at it from the other side. Does it matter that as a lvl2 Firbolg Moon Druid, that I get *all* the low-end out of combat options? At lvl2?

Movement? Yep, got spiderclimb, fast movement, jumping, familiars. Ride-able forms too, so it's a party thing if needed.

Survival? Yep, got goodberry and can have create water. Also have pretty good Wis and scouting/ senses and familiars.

Stealth? Yep, got stealth forms, super-disguise self, a touch of invis, and can go tiny. Later on get pass without trace.

Strength? Yep, got double carry capacity and wildshape. And probably Athletics. Get an 18Str summon soon too.

Communication? A bit, got auto speak to animals, can have proper speak with animals, and there's nothing saying I can't have decent Charisma and a talky skill. Or just take Insight for anti-liar, which still helps heaps.

Skills? Yep, got guidance, for me or the party, and later on Enhance Ability. Plus all the other stuff and stat independence.


And none of this really effects my combat performance at all. Later on I get boat loads of fly/ swim/ summons, and can know planar travel on any given day. Even get commune with nature, that has a pretty amazing range for trying to find portals, and is an 11min ritual.

How often does this come up in any given adventure? Well, all the time. Could we have found different ways of doing things, or simply done something else entirely, without a druid in the party? Yes, definitely. But boy did I feel good being able to do all these things whenever I wanted. Probably saved a few party resources or time by doing it my way, even if it used a small amount of my own resources to do so.

So, do out of combat things matter? Yes. Especially to the person doing them, or allowing the party to try different approaches to various situations. Are they strictly necessary? Yes. DnD is a pretty crappy combat sim, so without all the other cool stuff and shenanigans we get up to in between combat encounters, I doubt I'd bother playing at all. Half the reason why I like playing Druids is because you get more/ different things to do in combat with wildshape/ constellations/ spells, than even a high level martial ever could, even if my dpr isn't fantastic. It would be boring otherwise. But most of it is because of the out of combat stuff.

((A lot of it comes down to "Does the campaign have fail states?". More than simply a TPK. What happens if you don't stop the BBEG? Because you're meant to succeed, and there's meant to be plenty of ways of doing so, but you have to be able to fail and that to have consequences as well. That's the mark of a good campaign. If you can't win, why bother playing? But if you can't lose, why bother either? And there can be varying degrees of either one. Saved the princess, but the king died and the portal to the hells got opened? Well, you won, kinda in a heroic'y sorta way, but there's still going to be large consequences, even if it's not a fail state persay))

[Vogie]

Getting into this thread super late, but I'm surprised in the direction it took. Handwringing over access to the Plane of Fire and pointing at video game design decisions are just... odd to me.

There is a layer of this discussion that is missing a chunk of the problem - that this is a game based on decision making, and everything is made up. Yes, if you need to travel planes for the story, you'll have access to that because it makes the story work. But there's a tradeoff there. It would be a very different story if Frodo was told to destroy the ring by throwing it into Mt. Doom, who said "I don't know the way" and the response from the elves was pointing to a nearby staircase and saying "go that way, second door on the right" and he could just skip over to their Doom portal and chuck it in.

Out of combat options matter for casters because it limits their combat options - they have to make decisions on how much utility vs how much combat effectiveness they can have access to at any given moment. If a group of player sit down to start a campaign, and one person decides to go all-in about riding horses and jousting their enemies to death, that's a decision that can be made. At the same moment, if the DM knows they're going to be trudging through muck and squeezing through caves for the campaign, they really should let that player know that the thing they want to do won't particularly work for the game they're playing - not because it's an "incorrect" decision, but that those decisions won't help in this specific circumstance. Not telling them would be setting them up to feel the exact opposite of optimized.

Out of combat or utility options matter just as much for noncasters as well. Sneaking through an old prison if you have a rogue who can stealth through and pick locks is a very different game than going through the same old prison with only fighters and clerics wearing heavy armor - there's not much sneaking with all that chain and plate and, since they can't pick locks, they have to loudly smash their way through those obstacles. They can still make their way through, but the world will just react to them differently because they're interacting with the world differently.

But ultimately, each game is made up. At each table, the DM is making a game that interacts with the characters. I'm currently running Princes of the Apocalypse for my PF2e group, and one player (even though they knew what they were getting into) decided they were going to make their wizard's schtick that necromancy was their all-in. Normally, that'd be a terrible idea - PotA is essentially "Avatar the Last Airbender, but they're all evil" as a campaign. However, I just ran with it - I was already worried about how same-y the encounters would be, so I just dramatically upped the amount of Undead. The tiny sidequest about the crazed necromancer the "Lord of Lance Rock" in the book got expanded into a crazed necromancer that was supplying the 4 elemental cults with undead shock troops. Everyone is happy, and the only one who knows the difference is that one player who insisted on reading every published adventure for fun.

There's a certain strategy that I ascribe to as a DM that I've heard called "Shoot your monks". In 5e, all monks get the Deflect missiles feature at level 3, and in most games I've played or consumed an actual play of, rarely comes up. The "Shoot your monks" philosophy means that, if you've got a monk of the appropriate level, you need to add NPCs occasionally to encounters for the express purpose of shooting those monks, giving them the chance to deflect the missiles, and feel awesome. If you've got someone who can speak to animals, you should include more animals for that PC to shine when they defuse a situation or gain some information. If you have player characters with scouting potential, like invisible familiars, arcane eyes or wild shapes, give them the chance to use those abilities - they don't need to be able to scout everything forever (that's why there are doors in a dungeon, after all), but being able to ambush a group that would be ambushing them if the party haven't scouted it out.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I feel like the problem in the opening post is mainly a problem with certain high level spells, and doesn't come up as much at lower levels

In our campaign we came upon a huge wall of thorny roses. That's not an obstacle the DM could only use when the party have spell X. You can defeat it by casting fly on the strongest character and have them fly everyone else over, or you can try burning a hole through it with fore spells, or you can tunnel under it with Mold Earth. A burrowing or flying wild shape form could work too, you could even Conjure Animals burrowing or flying creatures. This is an obstacle that will basically work in any game, even an all magicless martials party should eventually be able to get through it, even if it might not be pretty. They might be able to climb a tree near the hedge and lasso a tree on the other side so they can rope over it. (With the right knots they can even recover their rope.) Or maybe they can chop a tree near the hedge down and drop it on the roses, see what that does.

Is it a hard obstacle? No, not really, precisely because there are so many options. But if you want it to be harder combine it with other stuff. Maybe have some flying enemies that stay hidden behind the thorny wall and only attack those going to the other side. Fly-carrying is now pretty bad. You could have the rose wall appear inexplicably in a cave, where any flying solution won't work. Maybe have them be chased by something big, the rose wall might be this world's version of the Jurassic Park fences. Now burrowing is harder because of the time pressure, someone needs to distract the monster while the digging happens. Burning through the hedge is also much less inviting now, that might just let the monster out.

I agree it gets a lot harder to design good scenario's as the magic gets more powerful. How do you design a scenario where planeshift is part of some solutions, but isn't the one and only solution? I mean, technically I guess you could planeshift around a wall of thorns, shift ones, walk 100 meters, shift back. But that just feels like a silly excuse to use your powerspell. (Also: it doesn't actually work exactly like that with the spell as written, but you can just try to skip much of your journey and shift back to near your destination.) But that's a problem with certain powerful spells, not really with utility magic in general.

[Segev]

plane shift will tend to be most useful to the players when they are driving the game's plot, rather than responding to it. This is just a game style difference.

[KorvinStarmast]

Back to ritual casting:

Barbarian, Totem, 10th, commune with nature. (And speak with animals at 3rd). useful out of combat or intel gathering.

Ritual spells I have used with some frequency out of combat with my Pact of the Tome ritual spells which I have been slowly but surely collecting (we are now level 12).

Alarm, and Alarm + Magic Mouth (In tandem, great way to weak up the party if the PC on watch gets charmed or held)
Rary's Telepathic Bond: as a ritual, I enable an hour's worth of telepathic communication. We can split the party sometimes.
Skywrite: advertise for the bard's performances. Start rumors or commit simple libel/slander against various people in an area whom we dislike.
Water Breathing: nuff said.
Detect Magic and Identify: as rituals, helpful.

Leomunds Tiny Hut: as a ritual ... camping out becomes less stressful.

Other bits:

Paladin/Cleric: Ceremony: a variety of useful outcomes.
Bard: Song of rest: a little boost to short rest healing.

Wizard: Transmutation - the transmuter's stone has various features. It gave our human assassin dark vision ...at 14th level the wizard now can cast raise dead once per long rest ...

[Amechra]

[...] I do suspect that a lot of players (including GMs) overlook using skills in a way that actually enhances the game, but I don't think it's because of a lack of DC's provided or because of bounded accuracy. I think it comes down to a lack of engagement with the rest of the system. [...]

Yeah, arguably one of the biggest flaws with how 5e handles skills is that there isn't even really advice on how to have them interact with the parts of the system that deal with very specific hard numbers (HP, movement speed, ranges, weight, etc). If I cast the Jump spell I know that I triple my jumping distance for the duration. If I roll a Strength (Athletics) check I... well, the only thing the system says to the DM is that it should let me jump further, so there's not much there to work with. Or you have stuff like the Medicine skill, which has nothing to do with your character having useful first aid skills unless your DM is willing to do a bunch of homebrewing more-or-less from scratch.

...

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah, arguably one of the biggest flaws with how 5e handles skills is that there isn't even really advice on how to have them interact with the parts of the system that deal with very specific hard numbers (HP, movement speed, ranges, weight, etc). If I cast the Jump spell I know that I triple my jumping distance for the duration. If I roll a Strength (Athletics) check I... well, the only thing the system says to the DM is that it should let me jump further, so there's not much there to work with. Or you have stuff like the Medicine skill, which has nothing to do with your character having useful first aid skills unless your DM is willing to do a bunch of homebrewing more-or-less from scratch.

...

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...

I agree with this, but even if that was changed in favor of more reliability for skills (before T3), that still wouldn't help much closing the gap by T3, unless WotC is willing to bring back something akin to 3e epic/divine skills, where at a certain point skills go beyond mundane and into broader "concept of the skill" level stuff, your insight is so good, you realize what someone says is a lie even when they believe it to be true, and stuff like that.

[JellyPooga]

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy.

I think there's maybe a bit of player expectation bias at fault here as well. It very much must be considered that so long as it's at all possible for your character and without time or risk pressure, no dice are required. You should really only be rolling dice for when the circumstances are, well, dicey and that brings up the question of what those difficulty DCs are relative to. "Medium" difficulty might not sound linguistically that challenging, but it actually means "For a proficient character of low level, it's basically a coin flip whether you can nail this in one" and that's actually a pretty high bar.

When you recalibrate the expectation based on both this and the auto-pass rule, the skill system, at least for me, makes a little more sense. DC:25 is only Very Hard (in my book) for someone with a +10 modifier (i.e. a natural 15 on the dice). For anyone with less than a +5 mod, it's Actually Impossible; it requires proficiency or peak physical or mental capacity (Ability Score 20) to even be possible, let alone to achieve it "in the moment" of a combat or other critical scenario.

Add to that the consideration that, outside of Expertise or magic, modifiers of +10 or more are strictly the purview of Tier 3+ play, it should inform prospective players on what the game expects of the different levels of challenge. For further reinforcement, a level 20 Wizard with peak Intelligence "only" has a spell save DC of 19.

[Dr.Samurai]

Another flaw? People hate ability checks because they're hilariously unreliable thanks to the d20 being so dang swingy. If your DM asks for a bunch of Medium checks ("because that doesn't sound that bad, right?"), you need a +6 bonus to the relevant skill (or a stack of buffs) for your chances of success to be better than a coinflip. If you want to be as reliable at hitting Medium checks as you are with attack rolls, you're looking at skill bonuses that are locked behind a ton of character building prereqs. And that's Medium checks.

And, yes, the players do get tools to manipulate probability in their favor... but if my max-skill-bonus-in-Tier-1 (+9, from having a +5 stat and Expertise) character who is getting Help *and* divine Guidance still has a ~15% chance of failing a Hard check, maybe the DC table's a little broken...
The dice are swingy as hell.

My barbarian, who is raging and has Advantage on his Athletics check, just failed to climb a tree at DC 13 with his +7 modifier.

[stoutstien]

The dice are swingy as hell.

My barbarian, who is raging and has Advantage on his Athletics check, just failed to climb a tree at DC 13 with his +7 modifier.

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

[Darth Credence]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

At first I read that as over-encumbered and with no hands, and I thought I'd probably give disadvantage on that.:smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

At first I read that as over-encumbered and with no hands, and I thought I'd probably give disadvantage on that.:smallbiggrin:

Lol.

Though that's a good example of letting the players push their own luck. Either drop something or risk the roll. Throwing DCs at players is both boring and is why there is a play culture focused on either avoid the roll or pushing the math off the die.

[Dr.Samurai]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.
In fairness, he does have a shield equipped on one hand, and is surrounded by ravenous wolves, and has triggered his Relentless Endurance lol.

If there was any time for the dice not to betray me... :smallsigh::smalltongue:

[Skrum]

Prime example of when not to roll if the outcome is going to lead to nonsense.

Only time I could see calling for a check for a barbarian here is if they were over encumbered or doing so with no hands.

On this subject, I'm in the process of writing a skill guide for DMs. It's mostly about how to set DCs - and my main position is most DCs should be pretty low. Like under 10. A +7 on a skill is extremely high relatively to the average person (for context, the PHB defines the average person to have 10 in each stat and no skill proficiencies). Is the average person pretty unlikely to climb a tree? That doesn't add up to me.

DC 8 or 9 seems much more appropriate, if the tree was not a good climbing tree. The average person might be able to climb it. Someone with +7 athletics? I should be damn near automatic.

[JellyPooga]

On this subject, I'm in the process of writing a skill guide for DMs. It's mostly about how to set DCs - and my main position is most DCs should be pretty low. Like under 10. A +7 on a skill is extremely high relatively to the average person (for context, the PHB defines the average person to have 10 in each stat and no skill proficiencies). Is the average person pretty unlikely to climb a tree? That doesn't add up to me.

DC 8 or 9 seems much more appropriate, if the tree was not a good climbing tree. The average person might be able to climb it. Someone with +7 athletics? I should be damn near automatic.

I totally agree and the DMG kind of backs you up here. There's really only a handful of DC's given in the book, but barring Purple Worm Poison's Save DC of 19, few (if any) DC's given for traps etc. go above 15. I think it might be a holdover from 3e that has people setting DC's of 15+ as a matter of course, but 5e really doesn't support that magnitude. DC:15 is a Medium difficulty for a task that's already been determined is a challenge. That's the baseline. Even an Easy DC of 10 or Very Easy DC of 5 comes with the assumption that there is a possibility of actually failing. If there's no risk involved, you simply don't roll dice at all.

It's also worth noting that there's no automatic fail state for ability checks; a 1 is just a low number. As your modifier to the check increases, so does the kind of challenges that you automatically pass and that's also part of the heroic nature of Player Characters and their adversaries; that they can routinely pull off tasks, often without fail, that other, untrained regular folk find challenging or even impossible.

[stoutstien]

On this subject, I'm in the process of writing a skill guide for DMs. It's mostly about how to set DCs - and my main position is most DCs should be pretty low. Like under 10. A +7 on a skill is extremely high relatively to the average person (for context, the PHB defines the average person to have 10 in each stat and no skill proficiencies). Is the average person pretty unlikely to climb a tree? That doesn't add up to me.

DC 8 or 9 seems much more appropriate, if the tree was not a good climbing tree. The average person might be able to climb it. Someone with +7 athletics? I should be damn near automatic.

If you ignore WotC talking out of both sides of their mouth there is a clean way of doing it.
There is no such thing as a skill check so you just don't factor it in when setting the DC. Afterwards you could use a high skill to decide if a roll is warranted but it shouldn't be a factor in the value.

No only does it make coming up with DC of the cuff faster, it doesn't retroactively causes ability checks to turn into a treadmill just because the *bonuses* to the roll changes.

[Amechra]

I think there's maybe a bit of player expectation bias at fault here as well.

Yes, that's the problem. WotC used terms like "Easy" or "Medium" without thinking about who those checks are easy or medium for. Given how simple the skill proficiency system is, I'd argue that it's very reasonable for a player to expect that being proficient in a skill attached to one of their "good" stats means that they're good at doing a thing, not "congrats, you don't screw up Easy tasks like some kind of scrub!".

Like, we can do all kinds of post-facto justification for why the whole thing totally works you guys, but c'mon. It doesn't help that giving people auto-passes on checks for reasons other than "your bonus is so high that rolling a d20 would be a waste of both of our times" is a band-aid. "I've decided that this is a Medium check, but the Barbarian (+7) doesn't have to roll because I've decided that they'd probably succeed" is just admitting that the skill system produces results that the table thinks are implausible.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, that's the problem. WotC used terms like "Easy" or "Medium" without thinking about who those checks are easy or medium for. Given how simple the skill proficiency system is, I'd argue that it's very reasonable for a player to expect that being proficient in a skill attached to one of their "good" stats means that they're good at doing a thing, not "congrats, you don't screw up Easy tasks like some kind of scrub!".

Like, we can do all kinds of post-facto justification for why the whole thing totally works you guys, but c'mon. It doesn't help that giving people auto-passes on checks for reasons other than "your bonus is so high that rolling a d20 would be a waste of both of our times" is a band-aid. "I've decided that this is a Medium check, but the Barbarian (+7) doesn't have to roll because I've decided that they'd probably succeed" is just admitting that the skill system produces results that the table thinks are implausible.

I think it helps not to think of tasks as being an Easy or Medium difficulty task, but rather an Easy Challenge or Medium Challenge, with the operative being that it's by default a challenge and the Easy/Medium/whatever bit is just the descriptor to inform you the odds. Players can absolutely be at fault for not interpreting the rules correctly, no matter how reasonable you or I might think their mistake might be and this is, I think, just a common misinterpretation. Perhaps based on earlier editions, perhaps based on language, perhaps just because older player teaching new ones didn't really read the rules, assuming that ability checks would work roughly the same because the names and numbers all seemed to line up like they did in the old days. Whatever the reason, the rules and the assumptions that go along with them are pretty clear about the expectations. Just take a look through the Monster Manual; very few NPCs or Monsters have Skill modifiers above +6 or +7 and most of those that do largely belong to Tier 3+ creatures that have superhuman ability scores. If even a CR:13 Vampire "only" has a Stealth of +9 and is supposed to be able to drink the blood of sleeping innocents undetected, what does that say about expected DC's for the players? It says to me that hitting that Medium Challenge DC:10 is "Vampire on his worst day stealthy" and that's still pretty darn sneaky.

[Darth Credence]

If you ignore WotC talking out of both sides of their mouth there is a clean way of doing it.
There is no such thing as a skill check so you just don't factor it in when setting the DC. Afterwards you could use a high skill to decide if a roll is warranted but it shouldn't be a factor in the value.

No only does it make coming up with DC of the cuff faster, it doesn't retroactively causes ability checks to turn into a treadmill just because the *bonuses* to the roll changes.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean when you say there is no such thing as a skill check.

In regards to skill checks and DCs, I have always taken the task grades as for a commoner, but I also drop them all by 5. I drop the numbers by 5 because I think an easy task for a commoner shouldn't be failed half the time for them - I could just recalibrate what I think of as "easy", but this feels more natural for me and gets the same results. A very easy task is one that a commoner would find very easy - like walking across the log that has been laid across the creek. I wouldn't even ask a commoner for a check on that unless they were impaired in some way. Moderate being a 50/50 shot for a commoner seems more like it - based on my life experience, I would put throwing an axe and having it stick in a stump would be a moderate athletics check. A given commoner makes that a coin flip. A character with proficiency in athletics, a PB of 3, and a strength of 16 gets that down to hitting doing it about twice as often. If you have proficiency, strength of 20, and a PB of 6, you'll hit that every time without fail.

For the statement about having them change for anything other than the bonuses being so high no roll is needed, that's how I do it and how everyone I know does it. I know BG3 has some things that changes based on the class, but it's not something I would do in my games. If I have decided that it takes a 10 to stick that axe in that stump, then the barbarian with a +7 is going to have to make the roll (I am assuming that there is some reason to do this, like they are gambling on who can stick the most axes). I have never found that to be an issue. I think the skill system works just fine, as do all of the players in my games. We set reasonable DCs, we don't roll for things that there is no reason to roll, and DCs are in no way affected by character levels.

[Skrum]

This discussion makes me want to get away from the easy, medium, hard language entirely. It frames what the system (should) be doing in a very unhelpful way.

On my table, I bumped everything down by 5 (so very easy is 0, easy is 5, etc), and then added some extra difficulties a the top. And this is what I said about each category

Skill DCs
Very Easy (0): a task that is trivial; often an assumed part of another action. These tasks should not be rolled for, as there is no meaningful chance of failure.

Easy (5): tasks with a meaningful chance of failure for untrained attempts by someone with no particular talent for it (lacking proficiency and having a low associated ability score, respectively)

Medium (10): moderately difficult tasks; the average person would fail these tasks ~50% of the time. A trained, talented individual would consider these relatively difficult, failing ~20% of the time

Hard (15): the general limit of “beginner’s luck.” Depending on the skill in question, it would be inappropriate to allow untrained individuals (lacking proficiency) to even attempt this task (or something harder); they should be informed that they will automatically fail before rolling. At the DM’s discretion, certain tasks, like Strength checks, may be an exception to this rule; under extraordinary stress and pressure, someone might achieve something they wouldn’t under normal circumstances. But even that only goes so far, and shouldn’t apply at all to many tasks (like the Knowledge skills, picking a lock, or giving a creature first aid). If luck could play a large factor in the outcome, the DM may allow untrained characters to attempt. If particular knowledge, delicate or practiced movements, or “trade secrets” are highly applicable, don’t allow untrained characters to roll

Very Hard (20): the highest result an average untrained person could achieve; the metaphysical limit of beginner’s luck

Extreme (25): the kind of tasks that even experts are unlikely to succeed at

Nearly Impossible (30): the kind of tasks that stories are written about

===============

Edit -
I think I'll rename Very Easy to Trivial, Easy to Moderate, and Medium to Intermediate (and the rest the same)

[Doug Lampert]

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean when you say there is no such thing as a skill check.

I'm not stoutstien, but, in 5th edition there are three types of rolls, ability checks, saves, and attacks. Some rolls of each of these types get to add the character's proficiency modifier.

There is no such thing as a skill check. It simply does not happen in the rules.

There are ability checks where you get a bonus of being allowed to add your proficiency modifier because you have a relevant proficiency.

The baseline values for "how hard is this ability check" should be set based on the ability scores characters are likely to have. Any added bonus from proficiency is a bonus and should make success more likely rather than making you increase the DC to compensate. When figuring a DC, 15 is "the best in the world succeed at this on a roll of 10 or higher without a special bonus", because proficiency is a special bonus to an ability check, and this is an ability check, not a skill check.

[Amnestic]

Having DC0/1/2 knowledge (arcana, history, etc.) checks can be very good because while the majority of characters will guarantee make them, sometimes the int-dumping idiots will smash roll low and get the complete wrong end of the stick, and that can be very funny.

[stoutstien]

I'm not stoutstien, but, in 5th edition there are three types of rolls, ability checks, saves, and attacks. Some rolls of each of these types get to add the character's proficiency modifier.

There is no such thing as a skill check. It simply does not happen in the rules.

There are ability checks where you get a bonus of being allowed to add your proficiency modifier because you have a relevant proficiency.

The baseline values for "how hard is this ability check" should be set based on the ability scores characters are likely to have. Any added bonus from proficiency is a bonus and should make success more likely rather than making you increase the DC to compensate. When figuring a DC, 15 is "the best in the world succeed at this on a roll of 10 or higher without a special bonus", because proficiency is a special bonus to an ability check, and this is an ability check, not a skill check.
Basically this.

Now if they didn't go and break this relatively good design principle left and right I would wager the complaints about ability checks would be limited to to those who would be better if not playing a open ended action resolution system to begin with.

[Skrum]

I'm not stoutstien, but, in 5th edition there are three types of rolls, ability checks, saves, and attacks. Some rolls of each of these types get to add the character's proficiency modifier.

There is no such thing as a skill check. It simply does not happen in the rules.

There are ability checks where you get a bonus of being allowed to add your proficiency modifier because you have a relevant proficiency.

The baseline values for "how hard is this ability check" should be set based on the ability scores characters are likely to have. Any added bonus from proficiency is a bonus and should make success more likely rather than making you increase the DC to compensate. When figuring a DC, 15 is "the best in the world succeed at this on a roll of 10 or higher without a special bonus", because proficiency is a special bonus to an ability check, and this is an ability check, not a skill check.

I'm pretty sure you're right about this, but it makes me hate the skill/ability check system even more. A character with 20 in the relevant stat is 25 percentage points more likely to succeed than a commoner? That's ridiculous. Look at a cross-fit athlete, or a powerlifter. Their warmup is literally beyond the capabilities of most people. Them being only moderately more likely to succeed - with a significant chance the commoner just straight up outperforms them - in a test of strength is an absolute failure

[Psyren]

This discussion makes me want to get away from the easy, medium, hard language entirely. It frames what the system (should) be doing in a very unhelpful way.

On my table, I bumped everything down by 5 (so very easy is 0, easy is 5, etc), and then added some extra difficulties a the top. And this is what I said about each category

Skill DCs
Very Easy (0): a task that is trivial; often an assumed part of another action. These tasks should not be rolled for, as there is no meaningful chance of failure.

Easy (5): tasks with a meaningful chance of failure for untrained attempts by someone with no particular talent for it (lacking proficiency and having a low associated ability score, respectively)

Medium (10): moderately difficult tasks; the average person would fail these tasks ~50% of the time. A trained, talented individual would consider these relatively difficult, failing ~20% of the time

Hard (15): the general limit of “beginner’s luck.” Depending on the skill in question, it would be inappropriate to allow untrained individuals (lacking proficiency) to even attempt this task (or something harder); they should be informed that they will automatically fail before rolling. At the DM’s discretion, certain tasks, like Strength checks, may be an exception to this rule; under extraordinary stress and pressure, someone might achieve something they wouldn’t under normal circumstances. But even that only goes so far, and shouldn’t apply at all to many tasks (like the Knowledge skills, picking a lock, or giving a creature first aid). If luck could play a large factor in the outcome, the DM may allow untrained characters to attempt. If particular knowledge, delicate or practiced movements, or “trade secrets” are highly applicable, don’t allow untrained characters to roll

Very Hard (20): the highest result an average untrained person could achieve; the metaphysical limit of beginner’s luck

Extreme (25): the kind of tasks that even experts are unlikely to succeed at

Nearly Impossible (30): the kind of tasks that stories are written about

===============

Edit -
I think I'll rename Very Easy to Trivial, Easy to Moderate, and Medium to Intermediate (and the rest the same)

I agree with this labeling and said as much in my survey, but I don't think it'll stick.

[Darth Credence]

I'm not stoutstien, but, in 5th edition there are three types of rolls, ability checks, saves, and attacks. Some rolls of each of these types get to add the character's proficiency modifier.

There is no such thing as a skill check. It simply does not happen in the rules.

There are ability checks where you get a bonus of being allowed to add your proficiency modifier because you have a relevant proficiency.

The baseline values for "how hard is this ability check" should be set based on the ability scores characters are likely to have. Any added bonus from proficiency is a bonus and should make success more likely rather than making you increase the DC to compensate. When figuring a DC, 15 is "the best in the world succeed at this on a roll of 10 or higher without a special bonus", because proficiency is a special bonus to an ability check, and this is an ability check, not a skill check.


Basically this.

Now if they didn't go and break this relatively good design principle left and right I would wager the complaints about ability checks would be limited to to those who would be better if not playing a open ended action resolution system to begin with.

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I think I end up in the same area by tying the checks to how I think it relates to a commoner. The idea that the best in the world at something would not have proficiency in it gives me a bit of heartburn, but that doesn't change how I would set a DC. For me, I don't think about the best - I think about how likely I think it should be for a commoner to do it. If a commoner will do it every time, DC 0. If they can do it half the time, DC 10 (should be 11, but, hey, round numbers). That makes natural talent worthwhile, but not controlling, I think - someone with a 20 strength but no proficiency is twice as likely as a commoner to do a medium-difficulty thing, but someone with strength who has practiced the thing could be good enough to not even need a roll, or someone without the strength but has practiced may do as well as the naturally talented.

[stoutstien]

I'm pretty sure you're right about this, but it makes me hate the skill/ability check system even more. A character with 20 in the relevant stat is 25 percentage points more likely to succeed than a commoner? That's ridiculous. Look at a cross-fit athlete, or a powerlifter. Their warmup is literally beyond the capabilities of most people. Them being only moderately more likely to succeed - with a significant chance the commoner just straight up outperforms them - in a test of strength is an absolute failure

That's because the DC isn't meant to be used to determine minimal or maximum capacity for a given task. They are situationally derived so you still have the ability to have the advanced athletes to do stuff consistently without fail that others would merely have a slim chance to achieve. It also allow tasks that are flat out impossible to be within reach for some.

If you try to map DCs to become static then you lose this ability and you add weight to the randomizer (dice) rather than the players choices in game.

That's why the flow is important when actions are declared so you don't end in a place where the results would be contraire to a tables agreed range of results.

[Skrum]

That's because the DC isn't meant to be used to determine minimal or maximum capacity for a given task. They are situationally derived so you still have the ability to have the advanced athletes to do stuff consistently without fail that others would merely have a slim chance to achieve. It also allow tasks that are flat out impossible to be within reach for some.

Isn't that back to making the DC relative to the character who's making the roll though? Which is really just ad-hoc making up for the fact that proficiency isn't a big enough bonus to properly encapsulate skills.

[Dr.Samurai]

What do people think of Mearls' suggestion to reduce DCs by 5?

[Darth Credence]

What do people think of Mearls' suggestion to reduce DCs by 5?

Did not know he suggested it, but do it already.

[stoutstien]

Isn't that back to making the DC relative to the character who's making the roll though? Which is really just ad-hoc making up for the fact that proficiency isn't a big enough bonus to properly encapsulate skills.

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

[Rukelnikov]

The DC has to be based on who is attempting it because there isn't a standard DC for anything. Each time a player chooses a potential action you run the cycle for that instance and that instance alone.

You first check if a roll is warranted, because it can't fail or it impossible, before you do anything else. This includes looking at setting a DC. This is determined by who, what, when, how. Only one of those are potentially derived by numbers on a sheet though if you have a consistent group it's easy to just base it on the character flat out. Big strong dude does big strong stuff more readily numbers aside.

Now if you decide that the outcome is uncertain*then* you look at your DC chart and derive a threshold but it's still based on the same things you used to check if the randomness was needed. GMs have two levers with the value and advantage/disadvantage. The later is great to use if you have a bunch of different individuals making similar checks in short secession.

It's ad hoc by design because both the action and outcome is not a set value. That's what open-ended resolution is in a nutshell. Once you try to fix one or the other into a hard number it gets wonky fast.

If everything's made up and points don't matter, why use Advantage/Disadvantage anyway? Just set the DC higher or lower.

The suggestion to the DM to give Adv/Disadv if they deem it favorable unfavorable for the character attempting the check, makes me think this line of reasoning for setting DCs is not what the PHB says at all.

[stoutstien]

If everything's made up and points don't matter, why use Advantage/Disadvantage anyway? Just set the DC higher or lower.

The suggestion to the DM to give Adv/Disadv if they deem it favorable unfavorable for the character attempting the check, makes me think this line of reasoning for setting DCs is not what the PHB says at all.

Advantage an disadvantage allows you to have variance without just cranking up the threshold which plays very nicely with the concept of limited bonuses and those bonuses are more important on the top and bottom end of challenges. Flat numbers have a tendency to run off the table regardless of the method used to generate its content. People who complain about swing in the die is usually caused by a GM not utilizing it. You could get away with DC 5 10 15 and adv/dis thanks to how it works out with the the ability score caps.

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

[Skrum]

As for the rules this *is* the standard method. The DMG has alternative paths but if you are solely looking at the PHB then this break down is how it works.

And people wonder why I think the rogue is bad. A large portion of their design power is attached to "ask the DM to make it up for you on a case by case basis! It's not like they have anything better to do anyway"