Dealing with the stormwind fallacy

[Popertop]

I had been having friction with my DM about the power level of the characters he allows, and then this happened:

We were talking about pathfinder because I looked it over and I really like what it does with some of the classes. (monk & paladin)
So I told him and he said this:

"I don't think that much power makes sense, role-play-wise."

So yeah. Stormwind fallacy.

Also, he plays an epic level cleric that is multiclassed out the ass(Contemplative for the bonus domains, 5 or so maybe more levels of Runecaster, oh, and he's an item creationist), the chosen of moradin (+5 CON +10 WIS), has a special divine forging area he can retreat to anytime he wants, and is creating an artifact called the Hand of Moradin, which basically lets everything go off his Wis (touch attacks, saves, wis to AC, other things I can't remember)

So along with the fallacy, we have the double standard of the year award.



How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns,
especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's... not really the Stormwind Fallacy.

From a thread

In brief: the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well.

Roland said it was a good summary, so it's good enough for me.

Anyhow: If your DM doesn't like something and says it doesn't fit "roleplay-wise" you have to ask him what he means. Particularly when you're dealing with 3.X/PF Paladins & Monks (very fluffy classes) it may be something aside from pure optimization issues.

I mean, it doesn't sound like the DM has problems with optimization levels, what with a Tier I Character running around making artifacts.

EDIT: Also, you have to speak with your DM. If he says you can't do something, and that thing is very important to you, then either you reach a compromise or you quit the game. It's pretty simple, really.

[Yora]

You can tell him he's wrong. He probably will say no. Then you can accept that, or don't play with him.
Neither is a good solution, but I don't see anything that can be done when the dm arbitrarily sets bars for you that don't apply to others.

[Grelna the Blue]

He plays a Tier 1 character that didn't get a big upgrade in Pathfinder. In 3.5 Ed, before the major Pathfinder upgrade to the low end classes, monks and paladins were generally considered Tier 4-5. Even after the upgrade, neither got access to high level spells so neither can break the game in the way clerics always could and still can. They got somewhat better at doing damage by hitting things. He considers this a bad thing?

[Kurald Galain]

How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns, especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?

Okay, if I understand you correctly, your DM wants to run a high-level campaign containing his epic-level cleric, and you want to play a Pathfinder monk, but you can't because he thinks it's too powerful? What exactly is the problem here, then? You can simply pick some other kind of character.

[Coidzor]

How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns,
especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?

Rule -1: Don't play with known expletives. And someone who belittles and insults you to your face....

It is a source of continual consternation and confusion how content people are to give DMs special privileges to abuse, insult, and mistreat other people. Like they have some right to insult people to their face without being called on their BS.

[O_Y]

I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

I'd probably play a different character (or sit out of that campaign, if the character was the only thing drawing me to the game) and keep the PF Paladin for a later game with a different DM. Getting snotty or making a scene with a friend/person you expect to hang out with regularly, just because of their campaign restrictions, would be petty.

[Godskook]

1.Invite him here, for us to talk to directly.

2.Have him read the tier list written by Jaronk. A fascinating read, and one that *EVERYONE* should be familiar with.

3.Ask him to outline for you what would fit the following two criteria: "feels like a Paladin/Monk" and "Powerful"

4.Grab an Unarmed Swordsage or Crusader, or maybe a JPM or RKV, and go wild, having snagged something that's fluffed like your monk/paladin, but is also fairly powerful.

5.Build a semi-famous build that has paladin or monk as a necessary but small part, such as Sorcadin, Tashalatoran Monk, Enlightened Fist, or similar.

[true_shinken]

I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

I'd probably play a different character (or sit out of that campaign, if the character was the only thing drawing me to the game) and keep the PF Paladin for a later game with a different DM. Getting snotty or making a scene with a friend/person you expect to hang out with regularly, just because of their campaign restrictions, would be petty.

This. So much wisdom for a single post!

[Coidzor]

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

Paladins are magical and can actually use magic. And monks are quasi-magical.

[woodenbandman]

Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.

Also, explain to him that spells are not the only way to be magical. for instance, Ghosts are magical because they have supernatural abilities, not because they cast spells. Same with werewolves. Paladins and monks are also magical, because they have supernatural abilities, therefore it makes no sense that a Paladin is arbitrarily less powerful than a wizard, because both of them are magical in their own ways.

[Godskook]

I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

So you're ok with monks and paladins being low-leveled still, while all the cool classes get to be level 21?

Cause really, that's what your saying, but only its hidden behind the terms "powerful" instead of "level", but since they're supposed to be equal in 3.5, saying one means agreeing with the other.

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

Paladin is magical. He gets exactly two (Ex) abilities, Aura of Good and Divine Health(guess how *non-magical* either of those are). Everything else gets a (Su) or (Sp) tag. He *CASTS* spells, and can get epic spellcasting without multiclasssing, cheese, or anything weird.

Monk, while less so, is still got some (Su) and (Sp) on his list, such as Ki Strike, Diamond Soul, Abundant Step and Empty Soul.

[true_shinken]

Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.

Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both verossimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

[Coidzor]

Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both verossimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

Except that's not the kind of balancing we're talking about. We're talking about Pathfinder.

And Paladins and Monks are still magical, so your point there actually argues against Paladins and Monks being so much weaker than wizards.

[Tyndmyr]

Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.

Correct. It is a statement, not an explanation. I can SAY that monks are overpowered, but unless I can explain WHY they are, I'm not terribly likely to convince anyone.

If he doesn't bother to ever explain why, instead relying on "I know D&D and you don't", I'd just advise avoiding him. That sort of attitude invariably leads to trouble. Good DMs have reasons for what they do.

[true_shinken]

Except that's not the kind of balancing we're talking about. We're talking about Pathfinder.

The thing is: you are suggesting Pathfinder as a fix for someone who doesn't think it needs fixing, apparently. Pathfinder doesn't even fix balance issues like it was supposed to do.
Really, Pathfinder is a 3rd party game. The DM is well within his rights to deny access to official material, let's not even get started on 3rd party/homebrew. How is that so big of an issue, really? If you really want the paladin bear with your lower power, you can still have a lot of fun and accomplish great things. If you want more power, play a cleric, you can even refluff it as paladin-esque.

And Paladins and Monks are still magical, so your point there actually argues against Paladins and Monks being so much weaker than wizards.

My point is exactly about how wizards are the most powerful in fantasy settings, period. Can't see how Paladins/Monks having supernatural abilities would have anything to do with that.

[Gorgondantess]

The funniest thing about all this is that, really, the PF classes aren't much of a boost over the regular classes- they just get bigger numbers, not versatility. And then you have the PF wizard, who gets... yeah, versatility.

[Godskook]

Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both versimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.
1a.The genre, here, is "parodies of D&D 3.5"

2.Balance != 4e. You can have 3.5 characters who are both 'balanced' mechanically and distinctively different. If you want 'balanced' tier 1, its going to be hard, but it should be doable. 'Balanced' tier 3, on the other hand, contains psionics, vancian, initiators, skill monkeys, and probably meldshapers(not listed). The effect produced by classes in this tier is nearly as varied as 3.5 in general.

3.Magic is not the only source of power. This is *THE* fallacy that keeps martial characters from having nice things in 3.5. Compare with One Piece, a setting dominated by demon-fruit users, but 1.there's other 'cheap' powers and 2.simply being powerful is enough to contend with them.

4.There's nothing versimilitude breaking about a level 21 fighter doing the same power-level type things that an arcane caster can. He just needs different things to do. The problem is the assumption that you can keep batman as batman at level 21. You *CAN'T*. You need to upgrade from batman to superman, or something similar.

[Kurald Galain]

1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.

And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

[Coidzor]

The thing is: you are suggesting Pathfinder as a fix for someone who doesn't think it needs fixing, apparently. Pathfinder doesn't even fix balance issues like it was supposed to do.

Well, I'm not. My suggestion was to not play with a DM who can't be civil.

Really, Pathfinder is a 3rd party game. The DM is well within his rights to deny access to official material, let's not even get started on 3rd party/homebrew.

So? The DM didn't shoot it down because they weren't using Pathfinder Material so this point is irrelevant kinda irrelevant

If you want more power, play a cleric, you can even refluff it as paladin-esque.

Which, given even the pathfinder material, is a fair point due to cleric + PrC making a better Paladin than the Paladin. Though it also does reinforce the inherent foibles of the system by using such a workaround.

My point is exactly about how wizards are the most powerful in fantasy settings, period. Can't see how Paladins/Monks having supernatural abilities would have anything to do with that.

Your point was keyed off of "Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful." Thus, since Paladins are magic users, the question is raised, why then, are they the antithesis of "amazingly powerful," and yet wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids are of a level so far beyond them? Which glosses over the related issues of game and class balance and of game realities versus story realities.

If you can't see how Paladins and Monks being magic would have to do with Magic = Power, then you need to re-read your own post.

[true_shinken]

1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.
1a.The genre, here, is "parodies of D&D 3.5"

See Kurald's point above.

2.Balance != 4e. You can have 3.5 characters who are both 'balanced' mechanically and distinctively different. If you want 'balanced' tier 1, its going to be hard, but it should be doable. 'Balanced' tier 3, on the other hand, contains psionics, vancian, initiators, skill monkeys, and probably meldshapers(not listed). The effect produced by classes in this tier is nearly as varied as 3.5 in general.

You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.

3.Magic is not the only source of power. This is *THE* fallacy that keeps martial characters from having nice things in 3.5. Compare with One Piece, a setting dominated by demon-fruit users, but 1.there's other 'cheap' powers and 2.simply being powerful is enough to contend with them.

I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.

4.There's nothing versimilitude breaking about a level 21 fighter doing the same power-level type things that an arcane caster can. He just needs different things to do. The problem is the assumption that you can keep batman as batman at level 21. You *CAN'T*. You need to upgrade from batman to superman, or something similar.

And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.

Your point was keyed off of "Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful." Thus, since Paladins are magic users, the question is raised, why then, are they the antithesis of "amazingly powerful," and yet wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids are of a level so far beyond them? Which glosses over the related issues of game and class balance and of game realities versus story realities.

If you can't see how Paladins and Monks being magic would have to do with Magic = Power, then you need to re-read your own post.

Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

[The Glyphstone]

And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

Vaarsuvius didn't teleport any ships across the world, that was Ganonron the Conjurer's power acting through him - see Plot Power Upgrade. Defeating three elementals, sure, though we don't know what CR a titanium elemental is. High level scrying spells...Vaarsuvius's Enhanced Scrying could be, at worst, a 5th level spell.

Durkon, comparatively, regularly transforms into a giant dwarf and beats the crap out of anything within his reach, including singlehandedly defeating a Druid (another T1 class) in one-on-one combat who was either equal to his level or 1 below him.

Both of them squander the power of their classes (Evoker vs. Healbot), but V has permanently hamstrung himself, while Durkon could just play more intelligently.

On-topic, I'm more worried about the double standard issue than the stormwinding issue. Seems like he just wants to be the only awesome person around.

[Coidzor]

And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.

Well, yes, it's somewhat of a contentious issue, but to claim something isn't worth doing or 'breaks verisimilitude' simply because some people don't want to play that way is false. It depends on far too many individual variables and is entirely a case-by-case thing.

Furthermore, using breaking verisimilitude as a knee-jerk, end of conversation reaction to change is not good. That should start the conversation on the DM's end, not the end of it. Because if someone can't express their position on the game and why, then what are they doing running a game?

Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

And you need to re-read your own post if you still can't see what I did there by turning your own arguments and applying it to the classes you argue should be less capable of contributing to the game than other classes.

[true_shinken]

Well, yes, it's somewhat of a contentious issue, but to claim something isn't worth doing or 'breaks verisimilitude' simply because some people don't want to play that way is false. It depends on far too many individual variables and is entirely a case-by-case thing.

Of course it's a case by case thing. And the OP is an a game where this case came up.

Furthermore, using breaking verisimilitude as a knee-jerk, end of conversation reaction to change is not good. That should start the conversation on the DM's end, not the end of it. Because if someone can't express their position on the game and why, then what are they doing running a game?

Well, he expressed his position ('I don't want the Pathfinder Paladin') and why ('because I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful').
Then, instead of asking the DM about this, we saw a player starting a thread accusing the DM of double standards and (wrongly) invoking the stormwind fallacy.

And you need to re-read your own post if you still can't see what I did there by turning your own arguments and applying it to the classes you argue should be less capable of contributing to the game than other classes.

Yeah, I had one sentence where I said 'magic is supposed to be powerful' instead of 'wizards are supposed to be powerful'. I already said (twice) that was not what I meant as well.
Also, 'contributing to the game' has nothing to do with classes. You, as a player, contribute to the game by showing up, interacting and being a somewhat reasonable fellow. Your character is just a tool. You're just pushing us back to a balance debate here and that's not what I'm talking about.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, he expressed his position ('I don't want the Pathfinder Paladin') and why ('because I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful').
Then, instead of asking the DM about this, we saw a player starting a thread accusing the DM of double standards and (wrongly) invoking the stormwind fallacy.
.

Unless the OP clarified later in-thread and I missed it...this isn't what was said. the DM's position on 'why' wasn't "I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful", it was

"I don't think that much power makes sense, role-play-wise."

That is invoking Stormwind, or at least teetering towards it, in that he believes said power (however much it is) cannot be roleplayed, or would not make sense to roleplay. It may be a casters-vs-noncasters issue, we don't know, but OP wasn't wrong to invoke Stormwind, because the one line of dialogue we actually have regarding the supposed conversation qualifies.

[O_Y]

So you're ok with monks and paladins being low-leveled still, while all the cool classes get to be level 21?

I haven't mentioned my opinions, because they're completely irrelevant here.

I don't think it's hard to believe there's somebody who wants to play D&D under the same assumptions as, say, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, where there is a blatant power disparity between Norms and Survivors within a group.

Paladin is magical.

True. I was hoping I could give an easy example without going into something involving shades of grey/orders of degree. The DM might look at the Paladin as less magical than a full spellcaster or look at melee as something which shouldn't be resolved as briefly/efficiently as a PF Paladin can make it. The DM's statement (specifically the complaint about the power "making sense" rather than it distracting from RP or somehow precluding RP) sounds like it had some context other than "Power = 1 / Roleplay."

It's possible to play under a different set of assumptions than you want to use in games you run. For example, I don't allow prepared spellcasters in my D&D games because they undermine the atmosphere and playstyle that I want to encourage, but when I play in somebody else's game, based on their assumptions, I'll play a Cleric if I think it'd be fun.

EDIT:
Whoa. A whole conversation went on between the time I typed this and the time I could post it.
Anyway, most of this is speculation. My points were really just "he's not necessarily wrong (even if he might be an a*****e)" and "being a jerk to your buddies isn't worth it."

[MeeposFire]

See Kurald's point above.


You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.


I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.


And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.



Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

1) D&D is about anything you want it to. Medieval fantasy, manga, hamsters in space, etc.

2) For other people casters making such a mockery of the game breaks verossimilitude. So I guess the point is moot.

[Heliomance]

Also, he plays an epic level cleric that is multiclassed out the ass(Contemplative for the bonus domains, 5 or so maybe more levels of Runecaster, oh, and he's an item creationist), the chosen of moradin (+5 CON +10 WIS), has a special divine forging area he can retreat to anytime he wants, and is creating an artifact called the Hand of Moradin, which basically lets everything go off his Wis (touch attacks, saves, wis to AC, other things I can't remember)

Waitwaitwait. Is this in the same game? As in, the game he's DMing? Because if this is a DMPC, you have more problems than just his skewed sense of balance, and you should probably get out now.

[Godskook]

See Kurald's point above.

And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

1.Vaarsuvious has never teleported dozen of ships *ANYWHERE* under his own power. He can't even teleport himself. That was the soulsplice.

2."Defeat 3 elementals" is an amusing statement to make, but it isn't nearly as impressive as "Stand toe-to-toe with Druid", which Vaarsuvius is not capable of doing, but Durkon is.

3."Research several spells" does not convey a sense of being anymore powerful than Durkon, especially since all said spells failed to work in their intended way(including the one that should've).

4.V is playing a blaster-caster, which is a low-op build for a wizard, to the point that Warmage is a tier 4 class. Durkon is playing clericzilla who holds his power in reserve. Are you really telling me the psuedo-warmage sounds more powerful to you?

5.Cleric and Wizard are both tier 1 classes, so relatively, the only real distinguishment between individual power is campaign setting and optimization. For the latter, see point #4. For the former, OotS's world doesn't seem pre-disposed to clerics or wizards. Thus, Durkon wins on optimization alone.

You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.

I understood your point, and disagree. You seemed to miss mine, where tier 3 is balanced and nearly as varied as 3.5 as a whole.

I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.

Medieval-ish fantasy requires something like E6, and at that point, sure, monks and paladins are fine as-is. By later levels, the only reason a setting like that persists is cause the casters have all taken a non-interference policy.

At epic levels(which is what we're talking about), there's no correlation to medieval times anymore. Wizards have stopped caring about what the common man thinks.

And medieval fantasy has unenchanted knights slaying large+ size dragons. On their own. How does *THAT* jive with D&D, where the appropriate classes are probably *SCREWED* against such a creature of the same CR as their ECL.

And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.

Versimilitude != "What many people want"

[true_shinken]

1) D&D is about anything you want it to. Medieval fantasy, manga, hamsters in space, etc.

Of course. If you are the DM. And that guy is.

2) For other people casters making such a mockery of the game breaks verossimilitude. So I guess the point is moot.

It's not, because we're talking about someone who thinks the other way around. How 'other people' think doesn't matter here; the point is what this DM thinks.

Unless the OP clarified later in-thread and I missed it...this isn't what was said. the DM's position on 'why' wasn't "I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful"

Hm, maybe I was assuming too much. Everything I said is indeed conjecture.