How many of you truly believe that only spell casters are worth playing?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So - illusions are bad, because they're just bluffing, but Bluff is good? You can't say that skills are good and creative, and then say that spells which do similar things to those skills are boring and uncreative.

Not what I was saying (whatever happened to the principle of charitable interpretation?). Images (not all illusions) aren't bad. They're the same as bluffing. If the concept and result are the same, why does it matter which tool you use to garner that effect?

And this I don't get at all. If the situation is that you're trying to accomplish something in a social environment like a city or a court, then people are the most important part of the environment. And wouldn't skills be doing the same thing? You use Diplomacy on people, you don't use it on furniture.

One of two things happens in a social encounter, barring DM incompetence or deliberate generosity:

The target is important enough to have taken steps to protect himself or to be in an environment protected from enchantment effects

or

The target is a chump and this isn't an encounter, per se.


Side-note: in a courtly intrigue adventure/campaign, you're going to be using a wand for these things because it's one of the few exceptions to the generality of casters having plenty of slots most of the time. UMD isn't tough to come by.

See also the previous comment about why should you insist on spells if not-spells can garner the same or sufficienty similar results.

If you're talking about just combat specifically, then points #1-3 apply really strongly. I seldom see non-contrived uses of the environment in combat that are an improvement on attacking normally. It does come up occasionally, but not even as much as "off brand" spell usage does.

It is generally a combat concern but it's not limited to that alone.

I'll posit that a DM skilled enough to deal with the myriad options that casters have is also more than skilled enough to lay out encounter environs that include useful details fairly consistently.

[ryu]

Just gonna point out it's pretty disingenuous to argue that your method of achieving the result doesn't matter when literally your entire argument so far was about having a problem with the expedient way magic achieves things. Also charitable interpretation is a privilege generally reserved for people not on the opposite side of debate. Ceding free opportunities to rattle the opponent is poor strategy.

[Cosi]

We're talking past each other, apparently. I'm not talking about campaign level design. I'm talking about -encounter- level design.

Encounter level design is even easier. Out of the book monsters are balanced to casters. FFS, whole swathes of them just are casters. Remember last time you brought this point up, then ran away in shame when people pointed out you were totally wrong?

A fighter can buy a helmet of teleportation and the wayfarer's guild is a thing. The paradigm shifting spells aren't hard to come by just because you can't cast them directly from your own memory.

If you can't do it directly from your own memory, it's not paradigm shifting. The abilities to "buy a thing", "hire a NPC", or "find a location" are not, at least as generally implemented in D&D, a part of your character power in any meaningful sense. They do not shift the game in the way the ability to cast a spell does.

Examples: dc 40 tumble lets you take 10ft steps instead of 5ft and ranged pin lets you "grapple" a foe from the range of your bow/ x-bow. You can't do either of these at level 1. Evolution of basic mechanics is still progression.

Ah yes, clearly these are paradigm shifting abilities on par with teleport and planar binding. No ability shifts your character more than going from moving one square to two squares as a free action.

You missed it again. You cannot possibly be unaware of what tools you will have available when you bring all your usable tools with you.

You are always aware of all the tools you have available to you. As a Fighter those tools might be things like "skill checks" and "thumbs". As a Wizard they are things like "unseen servant" and "fabricate". Just as Fighter can use his "thumbs" ability to manipulate a rope, the Wizard can use his "unseen servant" ability to move various parts of the environment.

The forum's strict policy against flaming prevents me from addressing this appropriately. Imagine something vitriolic in response to this blatant condecension over differing opinion.

Which of the Fighter's abilities is not lifted straight from Skyrim? Is it the ability to wield weapons? Attack things? Pick up items? You would think if you were so performatively angry, you'd be able to name something.

I never said it was a universal. This is not an all or nothing matter. There -is- a correlation though, in that it -does- often require more critical thinking to make do with greater limitations.

It requires more critical thinking to solve the same problem with greater abilities. However, high level characters (the sort of people who get new abilities), should not solve the same problems as low level characters. I have to make this point disturbingly often here, but the entire point of the level system is to not be forced to solve the same problems for the whole game. If you don't want to use new abilities to solve new problems, why are you gaining levels? If you like how the game plays at 1st level, play the game at 1st level. Don't demand the whole game be 1st level, let alone call me condescending for wanting to play the game at a higher level.

The image line are fundamentally the same, no matter what you do with them. They are images, nothing more. Picking a good image can be very effective but it's fundamentally no different from simply bluffing the opponent. It's simple deception.

Well, except that it creates the appearance of genuine alteration, meaning you can Bluff people you can't communicate with. And that you can Bluff passively. And, depending on duration, that you can Bluff areas you can't see. All that just off the top of my head.

Telekinesis is just doing a subset of basic actions at a distance. It's notable for allowing you to make dramatically more attack rolls than you otherwise might but that's about it.

And giving you a dramatically higher strength score. You really think Phoenix and Hawkeye are fundamentally the same because they both "do stuff at range"?

BFC is bfc, no matter which spells you're using. If stone shape won't work because you're in a wooden structure, wall of stone will.

Yes, there is no difference between grease, silent image, wall of stone, cloudkill, wall of fire, evard's black tentacles, and web the same thing. There is no difference between those spells, and encounters involving any of them play out exactly the same.

Not what I was saying (whatever happened to the principle of charitable interpretation?). Images (not all illusions) aren't bad. They're the same as bluffing. If the concept and result are the same, why does it matter which tool you use to garner that effect?

So why is it so important that we not use spells?

The target is important enough to have taken steps to protect himself or to be in an environment protected from enchantment effects

Wow, it sounds like well developed encounters cope with the abilities of PCs and still provide a challenge even if people can cast spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just gonna point out it's pretty disingenuous to argue that your method of achieving the result doesn't matter when literally your entire argument so far was about having a problem with the expedient way magic achieves things.

Remember the question posed by the thread: are -only- spellcasters worth playing. If extra difficulty makes the game more enjoyable for others as it often does for me, then the expedience of spells -becomes- bad as it actively hurts one of their sources of enjoyment.

My ultimate position is that neither casters nor non-casters are entirely bad. I enjoy both for different, sometimes conflicting reasons.

In the points you're referencing, I was pointing out that spells are -not- dramatically more expedient or exclusive sources of the desired effect as a counter to the idea that they are inherently better because it simply isn't true in those specific cases. I was countering a point, not making one there.

Also charitable interpretation is a privilege generally reserved for people not on the opposite side of debate. Ceding free opportunities to rattle the opponent is poor strategy.

That presumes that your goal is to defeat your opponent rather than to actually try to reach mutual understanding. It also leads directly to strawmanning which weakens your position when it's spotted.

Taking the charitable interpretation, on the other hand, tends to help both sides to -honestly- reach an understanding of the others' position and to help onlookers make a clearer decision on whom it is with which they agree.

So I ask, do you want to convince anybody or just to make the other guy look bad?

[ryu]

Remember the question posed by the thread: are -only- spellcasters worth playing. If extra difficulty makes the game more enjoyable for others as it often does for me, then the expedience of spells -becomes- bad as it actively hurts one of their sources of enjoyment.

My ultimate position is that neither casters nor non-casters are entirely bad. I enjoy both for different, sometimes conflicting reasons.

In the points you're referencing, I was pointing out that spells are -not- dramatically more expedient or exclusive sources of the desired effect as a counter to the idea that they are inherently better because it simply isn't true in those specific cases. I was countering a point, not making one there.



That presumes that your goal is to defeat your opponent rather than to actually try to reach mutual understanding. It also leads directly to strawmanning which weakens your position when it's spotted.

Taking the charitable interpretation, on the other hand, tends to help both sides to -honestly- reach an understanding of the others' position and to help onlookers make a clearer decision on whom it is with which they agree.

So I ask, do you want to convince anybody or just to make the other guy look bad?

I would posit that your hypothetical scenario is such a completely and utterly rare scenario in debate that I will continue to presume the goal of all involved parties is to achieve victory until proven otherwise on an a case-by-case basis. It's statistically highly likely to be correct in the vast majority of situations. This is why it's the default assumption.

[icefractal]

Also charitable interpretation is a privilege generally reserved for people not on the opposite side of debate. Ceding free opportunities to rattle the opponent is poor strategy.

That's a bit far. We're not debating for points or anything, it's just a conversation.

My ultimate position is that neither casters nor non-casters are entirely bad. I enjoy both for different, sometimes conflicting reasons.

In that case, I think I misread you a bit. If it's just that non-casters can be completely viable characters, then I don't disagree. I'd still prefer a caster for a long-term sandbox campaign, but that's a personal preference for concrete mechanics on strategic actions, and with the right GM it wouldn't be essential. And for shorter and/or more directed stuff, it's not even a factor; I've played non-casters or only-slightly-casters (Totemist, for example) and had no problems contributing.

From some of the posts, it sounded more like you were saying that casters are going to inherently have less creativity possible than non-casters; that's what I was disagreeing with.

[ryu]

That's a bit far. We're not debating for points or anything, it's just a conversation.

In that case, I think I misread your point a bit. If it's just that non-casters can be completely viable characters, then I don't disagree. I'd still prefer a caster for a long-term sandbox campaign, but that's a personal preference for concrete mechanics on strategic actions, and with the right GM it wouldn't be essential. And for shorter and/or more directed stuff, it's not even a factor; I've played non-casters or only-slightly-casters (Totemist, for example) and had no problems contributing.

From some of the posts, it sounded more like you were saying that casters are going to inherently have less creativity possible than non-casters; that's what I was disagreeing with.

You don't find that to generally the case until proven otherwise? You've a much less jaded view of people than I do if so.

[icefractal]

You don't find that to generally the case until proven otherwise? You've a much less jaded view of people than I do if so.

I do find that a lot of people try to achieve victory at all costs in online debates/conversations/whatever, but that doesn't mean it's logical to do so.

It's not like I'd get any money or fame from 'winning' a thread, nor is it likely that taking a hard-line approach will convince anyone to change their mind. That latter is pretty unlikely even under the best of circumstances, but making things hostile just reduces the odds more.

In this case, I'm not sure I even have a specific objective in mind - maybe to find some ground that's unknown, like where exactly the line is for "spells that enable interesting actions" vs "spells that avoid interesting actions", and then see if discussion of that area turns up any new ideas? But really I was just responding because it's a potentially interesting topic, and seeing where it went.

Of course, what with a textual format making it hard to read tone or intent, it's easy to get heated, and I'm pretty far from being a perfect logical being, so hence uncharitable responses sometimes.

[Psyren]

That presumes that your goal is to defeat your opponent rather than to actually try to reach mutual understanding. It also leads directly to strawmanning which weakens your position when it's spotted.

Taking the charitable interpretation, on the other hand, tends to help both sides to -honestly- reach an understanding of the others' position and to help onlookers make a clearer decision on whom it is with which they agree.

So I ask, do you want to convince anybody or just to make the other guy look bad?

This should be the goal, I agree. Good luck finding it here.

[ryu]

I do find that a lot of people try to achieve victory at all costs in online debates/conversations/whatever, but that doesn't mean it's logical to do so.

It's not like I'd get any money or fame from 'winning' a thread, nor is it likely that taking a hard-line approach will convince anyone to change their mind. That latter is pretty unlikely even under the best of circumstances, but making things hostile just reduces the odds more.

In this case, I'm not sure I even have a specific objective in mind - maybe to find some ground that's unknown, like where exactly the line is for "spells that enable interesting actions" vs "spells that avoid interesting actions", and then see if discussion of that area turns up any new ideas? But really I was just responding because it's a potentially interesting topic, and seeing where it went.

Of course, what with a textual format making it hard to read tone or intent, it's easy to get heated, and I'm pretty far from being a perfect logical being, so hence uncharitable responses sometimes.

Why is it an illogical thing to occur? People on opposing sides of an argument will tend to get heated. Doubly so when general anonymity turns all possible conversation partners into words on a screen connected to the abstract concept of a person that will likely never be known as anything other than an alias. Seriously. It's like the internet was designed to foster that approach. Could you conceive of a better way to do so if you tried?

[Boogastreehouse]

*

When I play Arcanists I do like to plan for many contingencies, and I try and play as close to Treantmonk's God-Wizard archetype as the setting allows, however...

I also love playing lowly-tiered fighter-types (and not crazy-optimized either!), playing them smart, and still contributing significantly to the game.

I love when the wizard starts flipping through their spells—not even looking at the map—while trying to decide which of their pre-selected options will be of use in the current situation. Meanwhile, I'll have the fighter run up and kick over a stack of barrels, knocking a bunch of monsters prone and dividing their ranks. I got yer battlefield control, right here.

See the fighter can have options, too, if the player asks questions about the surroundings and gets creative. A lowly fighter can interact with the environment in lots of fun and exciting ways, given half a chance, and if the GM puts some kind of winch-and-pully system in a room and the rogue doesn't try to use it on the villain, then they deserve to be outshined by the wizard. Sure, this sort of thing is not exactly the same as casting god-like high-level spells, but taking an underestimated class and surprising everyone with it can still be immensely satisfying.

*

[Cosi]

Why is it an illogical thing to occur? People on opposing sides of an argument will tend to get heated. Doubly so when general anonymity turns all possible conversation partners into words on a screen connected to the abstract concept of a person that will likely never be known as anything other than an alias. Seriously. It's like the internet was designed to foster that approach. Could you conceive of a better way to do so if you tried?

You could do what reddit does, and have content that's posted faster and requires less effort be more visible, while simultaneously providing an incentive to make comments as provocative and/or circlejerk-y as possible.

I guess you could also pay people to insult each other?

[ryu]

You could do what reddit does, and have content that's posted faster and requires less effort be more visible, while simultaneously providing an incentive to make comments as provocative and/or circlejerk-y as possible.

I guess you could also pay people to insult each other?

To be fair I said the internet, not this forum. Got any examples that don't fall under the blanket?

[icefractal]

I love when the wizard starts flipping through their spells—not even looking at the map—while trying to decide which of their pre-selected options will be of use in the current situation.

It's true, having too many options to keep in memory at once can impeded really getting the most out of them. Out of combat, it's usually fine, but in combat, having a small number of versatile options is my ideal zone.

Like for example, I played a Ghost in one campaign, and that was just perfection, tactically speaking. Telekinesis, possession, draining touch, plus of course incorporeality. Few enough options I could always keep them in mind, and each one with versatility to play with (the touch not as much, but even that has some). Tons of ability to interact with the environment, good teamwork potential ... now I'm wanting to play one again, thinking about it. Possibly the only thing I've seen actually worth +5 LA.

The Warlock comes close, but there's a bit too much focus on amping up the blast if you want to be effective against serious opposition, and then at that point the other options are largely eclipsed.

[Cosi]

To be fair I said the internet, not this forum. Got any examples that don't fall under the blanket?

Oh I'm not saying the internet doesn't do what you said. I'm just saying you can totally make it worse than the baseline internet's problem of "anonymous people are *****".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Encounter level design is even easier. Out of the book monsters are balanced to casters. FFS, whole swathes of them just are casters. Remember last time you brought this point up, then ran away in shame when people pointed out you were totally wrong?

I didn't "run away." I stopped engaging when we reached the point that it became clear that you had no interest whatsoever in having your mind changed. Frankly, this conversation is probably a waste of both of our time but maybe someone beyond the two us can find it useful.

If you can't do it directly from your own memory, it's not paradigm shifting. The abilities to "buy a thing", "hire a NPC", or "find a location" are not, at least as generally implemented in D&D, a part of your character power in any meaningful sense. They do not shift the game in the way the ability to cast a spell does.

I'm just going to call a spade a spade here and say that's straight up BS. Teleport invalidates overland travel between known locations whether you cast it yourself or shell out a fist full of gold to get it done. Same goes for plane-hopping, flight, etc. Access to the effects at all causes the shift in paradigm, no matter how you get them. Seriously; beyond the price tag, what difference is there between knowing teleport and owning a helmet of teleportation?

Ah yes, clearly these are paradigm shifting abilities on par with teleport and planar binding. No ability shifts your character more than going from moving one square to two squares as a free action.

Did I say they were on the same scale? No. Trying to cover one absurd, deliberate misinterpretation my statements with another isn't a good look, dude. It shows your hand on the fact that you're far more interested in defeating me than understanding me.

You are always aware of all the tools you have available to you. As a Fighter those tools might be things like "skill checks" and "thumbs". As a Wizard they are things like "unseen servant" and "fabricate". Just as Fighter can use his "thumbs" ability to manipulate a rope, the Wizard can use his "unseen servant" ability to move various parts of the environment.

But you didn't know the rope was going to be there. That's the point. If you're trying to drop the shandelier because you need to flatten or delay 3 or 4 enemies at once, why would you bother if you know -any- AoE attack or entanglement effect spell, nevermind one that does both? You wouldn't because those options will near certainly be more effective than the shandelier and it'll be a comparable resource burn regardless.

Which of the Fighter's abilities is not lifted straight from Skyrim? Is it the ability to wield weapons? Attack things? Pick up items? You would think if you were so performatively angry, you'd be able to name something.

I dismissed what I took to be a dismissive statement.

You're too focused on the single character. Maybe I, and others, like those things -AND- telling a collaborative story with my friends, something I can't do by playing friggin' skyrim. I can't help thinking you're being deliberately obtuse here.

It requires more critical thinking to solve the same problem with greater abilities. However, high level characters (the sort of people who get new abilities), should not solve the same problems as low level characters. I have to make this point disturbingly often here, but the entire point of the level system is to not be forced to solve the same problems for the whole game. If you don't want to use new abilities to solve new problems, why are you gaining levels? If you like how the game plays at 1st level, play the game at 1st level. Don't demand the whole game be 1st level, let alone call me condescending for wanting to play the game at a higher level.

Alright, which problem, exactly, is not just an upscaled version of a lower level problem -and- cannot be solved without being a spellcaster?

I doubt you can come up with a singular answer. While a spellcaster can produce effects to copy the role of most other classes, -everything- they can do is available for purchase. I'm perfectly willing to be surprised, though.

Well, except that it creates the appearance of genuine alteration, meaning you can Bluff people you can't communicate with. And that you can Bluff passively. And, depending on duration, that you can Bluff areas you can't see. All that just off the top of my head.

The underlined is false. All of the image line are figments and figments explicitly cannot alter appearance. You can make a thing seem to be where nothing exists but you cannot alter anything except the overall scene.

That out of the way, a good bluff can easily obviate the need to bluff further. If you're stealthing then you probably don't -want- to throw an image around a corner and put the enemy on the alert or fake one of their own and have to both image -and- bluff when you're working without seeing what it is to which you're talking. Telepathy and tongues aren't that hard to come by for language issues and lack of communication ability is a major problem in its own right. Also, "depending on duration," when most of them have a duration of concentration plus a couple rounds, really? Which reminds me, what's passive about having to cast and concentrate on a spell? Unless you're talking about -just- programmed image for some reason?

And giving you a dramatically higher strength score. You really think Phoenix and Hawkeye are fundamentally the same because they both "do stuff at range"?

Higher than whom? Certainly not a strength based warrior of any kind. You might be able to get Jean Grey out of a psion built for the purpose but certainly not out of a mere telekinesis spell and you're not getting Phoenix out of a pre-epic character.

And again, I never -once- so much as suggested that casters and non-casters are on the same scale. There's not much a caster can do that a non-caster can't but it's going to take a -lot- longer for the non-caster and there may be sidetracking. Sidetracking, however, is another way of saying plot-points. How much less satisfying would the Lord of the Rings story have been if the party -hadn't- been waylayed at every turn? (And don't try to derail this by going on a tangent about how low-magic the LoR world is. That's deliberately avoiding the point.)

Yes, there is no difference between grease, silent image, wall of stone, cloudkill, wall of fire, evard's black tentacles, and web the same thing. There is no difference between those spells, and encounters involving any of them play out exactly the same.

Let me rearange those for you:

Control enemy movement without harm; grease, SI, wall of stone, web

Control enemy movement with harm; cloudkill, wall of fire, EBT

naturally, you'll select whichever fits the environment/enemy you're currently dealing with best but they do ultimately do the same fundamental thing; control movement either with or without harm.

So why is it so important that we not use spells?

It's not. My point is that non-casters can be entertaining to play not that casters are boring.

Wow, it sounds like well developed encounters cope with the abilities of PCs and still provide a challenge even if people can cast spells.

Yeah, because there are -so- many ways to deal with social encounters magically that don't ammount to either enchantment or buffiing the party face to use the skill system. At least directly.

If you go around it by digging up some kind of leverage, that's something not-casters can do too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This should be the goal, I agree. Good luck finding it here.

Hope springs eternal.

[ryu]

I didn't "run away." I stopped engaging when we reached the point that it became clear that you had no interest whatsoever in having your mind changed. Frankly, this conversation is probably a waste of both of our time but maybe someone beyond the two us can find it useful.

You see? Even you admit that you lose all interest in a debate when you honestly believe victory can't be achieved, then further admit you're only continuing to win in the eyes of the audience. This is what most people do.

[Cosi]

I didn't "run away." I stopped engaging when we reached the point that it became clear that you had no interest whatsoever in having your mind changed. Frankly, this conversation is probably a waste of both of our time but maybe someone beyond the two us can find it useful.

You mean, the point where I asked you to provide evidence for your beliefs? Because if you think "provide evidence for what you believe" is an indication that someone isn't willing to change their mind, I'm not convinced you understand how arguing works.

I'm just going to call a spade a spade here and say that's straight up BS. Teleport invalidates overland travel between known locations whether you cast it yourself or shell out a fist full of gold to get it done. Same goes for plane-hopping, flight, etc. Access to the effects at all causes the shift in paradigm, no matter how you get them. Seriously; beyond the price tag, what difference is there between knowing teleport and owning a helmet of teleportation?

The point is not just the effect. The point is agency. With a helm, or a NPC, or a waygate, the prerogative is on the DM to say yes. He has to approve your plan to skip the adventure, which is essentially the same as not being able to skip the adventure at all. He still decides what happens. With an ability your character has, the prerogative is on the DM to say no. You are setting the pace. The ability to do that is what differentiates tabletop games from video games.

But you didn't know the rope was going to be there. That's the point. If you're trying to drop the shandelier because you need to flatten or delay 3 or 4 enemies at once, why would you bother if you know -any- AoE attack or entanglement effect spell, nevermind one that does both? You wouldn't because those options will near certainly be more effective than the shandelier and it'll be a comparable resource burn regardless.

First, you've skirted the example given. Why is manipulating the environment with your hands good, but manipulating it with unseen servant bad?

Second, you have described the process of leveling up. If an option was compelling at 1st level, and it's still equally compelling at 20th, there was no reason to gain the intervening levels. You like 1st level, where abilities like "has thumbs" are an important part of your character's power? Fine! Lots of good stories can happen at 1st level. But good stories can also happen at 9th level when your abilities are things like fabricate and teleport. Unless you reject the notion of getting those abilities, in which case you've destroyed the purpose of the level system.

You're too focused on the single character. Maybe I, and others, like those things -AND- telling a collaborative story with my friends, something I can't do by playing friggin' skyrim. I can't help thinking you're being deliberately obtuse here.

If you have no power to direct the story, you are not "cooperatively telling a story", you are experiencing a story that is presented to you. Which is kind of exactly like Skyrim.

The underlined is false. All of the image line are figments and figments explicitly cannot alter appearance. You can make a thing seem to be where nothing exists but you cannot alter anything except the overall scene.

So you can alter appearance, but only if your alteration adds things to the environment. Like walls, or hills, or floor, or trees. You can cover stuff up. It's not free alteration, but it never was because spells have limits.

Telepathy and tongues aren't that hard to come by for language issues and lack of communication ability is a major problem in its own right.

"If I just get magic to compensate for their weaknesses, non-magical abilities are just as good as magical ones!"

Higher than whom? Certainly not a strength based warrior of any kind. You might be able to get Jean Grey out of a psion built for the purpose but certainly not out of a mere telekinesis spell and you're not getting Phoenix out of a pre-epic character.

It's certainly more strength, and more precise, than martial types direct at range.

Sidetracking, however, is another way of saying plot-points.

No, plot points are a way of saying plot points. Sidetracking is just filling space. If the "sidetracks" are compelling encounters, people won't skip them. If they aren't, you shouldn't force people to deal with them.

How much less satisfying would the Lord of the Rings story have been if the party -hadn't- been waylayed at every turn? (And don't try to derail this by going on a tangent about how low-magic the LoR world is. That's deliberately avoiding the point.)

How much less satisfying of a story would Lord of Light have been if we had to experience all of Sam's travels in real time? Yes, you can tell low level stories that are satisfying. That is no reason to throw out the changes that come with higher levels. I'm not demanding that people get teleport at 1st, why are you objecting to getting it at 9th?

Control enemy movement without harm; grease, SI, wall of stone, web

web, grease, and silent image are all far easier to bypass than wall of stone. Also they have different areas of effect.

web has a unique interaction with fire, and has to be anchored.

silent image can be shaped to function as things other than battlefield control.

grease can be put on items.

Control enemy movement with harm; cloudkill, wall of fire, EBT

cloudkill and wall of fire don't lock people down, black tentacles does.

wall of fire once again has a different area of effect from the others.

cloudkill is mobile, and clears out minions better.

naturally, you'll select whichever fits the environment/enemy you're currently dealing with best but they do ultimately do the same fundamental thing; control movement either with or without harm.

Fundamentally all actions do the same thing: help you win the encounter. The fact that you're selecting different options in different circumstances means the options are different. What do you think a compellingly different pair of spells would look like?

[Boogastreehouse]

*

You see? Even you admit that you lose all interest in a debate when you honestly believe victory can't be achieved, then further admit you're only continuing to win in the eyes of the audience. This is what most people do.

No, I think that he's saying that when he discusses a subject, he's looking for an opportunity to have his opinions challenged by someone who is looking for the same thing.

He wants to compare ideas with someone who is also willing to compare ideas; he's not interested in comparing ideas with someone who just wants to pwn the debate.

*

[Psyren]

See the fighter can have options, too, if the player asks questions about the surroundings and gets creative. A lowly fighter can interact with the environment in lots of fun and exciting ways, given half a chance, and if the GM puts some kind of winch-and-pully system in a room and the rogue doesn't try to use it on the villain, then they deserve to be outshined by the wizard. Sure, this sort of thing is not exactly the same as casting god-like high-level spells, but taking an underestimated class and surprising everyone with it can still be immensely satisfying.

*

While this kind of thing does happen in D&D, I'd say other systems are far better suited to it. D&D is more mechanical - thus I like the idea of some options being internal to the class, with clear rules (and less need for DM providence.)

The Fighter doesn't need many - in fact, I would argue that their simplicity is part of their appeal - but some would be nice. Things like Style Feats, special attacks like Grapple or Sunder, and Advanced Weapon Training are what I would consider the minimum, and then things like Equipment Tricks, Item Mastery and Combat Stamina can be added on top of that.

The more advanced option is to supplant the Fighter entirely and use a PoW/ToB solution. I don't think this is necessary personally but I won't deny its effectiveness either, provided it doesn't drive anyone (players or DM alike) away.

[Dagroth]

Cosi... how often do you DM, rather than play?

If you DM, do you like creating long-term storylines for the characters to follow?

If you DM, have you ever run something like the Savage Tide adventure path... a single story that starts at level 1 and goes until 20+ level?

If you DM, have you ever had to deal with a player who was more interested in "having agency" to "do his own thing"?

[ryu]

No, I think that he's saying that when he discusses a subject, he's looking for an opportunity to have his opinions challenged by someone who is looking for the same thing.

He wants to compare ideas with someone who is also willing to compare ideas; he's not interested in comparing ideas with someone who just wants to pwn the debate.

Intention of allowing one's own beliefs to be changed is no prerequisite to challenging someone else's. You can easily see as many counterpoints to your ideas as you desire simply by continuing discussion. It's more optimal actually if having points raised against you is all you desire. None of that pesky winning to stop the conversation before you've had your fill.

[Cosi]

If you DM, do you like creating long-term storylines for the characters to follow?

That mentality seems just so obviously wrongheaded to me. The point of the game is to tell a story with the players. If I come in with a long term story prepared for them, I'm telling a story to the players. That's a failure state for the game.

If you DM, have you ever run something like the Savage Tide adventure path... a single story that starts at level 1 and goes until 20+ level?

I guess this goes to the idea of expectations? If the whole group wants to run Savage Tide, that's fine, and the players should avoid sequence breaking or going off the rails. But if you try to unilaterally declare that the group is doing Savage Tide, you're overstepping your authority.

If you DM, have you ever had to deal with a player who was more interested in "having agency" to "do his own thing"?

I've never had problems with that if expectations were properly managed, on either side of the screen.

[Dagroth]

That mentality seems just so obviously wrongheaded to me. The point of the game is to tell a story with the players. If I come in with a long term story prepared for them, I'm telling a story to the players. That's a failure state for the game.

So you don't have events that take place in your world whether the PCs are there or not (and if not, then they go "badly" for the "good guys")?

The story of the Lord of the Rings is a story that happens to the characters... yet cannot happen without the characters (or, at least, doesn't end well without the characters).

The second Ah-nold Conan movie (as cheesy as it was) was practically a text-book D&D adventure. Do you think a game like that would be wrong?

I guess this goes to the idea of expectations? If the whole group wants to run Savage Tide, that's fine, and the players should avoid sequence breaking or going off the rails. But if you try to unilaterally declare that the group is doing Savage Tide, you're overstepping your authority.


I've never had problems with that if expectations were properly managed, on either side of the screen.

So you basically just run (and run in) open sandbox game worlds with no long-term villains... no epic storylines... no series of adventures leading up to a dramatic climax?

If that's so, then its no wonder you don't see why some of us think casters are too powerful, have too many options, etc.

[Cosi]

So you don't have events that take place in your world whether the PCs are there or not (and if not, then they go "badly" for the "good guys")?

I guess I misunderstood? Of course stuff happens. But the PCs have to be able to decide whether to engage with that stuff. Having a Necromancer King for the players to fight is fine. What's not fine is saying that the adventure is fight the Necromancer King, regardless of player interest.

So you basically just run (and run in) open sandbox game worlds with no long-term villains... no epic storylines... no series of adventures leading up to a dramatic climax?

The most epic storylines are created by allowing the players to determine what they want to engage with. You have to start with a world, then see what happens when people interact with it. Don't start with the story and build the world around it.

[syryous]

This thread exposes the roll-players and the role-players...

[ryu]

This thread exposes the roll-players and the role-players...

And ye old practitioners of stormwind fallacy eager shove ant-correlation between the two where no correlation exists.

[Dagroth]

I guess I misunderstood? Of course stuff happens. But the PCs have to be able to decide whether to engage with that stuff. Having a Necromancer King for the players to fight is fine. What's not fine is saying that the adventure is fight the Necromancer King, regardless of player interest.

The most epic storylines are created by allowing the players to determine what they want to engage with. You have to start with a world, then see what happens when people interact with it. Don't start with the story and build the world around it.

You know those great Steven Burst Dragaera books? Taltos doesn't choose what he wants to engage with... situations happen and he has to deal with them.

You know pretty-much all great fiction, ever? Great & Terrible events sweep the characters up and the characters have to deal with it.

Good stories don't start with "there was a terrible evil rising in the East... but Joe Wizard was too busy trying to get tenure at the Mage College, so he and his friends never bothered to deal with it." Unless, of course, it's Parody.

When a Hero in a story hears about a problem, he goes out and tries to fix it. The character in the story more worried about their own self-interest and "agency"? That's the villain.

[Shackel]

While I wouldn't say that I think only spellcasters are worth playing, I like to have a wealth of options, so as a result spellcasters are often the best choices in that, even if only for a couple levels as a dip. At the same time, I'm a big fan of at-will powers that you can rely on, so call me picky.

Coincidentally, liking a wealth of options is why I like partial casters and dips more than just a full arcane/divine caster. It seems like with them you might look like you have a lot of options but in reality you just have "the spell that basically solves this problem" and "everything else."

Whereas with a larger number of less powerful options, you tend to think more outside of the box and by putting together more complicated plans with more options being a part of them. At least to me, it winds up feeling more involved, even if the results(your abilities win the day) are the same.