Do caster out of combat options matter?

[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?