Hot Take: D&D should eliminate spellcasting and replace it entirely

[Kyutaru]

Except that the reasons Wizards are better than Fighters involve using precisely zero Fighter toys. The Fighter isn't sad because the Wizard can now wear armor (it can't) or use weapons (it mostly can't). He's sad because the Wizard gets meaningful abilities at high levels and he doesn't. And this was actually true in AD&D too, the game just kind of shoved it to the side and pretended it didn't exist.

You misconstrued my position again. You're citing it as though it's the only reason when it is in fact a reason that the discrepancy exists when wizards can completely replace fighters while still doing everything they can do. There's even the Tenser's Transformation spell which steals the base attack bonus advantages and gives it directly to the caster for the duration in addition to other perks that effectively make the wizard a fighter. AD&D brought around weapon specialization and sufficiently powerful weapons/armor in an edition where a casual hit from some enemies could end your character. The edition was brutal and fighters were capable of outputting far more damage than wizards could while having better saves against the deadly effects, nevermind the extra level progression. I must remind people that this was also in a single action system and part of what broke wizards was being able to cast multiple spells per round in later editions. Cpncentration checks instead of the old automatic spell failure on being damaged certainly didn't help either, nor did the loss of spell casting times that left wizards VULNERABLE to said spellcasting disruption without a meatshield in their way. I already went over this with class uniqueness from back then, there was no overlap between the core classes which left each having something the rest didn't. The fighter was able to meaningfully contribute to the game in his own unique way and progressed by collecting a small armory of swords and axes of differing types while wizards progressed through their spell acquisitions. Sure, wizards were able to do things fighters couldn't but the same applied in reverse because that's how the system was meant to be. Fighters even had the advantage of not needing to choose their loadout in advance because switching to a different weapon was easily done, and back then you needed the right tool for the right job or the monster was effectively immortal (way too many immunities in AD&D).

You can argue all you want about how wizards would be potent even without being able to exactly replicate the fighter's stats and abilities but that little feature is the eyesore I'm more concerned over. Having different tools for different jobs was much less of a problem, as I stated in your quote. Fighters were quite valuable in AD&D despite being simplistic in usage and that only changed when 3E came around. Oh, and the wizards now CAN wear armor if they choose, which was the central point around the whole customization expansion of the latter editions. Treading on other classes' toes is what leads to these disgruntled topics, not being able to do something cool that I cannot because you're literally a different class.

[NigelWalmsley]

There's even the Tenser's Transformation spell which steals the base attack bonus advantages and gives it directly to the caster for the duration in addition to other perks that effectively make the wizard a fighter.

If you think this is relevant, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the issues 3e has. I have literally never seen a Wizard cast Tenser's Transformation. The only time I've seen a Wizard learn Tenser's Transformation is on a technicality when someone presents a cheese build that knows all spells. 3e has problems, but none of them have anything to do with Tenser's Transformation.

AD&D brought around weapon specialization and sufficiently powerful weapons/armor in an edition where a casual hit from some enemies could end your character. The edition was brutal and fighters were capable of outputting far more damage than wizards could while having better saves against the deadly effects, nevermind the extra level progression.

Casters in AD&D could still do minionmancy that got them troops on par with what a Fighter was able to put out. The endgame of AD&D is pretty much as imbalanced (if not more so) than the endgame of 3e, you just weren't really expected to get there (it was basically treated like Epic in 3e). If you play AD&D at the levels where 3e has the problems people complain about, it manifests almost exactly the same problems.

[Kyutaru]

If you think this is relevant, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the issues 3e has. I have literally never seen a Wizard cast Tenser's Transformation. The only time I've seen a Wizard learn Tenser's Transformation is on a technicality when someone presents a cheese build that knows all spells. 3e has problems, but none of them have anything to do with Tenser's Transformation.

It's unfortunate that you're not aware of how popular gishes are or how easily Tenser's enables them but I've had far different experiences from you, especially over on the WOTC boards.

Casters in AD&D could still do minionmancy that got them troops on par with what a Fighter was able to put out. The endgame of AD&D is pretty much as imbalanced (if not more so) than the endgame of 3e, you just weren't really expected to get there (it was basically treated like Epic in 3e). If you play AD&D at the levels where 3e has the problems people complain about, it manifests almost exactly the same problems.

Another difference in experience here then as the slew of disadvantages casters faced (interrupted easily, casting times on spells, one spell per round, no selected spells on level up, terrible proficiency list) made them far from the solopwnmobiles they would later become without ample preparation. Minions were never even close to what the fighter could dish out as fighters were the magic item dependent class and magic items were obscenely powerful in AD&D due to muted class advantages and a nerfed late game progression system. The extra fighter level progression granting even more THAC0 and saving throws and HP (which wasn't limited by a CON of 14) made them head and shoulders above what the casters or their minions could attempt to imitate. Tack on grandmastery and haste boots and you have a fighter that can attack 10 times per round. Wizards who weren't buffing the fighter or using control spells were wasting their time and spells doing something inefficiently.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's unfortunate that you're not aware of how popular gishes are or how easily Tenser's enables them but I've had far different experiences from you, especially over on the WOTC boards.

It doesn't enable them. Tenser's Transformation is not a good spell for a gish. And while gishing is better than being a Fighter, it is far from the best thing you can do as a Wizard. I'll grant that it probably makes Fighters sadder than other things Wizards can do, but that doesn't actually make it a bigger balance problem. If "Tenser's Transformation too good" rates on your list of problems with 3e, you have so fundamentally misunderstood the character of the edition as to make your opinions on it meaningless. It's like starting your complaints about 4e with "going from 20 to 30 levels ruined everything".

Another difference in experience here then as the slew of disadvantages casters faced (interrupted easily, casting times on spells, one spell per round, no selected spells on level up, terrible proficiency list) made them far from the solopwnmobiles they would later become without ample preparation. Minions were never even close to what the fighter could dish out as fighters were the magic item dependent class and magic items were obscenely powerful in AD&D due to muted class advantages and a nerfed late game progression system. The extra fighter level progression granting even more THAC0 and saving throws and HP (which wasn't limited by a CON of 14) made them head and shoulders above what the casters or their minions could attempt to imitate. Tack on grandmastery and haste boots and you have a fighter that can attack 10 times per round. Wizards who weren't buffing the fighter or using control spells were wasting their time and spells doing something inefficiently.

The Wizard's minions could be Fighters. It fundamentally doesn't matter how personally impressive you are when the other guy can have four of you as pets.

[Kyutaru]

If "Tenser's Transformation too good" rates on your list of problems with 3e, you have so fundamentally misunderstood the character of the edition as to make your opinions on it meaningless.

When you start resorting to ad hominems and trashing my opinion, I stop finding reasons to continue addressing you.

[Segev]

When you start resorting to ad hominems and trashing my opinion, I stop finding reasons to continue addressing you.

It’s not technically ad hominem, but it was phrased rudely, so I understand your sentiment, here. I am being pedantic because mid-claiming lo go cal fallacies tends to undermine debate. I apologize if my pedantry annoys.

But ad hominem would be saying something implying you are a bad person for reasons unrelated to this discussion, and that therefore your views and arguments are invalid. What he’s done here is said that he finds one of your views that is related to this topic so off-base that he doesn’t feel you could possibly have any good views on the topic. This is also fallacious unless he can show that your view he denigrates truly does stand at the heart of the debate and thus all your views must be wrong if they are consistent with the one he denigrates. But it is not ad hominem; he is basing this on a topical viewpoint.

As an example, ad hominem would be Alice stating, “Bob eats his own boogers, so you shouldn’t listen to him when he says that d20s have a uniform distribution. Therefore, I’m right and they have a bell-curve distribution.”

This is closer to Alice saying, “Bob thought a +1 on a d20 was a 20% increase, so he’s obviously wrong about d20s having a uniform distribution.” Now, I’m not saying you’re as obviously wrong as our hypothetical Bob, here, so please don’t read into that. I just needed a grossly obvious example where Bob is wrong on one point here for clarity.

[Kyutaru]

But ad hominem would be saying something implying you are a bad person for reasons unrelated to this discussion, and that therefore your views and arguments are invalid. What he’s done here is said that he finds one of your views that is related to this topic so off-base that he doesn’t feel you could possibly have any good views on the topic. This is also fallacious unless he can show that your view he denigrates truly does stand at the heart of the debate and thus all your views must be wrong if they are consistent with the one he denigrates. But it is not ad hominem; he is basing this on a topical viewpoint.

That's an interesting take but I was taught to view attacks on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself to be an underhanded debate strategy and will defer to my signature. It's a sign of a desperate individual to lash out against the one making the case rather than try to argue against the case itself and in doing so put the opponent on the defensive position. People do the same in abusive relationships and it's a form of manipulation meant solely to exercise control. If we cannot have these discussions with respect for the participants then they should not be had at all.

[Segev]

The reason I object to “ad hominem” being called is because he didn’t attack you, but a position you hold (or at least that he believes you do), and used that as a judgment of your general level of analysis of D&D. It’s not quite attacking you, hence my objection. I’ll stop here, though. I do understand why you are irked.

[NigelWalmsley]

When you start resorting to ad hominems and trashing my opinion, I stop finding reasons to continue addressing you.

If you consider "that's not how the system works" to be an ad hominem, I'm not sure what argument I could make against your position that wouldn't qualify. You are simply factually wrong about the issues that 3e has and their significance. That's not a personal insult to you, any more than it would be personally insulting for me to be told I don't know very much about the flaws of Exalted or Vampire (systems I, factually, do not know very much about).

[Jay R]

He's confusing, "Your argument is incorrect; therefore you don't understand the game" with "You don't understand the game, therefore your argument is incorrect.

The first is what was actually said. Only the second is technically "ad hominem" argument.

But the difference doesn't really matter here. The essential fact is the presence of the insult, which distracted from the point.

The logically valid way to phrase the argument without the distraction would be to carefully explain why Tenser's Transformation doesn't cause problems, and leave off any comment about understanding the game.

[Kyutaru]

The reason I object to “ad hominem” being called is because he didn’t attack you, but a position you hold (or at least that he believes you do), and used that as a judgment of your general level of analysis of D&D. It’s not quite attacking you, hence my objection. I’ll stop here, though. I do understand why you are irked.

You're stating that as though someone can objectively declare that an issue is or is not of significance to the 3E meta or problems. It very much is an attack when you're trying to declare that your subjectivity is somehow more right than another person's and that grants you the authority to declare their opinions meaningless.

"It's not TECHNICALLY an insult, it's just worded to sound insulting."

<_< You say it like there's an appreciable difference in intent and effect. The semantics change nothing.

[Xervous]

As an anecdotal point in my eight plus years on these forums and other assorted handbooks and website surfing I do not recall a single time Tenser’s transformation was advocated for outside of some TO discussion of inflicting it on others as a Lose effect.

For a sixth level spell with a duration measured in rounds that also requires a potion on hand you are spending your whole first turn immobile (or using travel devotion just to be able to move) just to apply the buff. As a sixth level spell this assumes you cast as a wizard 11+/sorc 12+. Disregarding the multiclassing a gish likely undertakes this puts Tenser’s out of reach of at least 50% of gishes averaged across the levels they are played at, assuming a linear distribution.

One combat, eats your first turn and locks you out of your casting. All for a 6th level slot. Contrast with (extended) polymorph which can be precast at the same level range and potentially persist through multiple encounters. Or if we want to look at something that more directly makes up with more attacks there’s Haste which also improves the rest of the party and comes up as early as level 5, costing only a 3rd level slot.

[Quertus]

The talk about "appropriate levels" is nonsense, because there never was and never will be any universally agreeable for what should be the level for, say, "punching an eldritch abomination in the face". If Cthulhu is 20th level and ramming it with a ship works, then ramming it with a ship is viable 20th level strategy, even if controller of the ship has no superhuman or magical abilities. Simple as that.

Not all solutions should be buttons on the character sheet - the system, adventure, world… every layer should have tools that the player/PC can leverage.

Granted, *getting ahold of a ship* might be more than a 1st level challenge, as might "surviving the crash" or "not landing in jail".

I don't want to play a "wizard". I want to play an illusionist, an enchanter, a shaman, an elementest, a storm-magic, a witch-doctor or a medium. In other words I want to play a character that has more flavour than celery. And there is some flavour text to the D&D's academic wizard, but it has never come across in play for me.

And... well there are days I think D&D should be eliminated and replaced entirely. (And I was just reading about a rules-light system that has me really excited so today is one of those days.)

I like the flavor of the D&D Wizard. But I respect the desire to run things with a more narrow focus.

However, what is your response to scenarios where your 1-trick pony's only trick isn't applicable?

Rules light systems can never replace D&D.

casters are little more than Support classes who enhance and synergize with the Fighter of the party?

But when have you ever seen a Fighter do the Wizard's job?

Yes, I still want to make the RPG where the Fighter spends all his turns buffing the Wizard, and spends his XP/resources improving his teammates.

The extra fighter level progression granting even more THAC0 and saving throws and HP (which wasn't limited by a CON of 14)

In 2e, everyone could benefit from +2 HP/HD at 16 con; 18 con have Fighters (only) +4 HP/HD. How's that compare to "1e"?

Spoiler: Ad hominem discussion

Show

That's an interesting take but I was taught to view attacks on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself to be an underhanded debate strategy and will defer to my signature. It's a sign of a desperate individual to lash out against the one making the case rather than try to argue against the case itself and in doing so put the opponent on the defensive position. People do the same in abusive relationships and it's a form of manipulation meant solely to exercise control. If we cannot have these discussions with respect for the participants then they should not be had at all.

He's confusing, "Your argument is incorrect; therefore you don't understand the game" with "You don't understand the game, therefore your argument is incorrect.

The first is what was actually said. Only the second is technically "ad hominem" argument.

But the difference doesn't really matter here. The essential fact is the presence of the insult, which distracted from the point.

The logically valid way to phrase the argument without the distraction would be to carefully explain why Tenser's Transformation doesn't cause problems, and leave off any comment about understanding the game.

So, once upon a time, there was a poster who… well, actually, there's been so many posters whose experiences were so different from everyone else's, that their comments were indecipherable until those differences were reconciled that it's difficult to pick.

Point being, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to see an argument of the form, "we vary on detail X of topic Y; therefore, all of our Z in topic Y may be different / inapplicable to each other / etc". Not every argument of this form is valid, but the form itself does not feel inherently invalid to me.

But where is the line where that turns into an attack on the speaker? My instinct says it's probably somewhere between "you don't understand" and "therefore you don't understand anything".

Still, when I think of ad hominem attacks, I think Saruman from the LotR movies.

As an aside, I would love to read more on abusive / dysfunctional relationships, or debate strategies, is you happen to have good links.

[Segev]

If the ship with which to ram Cthulhu is a class feature that has the same smashing power in general, it might well be a viable 20th level ability. If its ability to smash Cthulhu is, instead, the culmination of much plot development and isn't due to a character just having gotten so great and mighty that he commands resources such as the ship as part of his legend, it might be a lower-level means of achieving such a great end.

But if you're upset that the guy who gets the ship for this one purpose with gumption and daring-do is upstaged by the sorcerer who casts spells that are on par with the ship's moment of glory...but does so on a daily basis, you're upset that a lower-level character is adventuring with a significantly higher-level one. Not that the sorcerer is "overpowered" in any way other than those that a level 20 character would be in a party of level 3s.

[Cluedrew]

Not all solutions should be buttons on the character sheet - the system, adventure, world… every layer should have tools that the player/PC can leverage.

Yes, but while we are discussing character abilities those are kind of irrelevant, because they aren't character abilities. "Kind of" because character abilities - all the buttons on the character sheet - can be affected by and affect those other abilities. In fact it seems to me that factoring in clever plans that make use of the system, adventure and world would tend to increase the imbalance on the character sheet, not decrease it.

I like the flavor of the D&D Wizard. But I respect the desire to run things with a more narrow focus.

However, what is your response to scenarios where your 1-trick pony's only trick isn't applicable?

"Narrow" does not mean "singular" especially when the thing being compared to is spell casting in D&D. Yes the English Channel is narrow compared to the Pacific Ocean but that doesn't mean I would want to swim across it. In fact I would be surprise if there is an effect (one) that any character in D&D can create that cannot also/only be created by a spell caster. This is accounting for various changes in delivery of the effect (for instance surviving a fall because you are so tough and because you cast feather fall are close enough).

But to answer your question more directly I have two answers:

• I do not consider any most of the following to be "one trick":
  • "Fool an opponent's senses." - Illusionist
  • "Embed magical effects into objects." - Enchanter, also kind of Artificer which in D&D classes is up there with the wizard in terms of the variety of things it can do.
  • "Contact and bring forth the spirit world." - A Shaman
  • "Control an manipulate a kind of material or energy." - Elementest, or Whatever-Bender, go watch Avatar: The Last Airbender.
  • "Alter and predict weather." - A Storm-Mage, maybe add some "create localized weather effects" if you want the first thing to just be the large scale stuff.
  • "Use natural and medical compounds with mystic knowledge." - A Witch-Doctor
  • "Communicate with the spirit world." - A Medium... OK this one is one trick. It's an information only shaman.
  Does a wizard have only one trick? "Use magic?" No, that ability (set) covers more than one trick.
• Don't let people be defined by their primary trick alone. Yes it goes against neesh protection and even against class design a bit, but really how many people have only one skill. Or even why does your one skill have only one trick you can do with it? Moves in Powered by the Apocalypse systems feel like a good reflection of this, your standard layout has a bunch of options related to your core concept yet different from each other and on top of that you have a few "any skill from any class" slots.
• And if none of this works, ask for help that is why there is usually more than one PC. What? Why should you solve all problems on your own? Who do you think you are some kind of wizard? OK joke over, hope it was amusing. But yes maybe it can't work by itself or maybe you have to lean on some weak skills for a moment or maybe every once in a while a character sits this one out.

Actually its not so much that I dislike the (theoretical) flavour of a D&D wizard, but rather I have found that in play that flavour never comes across. The rules don't really encourage engaging with the explanation of what is going on which is already spotty enough my attempts to do so ended in failure. For instance you might be able to describe Quertus preparing his spells in such a way that it is flavourful and interesting, and if you can please do, but I've had trouble going beyond "he has his spell-book out."

Rules light systems can never replace D&D.

And D&D will never replace rules light systems. Nor should either of those things happen.

[Vahnavoi]

I'd like to hand you one useful concept for discussing what is and isn't a "one-trick pony" : library search effects.

A library search effect is anything that basically allows you to crack open an arbitrary source book and trade your effect for any other effect in that book. Known offenders in D&D include alter self, polymorph, shapechange, shadow evocation, shadow conjuration, planar binding, gate, limited wish, wish, miracle, etc.

If your "one trick" has this quality, it is many tricks.

[NigelWalmsley]

The logically valid way to phrase the argument without the distraction would be to carefully explain why Tenser's Transformation doesn't cause problems, and leave off any comment about understanding the game.

It's not my job to tell him why he's wrong, it's his job to tell me why he's right. You could claim that every single ability in 3e is a fundamental cause of it's problems, it is not reasonable to demand that others tell you in detail why you are wrong in every case. If he would like to explain why he is right in a persuasive way, I will happily eat my delicious crow. Until he does that, I stand by my assessment that his understanding of the causes of imbalance in 3e is disqualifyingly bad.

Rules light systems can never replace D&D.

Frankly, nothing is ever going to replace D&D. Netflix's flagship TV show is a story where the characters use D&D as a metaphor for the monsters they're fighting. Call me when that happens for any other game. D&D simply has an absurd level of penetration into the cultural consciousness that means it will never actually die. You've got to learn to live with the fact that it's the big dog on the block, just as a fan of MMOs has to deal with WoW being the big name.

Yes, but while we are discussing character abilities those are kind of irrelevant, because they aren't character abilities.

Exactly. This is a point that I think a lot of people miss when discussing TTRPGs. Yes, roleplaying is important. Improvising and worldbuilding and developing character connections and using those to solve problems is why TTRPGs are great. But those also aren't substantively relevant to discussions of the actual rules.

In fact I would be surprise if there is an effect (one) that any character in D&D can create that cannot also/only be created by a spell caster.

It seems like this is trivially true because mutliclassing exists. More broadly, I think you need to define your terms better.

[Quertus]

If the ship with which to ram Cthulhu is a class feature that has the same smashing power in general, it might well be a viable 20th level ability. If its ability to smash Cthulhu is, instead, the culmination of much plot development and isn't due to a character just having gotten so great and mighty that he commands resources such as the ship as part of his legend, it might be a lower-level means of achieving such a great end.

But if you're upset that the guy who gets the ship for this one purpose with gumption and daring-do is upstaged by the sorcerer who casts spells that are on par with the ship's moment of glory...but does so on a daily basis, you're upset that a lower-level character is adventuring with a significantly higher-level one. Not that the sorcerer is "overpowered" in any way other than those that a level 20 character would be in a party of level 3s.

I mean, if Cthulhu were rampaging, could *you* get a ship with which to ram him? I don't know that "get a ship" is necessarily a low-level ability.

Similarly, what if the Ritual to travel to the Far Realms, Dream, whatever, could be performed by a 1st level character. Does that make plane travel a low-level ability? Or is that them batting above their weight class?

So, while I agree in general with your sentiment that the problem is generally one of a 3rd level character trying to adventure with a 20th level character, I also believe that there are level-appropriate tools that could make "get a ship" (or, you know, be the ruler of a country with *many* ships at their disposal) much easier than it might be for your average denizen.

Yes, but while we are discussing character abilities those are kind of irrelevant, because they aren't character abilities. "Kind of" because character abilities - all the buttons on the character sheet - can be affected by and affect those other abilities.

I don't know that we disagree. However, in the subtopic of "ram Cthulhu with a ship", that doesn't sound like a class ability by default, and having tools (words) to describe what it *is* seems helpful for moving the discussion forward in a productive manner.

In fact it seems to me that factoring in clever plans that make use of the system, adventure and world would tend to increase the imbalance on the character sheet, not decrease it.

… it depends? Suppose a dozen random people were either trapped in an empty room, trapped on a deserted island, or trapped in a mansion stocked to meet my needs. I'll agree that the scenario where you have "tools, but not answers" is *probably* where the differences on our/their "character sheets" will be most pronounced.

However, in an RPG? My experiences run in the opposite direction.

Imagine a superhero RPG, where the heroes are fighting in a mall. Superman doesn't need to "power up" with a chainsaw - he's already powerful enough. And the Man of Steel doesn't need to find something to use as armor, or grab a fire extinguisher to put out a fire - he's already got those tools on his character sheet.

IME, and afaict, all these tools simply serve to help level the playing field, to add options and power to weaker characters. Because you don't waste time trying to power up when you can already one-shot the foes; you don't seek more tools when you already have the tools you need.

As another example, my sentient potted plant remembered where we parked. Why? Focus. Everyone else had powers (like "move under own power"), had buttons to push (also literally). They viewed "reality" through the lens of all the ways that they could interact with it, whereas I only had the simple, "pure" view of what really was. I had far fewer buttons on my character sheet competing for my attention.

"Narrow" does not mean "singular" especially when the thing being compared to is spell casting in D&D. Yes the English Channel is narrow compared to the Pacific Ocean but that doesn't mean I would want to swim across it. In fact I would be surprise if there is an effect (one) that any character in D&D can create that cannot also/only be created by a spell caster. This is accounting for various changes in delivery of the effect (for instance surviving a fall because you are so tough and because you cast feather fall are close enough).

I'd still say, "surviving me as GM at 1st or 2nd level" is still a feat for a Wizard or Psion that their spells aren't likely to be much help with.

However, in the context of "a Pyromancer" or "a Fire Bender" (a "normal" one, not one of the lightning-hurling nobility), it should be fairly obvious that there will be encounters in D&D where their schtick just isn't gonna cut it.

So, if you prefer the phrase "one schtick pony" to the phrase, "one trick pony", sure, fine. Still, my question remains (IIRC, darn senility) what about when their one very narrow schtick is not applicable?

I have no issue with / questions about most of the much broader schticks you listed. They can, conceptually, have answers to problems, and be "qt1".

And…

Don't let people be defined by their primary trick alone. Yes it goes against neesh protection and even against class design a bit, but really how many people have only one skill. Or even why does your one skill have only one trick you can do with it? Moves in Powered by the Apocalypse systems feel like a good reflection of this, your standard layout has a bunch of options related to your core concept yet different from each other and on top of that you have a few "any skill from any class" slots.[*]And if none of this works, ask for help that is why there is usually more than one PC. What? Why should you solve all problems on your own? Who do you think you are some kind of wizard? OK joke over, hope it was amusing. But yes maybe it can't work by itself or maybe you have to lean on some weak skills for a moment or maybe every once in a while a character sits this one out.

What I hear is, "everyone should have weaker options beyond their 'defining' schtick" and "still, sometimes, you don't get to play the game". Fair, or did my reading comprehension fail me again?

Actually its not so much that I dislike the (theoretical) flavour of a D&D wizard, but rather I have found that in play that flavour never comes across. The rules don't really encourage engaging with the explanation of what is going on which is already spotty enough my attempts to do so ended in failure. For instance you might be able to describe Quertus preparing his spells in such a way that it is flavourful and interesting, and if you can please do, but I've had trouble going beyond "he has his spell-book out."

Quertus? Hmmm… if a good writer were to tell his tale, I'm sure that the thought process he goes through when picking his spells could be amusing. I'm sure most Playgrounders would find most of his tactics and strategy quite facepalm worthy.

And that's the minigame being played there: selecting a finite number of resources from a (usually) larger list in preparation for a mission with knowns and unknowns. Numerous videogames have this kind of minigame, even if it's only "how much of what kind of ammo do you purchase/carry?".

This is a perfectly fine minigame to have (from a Gamist perspective), regardless of the fluff (so long as the mechanics match the fluff from a Simulationist PoV). I don't think anyone will say, "no, they're all universally, undeniably bad. Games should never give you choices". In fact, building mechs is probably why I enjoy Battletech so much.

However, I happen to like the *whole package* of the D&D Wizard, where (to continue the videogame analogy) players are actively hunting for weapon drops, and different players may not only be equipped with different weapons, but some have actually built / invented / hacked in their own custom armaments, that look nothing like what anyone else is wielding.

And D&D will never replace rules light systems. Nor should either of those things happen.

Good. We're on the same page here.

I'd like to hand you one useful concept for discussing what is and isn't a "one-trick pony" : library search effects.

A library search effect is anything that basically allows you to crack open an arbitrary source book and trade your effect for any other effect in that book. Known offenders in D&D include alter self, polymorph, shapechange, shadow evocation, shadow conjuration, planar binding, gate, limited wish, wish, miracle, etc.

If your "one trick" has this quality, it is many tricks.

Hmmm… I suppose it depends on how good the thing you're "searching" is. "summon any 1 HD or less natural animal"? Not so strong (despite how many of those there are IRL). "transform into anything of roughly equal mass, complete with all powers"? I accidentally broke the game with that one.

So, for your analogy, search effects are only as good as your deck. They can't be any wider or more powerful than what they're drawing from. Demonic Tutor is awesome. But if I put it in my Cosmic Larva deck, it'd only be as good as a Rancor.

Frankly, nothing is ever going to replace D&D. Netflix's flagship TV show is a story where the characters use D&D as a metaphor for the monsters they're fighting. Call me when that happens for any other game. D&D simply has an absurd level of penetration into the cultural consciousness that means it will never actually die. You've got to learn to live with the fact that it's the big dog on the block, just as a fan of MMOs has to deal with WoW being the big name.

What show is this?

Exactly. This is a point that I think a lot of people miss when discussing TTRPGs. Yes, roleplaying is important. Improvising and worldbuilding and developing character connections and using those to solve problems is why TTRPGs are great. But those also aren't substantively relevant to discussions of the actual rules.

A discussion of rules? Some games have rules where you can spend a ____ Point to specify something, like "why yes, there happens to be a fuel tanker truck on this busy street" or "no, they haven't installed a firewall on that laptop" or whatever.

So discussing the responsibility of the rules for explaining or even enforcing a certain division of tools seems various for a discussion of "rules".

But perhaps that's not what you meant.

[Segev]

What show is this?

Stranger Things

[Cluedrew]

Imagine a superhero RPG, where the heroes are fighting in a mall. Superman doesn't need to "power up" with a chainsaw - he's already powerful enough. And the Man of Steel doesn't need to find something to use as armor, or grab a fire extinguisher to put out a fire - he's already got those tools on his character sheet.

So in the power range where the stronger characters can trivially solve things but the weaker must (but can) struggle to succeed it narrows the power range? I've never played much in that range but I have heard plenty of stories of the powerful characters just solving the problem before the weaker characters could do much of anything.

And honestly I have had a real time leveraging assets in the world when there are no rules to do so. And weaker characters often don't have them.

However, in the context of "a Pyromancer" or "a Fire Bender" (a "normal" one, not one of the lightning-hurling nobility), it should be fairly obvious that there will be encounters in D&D where their schtick just isn't gonna cut it.

You know I can't quite remember a good example but I feel at some point there must of been a Firebender who defeated an Earthbender (rocks don't burn) because... that dynamic is a large part of the background of the setting. On the national scale sure the armaments of the non-benders was probably more significance but still there has got to be something about how a firebender dealt with rocks.

To actually answer the question generally: well this is a matter of ability and challenge construction (firebenders were not designed to operate in D&D land so its fine if they couldn't) and see below...

So, if you prefer the phrase "one schtick pony" to the phrase, "one trick pony", sure, fine. Still, my question remains (IIRC, darn senility) what about when their one very narrow schtick is not applicable? [A quote in which I answer the question.] What I hear is, "everyone should have weaker options beyond their 'defining' schtick" and "still, sometimes, you don't get to play the game". Fair, or did my reading comprehension fail me again?

… I mean the question was unanswered by that point in the post but yes, that is it. More or less I could go into more detail if you like.

Quertus? Hmmm… if a good writer were to tell his tale, I'm sure that the thought process he goes through when picking his spells could be amusing. [Stuff about the mechanical side of the spell picking mini-game.]

That isn't what I was going for at all. Do you know "fiction first" where one describes what is happening in the world and you figure out what rules apply to the situation afterwards? Just pretend for a moment that you are playing Quertus in such a system. What would you say to the GM to try and get your spells for the day? Do even you know?

[Segev]

Wizards in D&D settings of my design prepare their spells by performing strange and esoteric tasks, addressing the room or air around them with carefully-chosen words, barter services earned through these measures from supernatural forces for other services owed to them, and balance the contracts they play out as heavily as they can without screwing up any of the debts they’re owed.

When they cast their prepared spells, they’re calling in their chits and giving precise instructions of what they want done to pay them off, leading to magical effects. It takes great precision and intellect to call them in correctly so they’re enforcible, and cause the precise effects they desire rather than something less directed or controlled. The smarter they are, therefore, the more effective their magic is (and thus the harder it is to resist because it has fewer flaws).

[Cluedrew]

But what does that look like?!

Actually that is an improvement, add in that everything is Latin or something and you could actually show that part on screen. You would have a hard time fitting any legaleze into 6 seconds to cast a spell though. I guess more its the culture around it is kind of a problem, I read the origin story of Elminster and despite the fact that he (she for a while) might be the most iconic D&D caster I did not understand the thematic elements of the magic system any better when I finished. Magic just happened as is convent around casters. Also most D&D fiction doesn't appear to use the same magic system as the D&D rules.

[Segev]

The standard action cast time is just some complex gestures to indicate specific targets or other variables or even to make signs declaring that specific contracts are being referred to with your words, while you say something like, “Magnify the spark this cloth draws from this rod!”

You’ve done all the lengthy work to put the magical pacts and contracts in place to make the spirits that underlying reality owe you that service and recognize that set of actions as calling it in, and maybe you’re paying off a last little bit of it with the material component. Or maybe the material component is just needed to make what the beings you’re calling upon have the effect you want when they do what you’re asking of them.

In any event, the preparation is what takes a long time. Saying, “Heya, Tom, it’s magical Bob; I’m calling in that fireball you owe me,” while indicating where to put it is just a standard action.

[NigelWalmsley]

On the national scale sure the armaments of the non-benders was probably more significance but still there has got to be something about how a firebender dealt with rocks.

I imagine it probably looks a lot like "light the earthbender on fire". Avatar is fairly unique within the world of elemental magic in that there doesn't seem to be a strong Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic. There's no sense that a novice Waterbender could defeat an expert Firebender because water puts out fire.

[paddyfool]

I imagine it probably looks a lot like "light the earthbender on fire". Avatar is fairly unique within the world of elemental magic in that there doesn't seem to be a strong Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic. There's no sense that a novice Waterbender could defeat an expert Firebender because water puts out fire.

I wonder if one factor in the early stage of the war was just how much more militarised the fire nation were. If a lot of earthbending training pre-conflict focused on peacetime applications like architectural construction or pushing around sleds full of supplies, in a world where those with plans of military conquest tended to run afoul of the avatar (eg Kyoshi), it might have taken some time to build up a training programme.

Also, it's worth noting that the earth nation held out to a significant extent for a hundred years, so the fire nation clearly didn't have an overwhelming advantage in this specific conflict.

[Quertus]

That isn't what I was going for at all. Do you know "fiction first" where one describes what is happening in the world and you figure out what rules apply to the situation afterwards? Just pretend for a moment that you are playing Quertus in such a system. What would you say to the GM to try and get your spells for the day? Do even you know?

But what does that look like?!

Actually that is an improvement, add in that everything is Latin or something and you could actually show that part on screen. You would have a hard time fitting any legaleze into 6 seconds to cast a spell though. I guess more its the culture around it is kind of a problem, I read the origin story of Elminster and despite the fact that he (she for a while) might be the most iconic D&D caster I did not understand the thematic elements of the magic system any better when I finished. Magic just happened as is convent around casters. Also most D&D fiction doesn't appear to use the same magic system as the D&D rules.

… I mean, how Quertus some modern character goes grocery shopping or does his laundry isn't terribly interesting. And, IMO, neither is them setting up their spells.

As far as… hmmm… well, I guess, starting out as a war gamer, I'm firmly in the "the rules are the territory" camp. Which, in this case, translates to "the rules are the fiction". So… D&D characters live in a strange world where magic comes in oddly discrete packets at distinct levels of power. Where Fireball and Invisibility have explicit, discernable places in the odd hierarchy of spell power.

So, in "fiction first", I would imagine it as being as boring as picking out and putting on clothes - you see how many arms / legs / heads / tentacles / wings / etc the form has, and pick out and put on clothes to match. Of course, being familiar with your own form, that is far more natural than it sounds. Same thing for spells - you see what slots you have available, and fill them accordingly. "Dear divinity, please give me two Cure Light Wounds, one Hold Person, and a Flame Strike to fill the hole in my slots.".

Why does magic have to exist in these strange, discrete packets? Well, it doesn't, necessarily - there's UA spell points, STP Erudite, and numerous other mana systems in various editions. But… Vancian is simultaneously the way most casters are taught, and the way most "natural" for D&D magic to flow (as evidenced by Dragons and Sorcerers casting in discrete packets filling discrete slots).

Why are the world of D&D so magically "broken" as to work that way? Shrug. Sadly, I doubt that there will ever be a good, in-character satisfying answer for that. I imagine it will always remain at simply "Gygax loved Vance".

Is that more along the lines of the question you were asking?

[Mystral]

We've had a number of threads asking how we would fix martial characters. A handful of posters have suggested that spellcasters should be brought down closer to non-caster power levels, perhaps with the (usually admitted to be tedious) task of re-writing a large number of spells.

How about a different tack: Just scrap the spells. All of them. Every last one. Gone, poof, sayonara, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Obviously this does not mean that we leave classes that cast spells out in the cold. We would, of course, need to design a whole new system--or possibly set of systems--to replace spellcasting. But if we're having so many problems with spellcasters, and their rate of resource expenditure and regain, and how powerful they can become, and how versatile they almost always are (even the "limited" ones), etc. etc. ad nauseam, why keep spells? We've changed many, many other aspects of the game--attack matrices, saving throws, how you roll hit points, how you roll stats, number and frequency of attacks, initiative, monster statistics...let's do the same to spells.

Perhaps vestiges will survive. Fireball as a Wizard feature/option, Cure Wounds as a Cleric option, and so on. But if spellcasting is going to cause us so many problems, why not send it back to the drawing board, rather than continually circling around the same seemingly-irresolvable questions about non-casters?

Have you tried playing a different system?

[Cluedrew]

… I mean, how Quertus some modern character goes grocery shopping or does his laundry isn't terribly interesting. And, IMO, neither is them setting up their spells.

[...]

So, in "fiction first", I would imagine it as being as boring as picking out and putting on clothes - you see how many arms / legs / heads / tentacles / wings / etc the form has, and pick out and put on clothes to match. Of course, being familiar with your own form, that is far more natural than it sounds.

Yeah I'm not suggesting you spent a lot of time on this frequently, maybe no scene is ever dedicated to it but it happens in the background. But still as someone who has indeed wondered how a creature with strange limbs dresses in the morning, I would like to know because I wonder about things like this. Maybe that makes me the odd one but still the fact I can't get a good image in my head of a wizard doing their work has nagged at me for a while. I don't have an argument for why other people should care about this just that I do. A matter of taste as they might say.

[Segev]

Yeah I'm not suggesting you spent a lot of time on this frequently, maybe no scene is ever dedicated to it but it happens in the background. But still as someone who has indeed wondered how a creature with strange limbs dresses in the morning, I would like to know because I wonder about things like this. Maybe that makes me the odd one but still the fact I can't get a good image in my head of a wizard doing their work has nagged at me for a while. I don't have an argument for why other people should care about this just that I do. A matter of taste as they might say.

The "classical vancian" approach was literally that the wizard spent time pouring over and memorizing - fixing in his mind with arcane techniques - a thing that is impossible for those without sufficient training to even comprehend. The spells were almost physical things in their own rights, occupying space in his mind as he memorized them, and vanishing when he cast them.

My variation more has the wizard get his spellbook out, and go over his notes of myriad contracts, rules, laws of nature, names of creatures, and agreements that have been made, and possibly following a recipe or series thereof and possibly making them up on the fly to combine effects he wants together. He performs various rituals, calls upon Names of Things, puts some Things in contact with other Things to pay off bargains with "fetch-quest" chains of deals, and arranges all of this so that he has a bunch of hanging effects that require specific gestures, language, and symbolic items to clearly identify when and how he's invoking them. In some cases, he may actually be finishing off his side of the deal when he casts the spell; in others, he's just calling in the bargains owed. The former is most common with expensive consumed material components, but is possible with just about any spell, depending on how the GM and player want to fluff it.

This is why you can't just copy a spell from one spellbook to another, most frequently, too: it's got a ton of notes and side-musings and little instructional bits that explain combinations of things that relate primarily to other things in the book, or other books in the wizard's collection. In some cases, having scribed the proper forms and formulae and names into a book, oneself, is an important part of even being able to be a party to the contracts backing up one's magic. The spellbooks that are easiest to parse are those deliberately made by one wizard for another to study from; these books will have specified spells listed in them, as exacting recipes...and even they will either be "incomplete" or will have a lot of notes on how to combine preparations of one spell with another, which is why it still takes study to "master" a given spellbook and be able to prepare its spells with other spells.

Wizards' "two free spells per level from personal research" aren't even neatly-codified spells in their book, necessarily; they're "eureka" moments as the wizard figures out ways to recombine the effects or contracts or both that he already has into new tricks - "spells" - he can prepare now that he figured out the ... well, trick to it.

Research in libraries to deliberately make a new spell works very similarly.

[Segev]

There is - of all things - a Dragon Prince fanfic that took Vancian magic a step further, and also made it much more interesting in my opinion, as well.

In this version, you "memorize" a spell of this sort by study, but when you do, it's gone from the pages of the book or scroll you used. And when you cast it, it's gone again...but will find its way elsewhere, either into a mind or onto a page, again. The spells themselves are alive, possibly intelligent, and can only exist in one place at a time. Sure, there may be multiple fireball spells, but each is subtly different; each is its own being. Copying a spell is dangerous because it can escape when copied. Spells also don't like being cooped up in books for too long; they start to manipulate things to find somebody to memorize them.

Those who are not sufficiently able with magic - not knowledgeable, not intelligent enough, not gifted enough, any of those - suffer catastrophic containment failure if they try to read or copy a spell.

These pseudo-Vancian spells are dangerous. Not necessarily deliberately malign, but possibly so. Powerful, but dangerous.