Free Will and Story

[N'raac]

I believe he was talking about two different events.

They were in close enough proximity for me to link them, but hopefully he was.

Giving up class levels in a full caster class is usually a negative. Gaining fire resistance at low levels is no match for gaining miracle at higher levels, which is ultimately what the character is giving up. I would have said Hussar was nerfing his character in favor of flavor.

Again, it depends on the game. Will this game reach L17+? Do frequent opponents have fire attacks?

I think the important part to remember is that it's really not combat potency or skills that need balance, those are indeed a matter of character and campaign choices, but rather the narrative control elements that are primarily limited to casters. It's the utility of these classes that make balance an issue. Take for instance one of the most power narrative spells out there, teleport. This simple spell (or that variations that clerics and druids get), allows the character to bypass the narrative the DM has laid out in the game. You must travel the misty road to the tower of blah blah and do this important thing. The fighter shrugs and heads toward the road, it's his only option. The Wizard smirks and says haha to your narrative, I'm going to bypass all that and appear at the tower instead. Even spells like Speak with Dead, Rope Trick, Fly, Scrying, etc have profound effects on the narrative of the game. Now a practiced DM will have taken into account these elements, having played with them for possibly decades, but a inexperienced DM will be a bit flummoxed by them, as we all probably were the first time a group of players said, nah, we're going to bypass everything you created for tonight's game and jump right to the city across the sea.

If we read the spells in the manner that most suits the PC's, I suppose. How far away is that tower? Teleport allows 100 miles per level. How big is the team? One additional creature per 3 caster levels - horses and other Large creatures count double. Leaving the mounts and animal companions behind? "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works." So, how clear is your mental image of that tower (or should I say the courtyard in the tower)? "Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. " GM prerogative to make Teleport useless.

Greater Teleport? Sure - that's a L7 spell slot. Still limited in the number of passengers. And "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination or a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location." Not seeing this as the universal solution it is commonly presented as.

One balancing factor is scenarios that don't allow the spellcasters free reign to blow off their entire repertoire, then plop to the ground and sleep as the mood strikes them. Rope Trick is far from unbeatable. And let's remember those extradimensional space rules - where's that Bag of Holding with your spellbook in it again?

 

[Hussar]

To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power. The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful. Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying. On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.

Fair enough.

Me, I'd rather resolve these issues in the mechanics. You agree that there is a problem here. If there was no problem, then you wouldn't be bringing up solutions. So, why not just not have the problem in the first place? Teleport is a major game changing spell? Take it out of the game or make teleport line of sight only. There, problem solved.

Which is the point of mechanical game balance in the first place.

 

[sheadunne]

Again, it depends on the game. Will this game reach L17+? Do frequent opponents have fire attacks?

By then you're immune to fire so it doesn't matter.

If we read the spells in the manner that most suits the PC's, I suppose. How far away is that tower? Teleport allows 100 miles per level. How big is the team? One additional creature per 3 caster levels - horses and other Large creatures count double. Leaving the mounts and animal companions behind? "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works." So, how clear is your mental image of that tower (or should I say the courtyard in the tower)? "Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. " GM prerogative to make Teleport useless.

Greater Teleport? Sure - that's a L7 spell slot. Still limited in the number of passengers. And "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination or a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location." Not seeing this as the universal solution it is commonly presented as.

Irrelevant. There are simple ways around any of those issues with other spells or in 3x metamagic feats or other magic items. The point isn't in the details, it's in the capacity to do it. What ability to change the narrative does the fighter have? That's the question. There's the balance issue in D&D. If all you're doing is spending your time finding ways to take away narrative capacity from casters, then we're on the same page, you're just looking at it from a zero narrative capacity, while I'm looking to increase it for martial classes.

One balancing factor is scenarios that don't allow the spellcasters free reign to blow off their entire repertoire, then plop to the ground and sleep as the mood strikes them. Rope Trick is far from unbeatable. And let's remember those extradimensional space rules - where's that Bag of Holding with your spellbook in it again?

In all my years of playing casters I have never run out of spells, especially in 3x where you basically have a portable hole filled with scrolls. One spell is usually all that's needed per any combat to tip the odds significantly in your favor or to end it entirely. Who needs spells books? Spell books are only needed pre-3x. Spells per a day do nothing to balance the narrative issues.

And by focusing on things the DM can do to nerf casters all your doing is saying players shouldn't have any ability to change the narrative. If that's your thing, that's fine. I'd rather find a way to increase the capacity for narrative change to non-casters. I don't know how to do it, but I feel it is important to the game and the one issue D&D has always had.

 

[sheadunne]

To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power. The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful. Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying. On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.

Fair enough.

Me, I'd rather resolve these issues in the mechanics. You agree that there is a problem here. If there was no problem, then you wouldn't be bringing up solutions. So, why not just not have the problem in the first place? Teleport is a major game changing spell? Take it out of the game or make teleport line of sight only. There, problem solved.

Which is the point of mechanical game balance in the first place.

Yup.

 

[billd91]

And by focusing on things the DM can do to nerf casters all your doing is saying players shouldn't have any ability to change the narrative. If that's your thing, that's fine. I'd rather find a way to increase the capacity for narrative change to non-casters. I don't know how to do it, but I feel it is important to the game and the one issue D&D has always had.

I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.

And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.

 

[Hussar]

I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.

And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.

So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player? Why not just not give the abilities in the first place. I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?

Why give options only to then fence those options in? And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place. And you see no problems with this?

I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group? My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?

You guys have a really strange definition of balance.

 

[billd91]

So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player? Why not just not give the abilities in the first place. I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?

Why give options only to then fence those options in? And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place. And you see no problems with this?

I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group? My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?

You guys have a really strange definition of balance.

Yeah, you're totally not understanding what I'm saying. It's nothing to do with using the powers in a non-DM sanctioned way. I'm refereeing the game and will adjudicate the results fairly whether the PCs are getting along or not. If the wizard's always going off on a tangent away from what the group wants to do, then he is probably a problem player. He is not playing well with the people he's playing with. And if he is using his narrative adjusting powers in the party's interest, then it's a party resource. Does it really matter who's doing it? It's being done on everybody's behalf and everybody is benefiting from it.

And I'd suggest that if your rogue can't get good information that the wizard can't get with his spells, then either you or your GM don't really know the power of well-placed contacts and observers whose tongues are loosened with a little beer. Your GM should also be using info gathering expeditions as a resource to expose more of the game world to you as players. It's a fantastic way to supply hints to stumped players, for instance.

 

[pemerton]

I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.

I'm sure this is true. I think, given this, that the question is whether we want all concepts to be equally viable from the gameplay point of view?

For instance, if players choose mostly on concept, but the game breaks down without a certain mechanical factor being present (in D&D this is generally expressed as needing a healer, and/or a caster of some sort), then the game will break down if no player is attracted to the concept in question.

Also, if player choose mostly on concept, but some concepts don't work out that way at the table - for instance, suppose it turns out that a flying invisible wizard really is a mecahnically better stealth option than a thief or ninja - then some players are going to have a compromised play experience simply in virtue of the concept they preferred.

The issues comes when the fighter doesn't get to fight the creatures the DM laid in front of them because the wizard has altered the narrative. He's either changed the battlefield, nerfed the bad guys, killed the enemies, or summoned a horde. The martial character is now fighting the battle the wizard wants him to fight, and often times it's either not a challenge anymore or not the fight he wants to fight.

I would definitely count this as an instance of "compromised play experience".

I think it also relates to my first point - for instance, if D&D (at least by default) assumes that the players will exercise narrative control to succeed at challenges, but confines that to certain concepts only, then the game will break down if (eg) the players want to play an all-fighter or all-ranger party. Even though this does not seem out-of-line for the genre (eg Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas chasing down the hobbits through the fields of Rohan).

If the wizard's <snippage> using his narrative adjusting powers in the party's interest, then it's a party resource. Does it really matter who's doing it?

I think it matters hugely. Playing an RPG, for those I play with at least, isn't just about the party achieving its goals. It's about engaging and shaping the fiction via your PC. If someone else is always doing that, it doesn't matter that, in the fiction, your PC is getting what s/he wants. At the table you're not getting to play the game.

And I'd suggest that if your rogue can't get good information that the wizard can't get with his spells, then either you or your GM don't really know the power of well-placed contacts and observers whose tongues are loosened with a little beer. Your GM should also be using info gathering expeditions as a resource to expose more of the game world to you as players. It's a fantastic way to supply hints to stumped players, for instance.

This is precisely a point of narrative control issues, I think. Burning Wheel tackles this with its Circles rules, which put control over this sort of stuff back into the hands of the players. But BW is not a class-based system; in a D&D adaptation of its Circles idea it would be a class ability for rogues.

The difficulty is that many prospective players would probably reject it because it is clearly a metagame mechanic. Yet I don't know of a game that maintains magic/martial balance without giving the players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to deploy.

One solution is metagame mechanics. Not 4e-style though; that defeats the point.

Why do 4e-style metagame mechanics defeat the point? They give players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to balance their lack of in-fiction magical resources.

 

[Starfox]

I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations.

This is a good idea for campaigns in which they work. Who are described as the nobility of most fantasy worlds? Fighter! But the DnD fighter doesn't have the tools to be a leader - neither skills or class abilities or an incentive to be charismatic. It also meshes into the dominion rules from 1E - fighters, clerics, and rogues got automatic followers at high levels, mages didn't.

Still, this will not suit all games. In a pure dungeon crawl, minions are not going to do you much good. Ok, in some old-school versions of dungeoneering it might, but spending followers as trap detectors or lantern bearers might cut into some players idea of heroism. Do we have other ideas for"narrative space" options for the martial classes? This might be worth a thread of it's own, actually.

Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.

Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues. The one exception is Wizards, who with their short skill list and massive intelligence can splurge on knowledge skills. This is not good. Pathfinder ameliorated this somewhat by combining rogue skills so that fewer skills do the work of many, but the issue is still there.

Edit: Opened a new thread for this Here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a good idea for campaigns in which they work. Who are described as the nobility of most fantasy worlds? Fighter! But the DnD fighter doesn't have the tools to be a leader - neither skills or class abilities or an incentive to be charismatic. It also meshes into the dominion rules from 1E - fighters, clerics, and rogues got automatic followers at high levels, mages didn't.

Indeed. When the wizard was learning to teleport as a power in o/AD&D the fighter was getting the "My army, sieze me that man!" power - and from memory a henchman who was also a pretty decent fighter. 3e, however, stripped all such power away from the fighter as a class.

Basically, all classes in 3E are skill starved. Yes, this includes Rogues.

On a tangent, the rogue in 3e is arguably the single most skill starved class in the game. 3e rogues gain 8+Int skill points - with that 8 matching up to the 8 thief skills in AD&D. However the fighter gains 2+Int skill points and doesn't have any equivalent to thief skills in prior editions.

I think this is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.

And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.

In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands. Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the wizard wins. And as for who cares, I do. From both sides. I've so far retired every wizard I've played for being too much for the DM to handle and for solving challenges single handed making everyone else feel like spectators. D&D should be a team game, not a hero-and-sidekicks one.