Umm, we posited a 100 or so lizard folk. A single, lone, medium sized fighter at 10th or so level. If the DM isn't winning this fight, the DM is lobbing some pretty easy softballs over the plate. "If the fighter has a light weapon", "If the fighter can choose the location of the fight" "If we stack the deck entirely in the fighter's favor" then the fighter will win.
Seriously, it's "stacking the deck" to assume the Fighter has a backup weapon, but not to assume the Wizard has just the right spell suite prepared and ready to go, with all the right feats backing it up? [MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] has provided a real wizard with a limited spell selection. While I think he'd likely have more in the book, he can only prepare so many. His discussion has, as a result, reflected reasonable available resources.
The fighter is fighting in either a swamp or a village, and it's unreasonable to believe he can place his back to a wall or otherwise select a location where he can't readily be surrounded by opponents, yet the wizard should have no problem at all finding a completely secluded location to hide his Magic Jar within 100' of the target he wishes to possess, who will be somewhere in a village?
Well, not really. We're saying that in our games, high level casters take over the game for a number of reasons, most of which are mechanical in nature. The basic response is that the GM should be stacking the deck (taking away caster abilities, remove spell books, deliberately choose opponents that target casters, etc) to bring casters in line with the non-casters.
When the PC's are faced with a couple of ranks of brutes, with a caster behind them, who do THEY target? Why should their opponents behave differently? Are the PC's tactical geniuses, and their opponents dullards with no concept of battle strategy?
Which, of course, simply proves the point. If there wasn't a disparity, then you wouldn't have to fix anything. You wouldn't have to target the casters. You wouldn't have to stack the deck and choose interpretations which specifically reduce the effectiveness of casters.
The alternate viewpoint is that, if the casters weren't coddled - the deck stacked in their favour - the disparity would not exist.
Because your "enforcing the rules" is so one sided. You only choose the most penalizing interpretation of any spell (no, of course Prestidigitation cannot remove scent as a single example of many), choosing enemies which specifically screw over casters (every humanoid knows the exact counters to every single spell choice the players could make, for another example), start targeting casters by stripping out their spell book or holy symbol. Oh, no, that's "behaving rationally".
"Every humanoid knows the exact counters to every spell choice?" That matches nicely with "Every wizard has the perfect spell selection", to me. We've beaten prestidigitation to death - nothing in the description suggests it can eliminate someone's scent, and everything in it says "minor effects over a very limited area", such as cleaning one cubic foot per round. Can it freshen up that smelly shirt before the wizard goes out on a date? Sure. Can it make him undetectable by bloodhounds? Not just no - HELL NO! It's a zero level spell with an extensive array of minor effects and a long duration. This seems similar to me to the old "target one eye with each Magic Missile so the target will be blinded - it doesn't say I can't" argument, not one of nerfing the spell.
Oh, no, we're going to screw over the casters every single time, to the point of "A summoned creature that acts just like a horse, won't carry anything other than the caster, despite that appearing nowhere in the spell description."
The spell in question was Phantom Steed. I've emphasized bits of the description and left out the special abilities it gains at higher levels, none of which enhance carrying capacity.
Phantom Steed said:
You conjure a Large, quasi-real, horselike creature. The steed can be ridden only by you or by the one person for whom you specifically created the mount. A phantom steed has a black head and body, gray mane and tail, and smoke-colored, insubstantial hooves that make no sound. It has what seems to be a saddle, bit, and bridle. It does not fight, but animals shun it and refuse to attack it.
The mount has an AC of 18 (-1 size, +4 natural armor, +5 Dex) and 7 hit points +1 hit point per caster level. If it loses all its hit points, the phantom steed disappears. A phantom steed has a speed of 20 feet per caster level, to a maximum of 240 feet. It can bear its rider’s weight plus up to 10 pounds per caster level.
So it will either carry the caster plus 10 pounds per caster level (Lizardfolk weigh more than 100 pounds) OR it will carry a specific person designated in casting. So what is it that we’re restricting despite the words of the spell description? If the horse can only be ridden by the person for whom it was conjured, it seems like it would obey that rider. I “screw over” interpretation, to me, would note it has a saddle, bit and bridle – but no reins - so it will go wherever it feels like, rather than where the rider directs.
But, yeah, we're not screwing over the casters in any way, shape or form. :/
Sorry, but I remain of the view that holding the caster to the actual spell description is not “screwing him over” any more than not allowing the Fighter to target the Dragon’s left eye, thrusting his Greatsword in like a dagger and killing it instantly, but rather requiring him to roll to hit and damage like the rules provide.
One more item – is it unfair to target the spellbook? I’ve rarely seen it done. Yet a wizard who selects the Eschew Materials feat eliminates his need for a spell component pouch entirely. A wizard selecting Spell Mastery only gets a few of the spells in that book available for preparation if the book is gone. This indicates that avoiding the need for a spellbook is far more powerful than avoiding the need for material components. Is that consistent with your experience in the game?
In those games in which teleport is a "gamechanger" - and I've certainly encountered this phenomenon - the change takes two main forms (in my experience, at least).
First, the use of teleport permits the wizard to extract him-/herself (and perhaps other party members) from situations in which the party is losing. So it's not so much about "overcoming challenges" (like getting to far away places) as "reframing scenes" by putting significant geographical distance between the party and the opposition in a game in which the fictional geography is a strong constraint on bringing antagonism to bear. (I've italicsed this bit because it is not an inherent feature of an RPG; but is very much a feature of D&D, even into 4e.)
Extract the Wizard? Possibly. Extract the party? They’re all holding hands in combat? No, I think not, if we actually read the spell and note that the target is “You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures” Home base is pretty safe – only a 3% chance of a screwup (so less than one time in 30 - but more than one in 40 – how many times do you do this?).
Second, the use of teleport permits the wizard to regulate the availability of spell recovery, by teleporting to a safe haven for resting. There are various well known techniques for thwarting this - time-sensitive scenarios, assassins infiltrating the haven, etc - but the use of teleport in this way shifts the onus very heavily onto the GM to erect obstacles to resting. Whereas if the party is stuck in the middle of an orc-infested forest then the prospects for resting are "naturally" limited by the fictional situation itself.
Here again, 3% chance of a screwup on the way home, and 6% on the way back if its “studied carefully” by remaining there for an hour – during which nothing will happen, of course, because the world must go into stasis if we decide to retreat and rest.
Party size also becomes relevant here. Animal companions, mounts, etc. increase the numbers required and 1 extra person per 3 caster levels doesn’t add up all that fast (at least your familiar can be included with “you”). And, again, if we blast in, Nova, and blast out, what do the opponents do for the next 23 hours until our return? Sit in stasis, or take action based on these marauders who popped in (whether that be fortifiying, using divinations of their own, fleeing or what have you)? Now, if the enemy is static, then I’d expect each encounter to be tough enough to challenge the party using all of its resources, since they can, and reasonably will, retreat and rest between them.
4e deals with (1) by making teleport take 10 minutes to cast.
I’m quite satisfied with Teleport as a long distance transport spell. Utility spells should have a long casting time, and that’s a change I would support. It would clarify the intended game use of the spell.
It deals with (2) primarily by putting everyone onto the same suite of recoverable resources. An interesting feature of 13th Age is that it overtly goes in the direction that some have drifted 4e, of putting long rests on an overtly metagame timer, thereby eliminating the relevance, to player resource recovery, of the details of the ingame fiction. This sort of approach in my view enhances 4e play (because it makes players engage with more sophistication with the games resource system). It is essential to 13th Age, which has different classes on different resource sets.
It carries a verisimilitude cost, but solves the issue. To me, 3%/6% means about a 9% chance something goes wrong each day, which is enough for me, as a player, to avoid the tactic, even ignoring the enemy activity while we’re gone. At 9
th level (13
th to eliminate that failure chance – and even then, using up those highest level slots), the enemy might also have some resources at their own disposal, if they are to be a reasonable challenge.
But that is somehow “screwing over” the casters. Why isn’t it “screwing over the party” to have their 10
th level characters face challenges that are dangerous to 10
th level characters? Where are all those orcs and goblins that were pretty much everywhere a few months ago, when we were 1
st and 2
nd level? If that isn’t “scewing over the party”, then how are they screwed over by making the challenges actually able to challenge them?
