Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

I said that your players are not interested in system mastery.

Semantics aside, yes they are. Not infrequently to fairly extreme "munchkin" levels back in the day, though most of those guys are gone now. Certainly whenever I played, I was very interested in system mastery.

However, an evoker is not going to break your game because, of the caster classes, an evoker is likely the weakest choice. Particularly depending on what the evoker chooses as his barred schools. IIRC, you mentioned that divination was the most common barred school you saw.

But when I make rational choices based on abundant knowledge and experience, I conclude that an evoker is one of, if not the most effective of wizard specialty choices. Clearly you don't think so, but I'm not aware of any meaningful evidence you have that would back that up.

But, that doesn't mean the issue isn't there. There issue isn't there, for you, because of your playstyle. But, again, in a game where the DM is far less heavy handed, sticks far closer to written rules, and features players who are heavily invested in system mastery, you have a recipe for a HUGE disparity between casters and non-casters.

I don't think that's the entire recipe.

 

[Wicht]

There's nothing there that says that the DM can flat out rule that you cannot use diplomacy on something.

"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anybody, okay?) The secret is that your're in charge. This is not the telling-everyone-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventure takes place, and what happens. You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge."

But yeah, other than the rules telling you that the DM gets to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them, there's nothing there giving DM's that kind of authority in the game.

 

[TwoSix]

But when I make rational choices based on abundant knowledge and experience, I conclude that an evoker is one of, if not the most effective of wizard specialty choices. Clearly you don't think so, but I'm not aware of any meaningful evidence you have that would back that up.

While I'm not questioning your own experience, the idea of evocation being one of the weakest choices for specialization is well accepted as CharOp orthodoxy. And that's spread among several hundred posters across the old Wizards 3e Character Optimization boards, brilliantgameologists.com, minmaxboards.com, giantitp.com, and probably a few smaller ones I don't frequent. "LogicNinja's guide to the Batman Wizard" and "Treantmonk's guide to Wizards: Being a God" are probably the two ur-texts of that particular belief.

I will say that I have played an evoker(/beguiler/Ultimate Magus), and it was certainly powerful enough for me, although having the beguiler spells as backup and the metamagic shenanigans certainly played a role. Specialization is slightly overrated in terms of the impact it makes on playing a wizard. Even as a focused specialist, you have half your spells per day available from the other schools, and scrolls can pick up the slack as needed. Runestaves never hurt either, my focused specialist abjurer fell back on the runestaff when he needed some blasting.

 

[Wicht]

While I'm not questioning your own experience, the idea of evocation being one of the weakest choices for specialization is well accepted as CharOp orthodoxy.

I don't mess around with reading much of the Char-op stuff, but I have always found their orthodoxy to be slightly circular in its reasoning, in that they assume a perfect environment for their builds to operate within and when their builds operate within the environment they envision as they expect it to, then they assume that proves the superiority of their build. They also tend to provide builds fully formed, rather than built over an actual play experience, and one must wonder how well their builds would survive at level 1. Like Ahnehnois, it has been my experience that evocation wizards have always been the most direct, and effective, builds, over the course of long campaigns. Their answers are fairly straightforward - deal damage - but it works and it almost always works. Like fighters they have the advantage of consistency.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION]
Yes, I think comparing evocation and fighters is a good analogy. It's largely the old question of a bird in hand versus two in a bush. Taking the direct damage route is definitely a bird in hand.

While I'm not questioning your own experience, the idea of evocation being one of the weakest choices for specialization is well accepted as CharOp orthodoxy.

I'm aware of that.

"LogicNinja's guide to the Batman Wizard" and "Treantmonk's guide to Wizards: Being a God" are probably the two ur-texts of that particular belief.

I'm aware of that too. I have the latter bookmarked. I sometimes refer to it when making NPCs or point wizard players to it.

But you (pl) are conflating theory with practice. There are a panoply of campaign specific variables by which the utility of any character choice can be altered. The distinction between charop board theory and system mastery is much the same as the distinction between biology and medicine. The applied side is messy. The conclusions of the research side, no matter how valid in their own right, often don't hold.

For example, if you read charop guides, you'd conclude that many of the summoning spells are quite effective. However, the summoning lists are balanced according to certain expectations (such as a standard array and default wealth levels, CR-based encounters). If you don't abide by those, the effectiveness of summoned creatures stays the same, but their comparative effectiveness relative to other actors in the game world varies wildly.

Since I'm generally going for a high-fantasy, heroic feel, I'll generally be DMing for characters with a modifier total around twice what you'd get from the standard array, treasure at least triple the DMG wealth table number (and often much more), and opponents that are generally off the table of what's considered an appropriate CR (all of which are relatively moderate compared with most of the DMs I've played with, and with some of the stuff you'll see tossed around on those charop boards). Summoning spells are pretty mediocre in my games. Treantmonk gave Summon Monster III a double fist pump smiley, and I don't know if it's even worth the spell slot. Fireball is definitely better in a high-powered game, regardless of the "orthodox" view on the subject.

Conversely, if you went for a real gritty feel and rolled straight 3d6 characters with no magic items, those summoned monsters would look pretty powerful, as would spellcasters in general. All of which makes perfect sense: the more special your PCs are, the less special magic is. The less special they are, the more amazing (or overpowered, if you like) magic looks.

Similar variables apply to any number of other choices. The charop guides are interesting to read and can be useful, but they won't actually lead to creating the most effective character in most games.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But yeah, other than the rules telling you that the DM gets to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them, there's nothing there giving DM's that kind of authority in the game.

Sheesh. How did it happen that you needed to quote rules text for something so obvious? Apparently to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] it is a secret.

(Thanks for doing it though).

 

[TwoSix]

I don't mess around with reading much of the Char-op stuff, but I have always found their orthodoxy to be slightly circular in its reasoning, in that they assume a perfect environment for their builds to operate within and when their builds operate within the environment they envision as they expect it to, then they assume that proves the superiority of their build. They also tend to provide builds fully formed, rather than built over an actual play experience, and one must wonder how well their builds would survive at level 1. Like Ahnehnois, it has been my experience that evocation wizards have always been the most direct, and effective, builds, over the course of long campaigns. Their answers are fairly straightforward - deal damage - but it works and it almost always works. Like fighters they have the advantage of consistency.

I do agree that CharOp can be somewhat insular in their assumptions. And many of the more tricked out multi-threat builds do state that they only reach optimal performance when the character is in the teen levels. (Although my particular favorite, Bard7/Mindbender1/Ur-priest2/Sublime Chord2/Mystic Theurge 8, is pretty playable 1-20, with a dip in performance in the 8-14 range).

I do think that CharOp orthodoxy is generally correct about Evocation. Evocation's most unique niche is area-of-effect blasting, which tends to be more effective on enemies which are lower level. Lower level enemies, even in numbers, are less threatening than a single high-CR opponent. An evocation spell which does enough damage to kill an enemy outright was probably targeting an enemy that couldn't provide much of a threat to begin with.

 

[Hussar]

But yeah, other than the rules telling you that the DM gets to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them, there's nothing there giving DM's that kind of authority in the game.

Well, fair enough. Having suffered from way too many DM's who took this sort of advice to ridiculous levels, I have no problem saying that I would not enjoy anyone's game who took that particular piece of advice to heart. Again, no thanks to Calvinball or Mother-May-I gaming.

Look, I understand 100% that you prefer a much higher degree of DM force. More power to you. That's great. Why is it so hard to understand that I do not enjoy this? That I feel that RPG's are cooperative games where the DM/GM is not really in a privileged position in no way should reflect on your game. It simply means we prefer different things in the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

And that's kind of my point. Both approaches are equally "forceful", but different. You wouldn't need the reeducation if they weren't.

I'm rather at a loss for how this logically follows so hopefully you can tell me where I've gone wrong. By my way of thinking, the reasoning goes:

- In NFL football, if you are implementing a drive-blocking, iso run scheme, you hire and train large, powerful offensive linemen and apply their strength and leverage in the run game. Conversely, if you want to implement a zone-blocking scheme with backside cut blocks, pulling guards and reach blocks, you want more nimble, athletic linemen who work well in space.

- If you want to move a heavy object from here to there and you have no tech (either equipment or mental acuity), you get big and strong through training and move the object directly through force. Conversely, If you have the tech and mental acuity, you use rollers or a pully/winch system.

- If you want to paint a house, you apply time and physical exertion until the job is done. Conversely, if you want to paint a portrait, you learn the skill/trade and apply finesse.

- If you want to play a card game where force resolves the outcome, play War. Conversely, if you want to play a card game where finesse resolves the outcome, play Spades.

- If you want GM force in conflict resolution, circumvent mechanical resolution (either visibly by fiat or by creating illusory effectiveness of mechanical resolution and then ignore/fudge/override the results) and dictate an outcome. If you do not want GM force in conflict resolution, codify a resolution system (replete with synthesis of PC build resources and the conflict resolution framework), have players deploy resources to resolve task/conflict and stridently observe results.

I mean, the only way there is a congruency with respect to the application of "force" is if we zoom out the resolution dramatically and apply some extremely broad conceptual definition of "has mass, takes up space, therefore exerts force on its environment when interacting."

 

[Ahnehnois]

Evocation's most unique niche is area-of-effect blasting, which tends to be more effective on enemies which are lower level. Lower level enemies, even in numbers, are less threatening than a single high-CR opponent. An evocation spell which does enough damage to kill an enemy outright was probably targeting an enemy that couldn't provide much of a threat to begin with.

Evocation does do other things, most notably (don't laugh) Magic Missile. There are very few things in this game that just work. The ability to deal damage without rolling anything can be very useful when you're fighting enemies who are immune to your attacks, or whose saves/AC you can't beat.

The last evoker player I had, the primary venue for his effectiveness was simply chipping away at opponents with force damage while other PCs distracted them. Even up to level 8, I think MM was his most-cast spell.

Again, reliability.