Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Dwimmerlied]

The point you're missing though is that failure to adhere to the rules spoils the game for some of us.

Rule0 (or DM forcing, or arbitrating, or whatever), is still a rule, and its pretty integral to (at least) the game system in question. If you choose not to use it, the game may possibly present some problems. I'm not insisting you do, tho.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Perhaps not that, but clearly, someone who is a king in a world with D&D characters in it has better defenses than to let his designee be taken over by the whim of a low-level spellcaster. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate and rational tactics to prevent the player from abusing the rules in that way.

And, right there, THAT'S the issue that I have.

Casting a charm person on someone to get me an appointment with the king is "abusing the rules"? Really? This is a Jedi Mind Trick. It's an established, common event in fantasy, and quite frankly pretty much EXACTLY what the spell is supposed to do.

But, now I'm "abusing" the rules? By using something exactly as written both in RAW and RAI?

Let me ask this, what use of a Charm Person spell would not be "abusing the rules" in your opinion?

 

[Hussar]

Rule0 (or DM forcing, or arbitrating, or whatever), is still a rule, and its pretty integral to (at least) the game system in question. If you choose not to use it, the game may possibly present some problems. I'm not insisting you do, tho.

Note, Rule 0 isn't the same as arbitrating. Sometimes, obviously, in the absence of any rules, Rule 0 gets invoked to allow the game to move forward. That's exactly what Rule 0 is for. When a situation comes up and the DM and the players cannot come to a consensus answer, Rule 0 allows the DM to say, "Look, we're not going to agree, but, this is my ruling and let's move on" and stops the table argument.

That's, IMO, what Rule 0 is for. However, some people take Rule 0 a lot further and basically say that any rule is subject to change by the DM at any time, for any reason. I will not play with DM's like that. I don't enjoy the game and have no interest in it. We, as a group, have agreed to a certain ruleset, and the DM, again IMO, should be beholden to that agreement, the same as the players.

Like I said, broadly applied Rule 0 leads to Mother May I gaming and Calvinball. I don't play those games anymore. I don't enjoy them.

 

[Hussar]

Whoops, double post.

But, happened to notice the "Similar Threads link" below and saw this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?51977-What-ELSE-do-Fighters-do

In the third post:

Fighters fight, it's what they do. I think the problem is not that other characters can also fight, or that fighters have few skills out of combat, but that other characters can often fight better than the Fighter, at least at mid-high levels. Maybe Fighters need to be tougher?

This was from 2003. So, it's not like this is a new issue.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

However, for those of us who don't employ it, it's not a terribly useful technique for controlling LFQW. Telling us to simply use GM force to bring casters in line with non-casters leaves a very bad taste in the mouth because it's not a technique our tables enjoy. In other words, it's not terribly useful advice for our groups.

This may be a big part of the problem then; I can only speak for myself, but I'm not telling you to use force (though it may be semantics), I'm saying the system is designed with a rule0 catchall so that such problems don't arise; they designed a big system with a lot of options;- but abusive combinations that ruin the fun were never part of the design intent, rather the presentation of cool powers for characters to use. Now we have a problem where people are proliferating ridiculous builds, demanding their right to play them because RAW, and saying that the builds mean the system is fundamentally flawed.

If you decide that the rule is not satisfactory, then you need to have an alternative because it takes away that ability to stop ridiculous combinations and such.

Would it be accurate to represent this, then as; the system itself isn't flawed to the degree people are saying. Ignoring fundamental rules may result in very broken elements, but those rules, when applied as intended, work fine, and in particular often address a lot of the issues many people feel is one of the biggest problems with the game. However, there are people who believe that the means for doing this can lead to unsatisfactory gaming for groups who are seeking a particular gaming style, and is also open to abuse?

 

[Hussar]

But, Dwimmerlied, we're not talking about abusive combinations that were never intended. Good grief, I just got told that using Charm Person to bypass a flunky on our way to talk to the king was abusing the system.

The system is flawed. It's not flawed for some because they have gone way above and beyond the rules and crushed any possible use for spells. If Charm Person on a chamberlain is an abuse of the rules, then of course the only possible caster to play is a blaster. The fact that people are pointing to things like encumberance rules as a limitation for casters shows how little system mastery their players have.

Heck, Ahn has flat out stated that his players are not interested in system mastery - they want to be told by the DM when to engage mechanics. Which is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But, my group, collectively, has over a century of gaming experience. Well over a century. We are not interested in that level of DM authority in the game.

But, yes, it will certainly work to limit casters if you feel that Charm Person is over powered and you are running out the Nerf Bat for that.

So, no, when the rules are used "as intended" we don't get perfectly fine running games. Because, for us, something like Charm Person is not over powered, nor is using it to bypass a civil servant even remotely considered an abuse of the rules.

And, frankly, I find it hard to believe that any DM honestly would see that as an abuse of rules.

 

[Campbell]

Can we please use another rule as an example besides 3e Diplomacy? By almost any standard it's a terrible rule. It models neither actual or dramatic social interaction well. It leaves little to no room to construct a social encounter around in ways that can be leveraged. The only way it interfaces with the fiction is initial attitude and uses static DCs that don't depend on the social maneuvering skills of the opposing party. It doesn't even necessarily help to resolve the conflict in question.

If we can agree on nothing else please let us all agree that it's a stinky rule that needs to go and be replaced by something better. For an example of something better that is still very much task rather than conflict resolution based see the Social Maneuvering system in the God Machine Chronicles rules update for New World of Darkness. It's even free on drivethrurpg.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

But, Dwimmerlied, we're not talking about abusive combinations that were never intended. Good grief, I just got told that using Charm Person to bypass a flunky on our way to talk to the king was abusing the system.

Well I am talking about abusive combinations that were never intended. I can't speak for others, but I suspect the conversation you are referring to is a shift in focus and more about playstyle conflict. Here IS someone that can speak for me on the subject of playstyle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_nA2iVXw

The fact that people are pointing to things like encumberance rules as a limitation for casters shows how little system mastery their players have.

Ignoring limitations for all characters, if I've followed the thread well enough, seems to increase the power of those characters, though I'm open to the possibility that the degrees of abuse may vary by class. Encumberance, yes, but I saw a lot of other limitations suggested besides, and they all seemed legitimate to me; few were addressed properly, and one of the loudest arguments was that applying them was unfair and arbitrary. It really does seem to me that these game-breaking situations only arise in ideal situations where certain elements are forgotten or handwaved.

 

[haakon1]

It seems to me, if any given class were significantly overpowered, that class would be targeted much more often by any intelligent enemy. So it seems to me "unbalanced" would be self-regulating, at least over the long-haul.

That said, I might let the "Charm Person" on the chamberlain succeed. But how precisely would you get the chamberlain in a position where he is unguarded and you're allowed to cast spells upon his person? That would be the actual challenge, more so than beating his Will save (though it would probably be solid).

That and, once you've charmed your way in, not getting killed for the insolence of it. If not by the royal guards, then by a loyalist serving wench, with a friend who's an herbalist, at your victory celebration.

"My favorite character class is super powered and everyone else's is lame" sounds to me like "the DM lets me win by having my enemies be ninnies who fall for all my plans, never come up with their own, and never recognize I'm a threat they need to eliminate".

Tennis with the net down, as it were.

 

[Hussar]

It seems to me, if any given class were significantly overpowered, that class would be targeted much more often by any intelligent enemy. So it seems to me "unbalanced" would be self-regulating, at least over the long-haul.

That said, I might let the "Charm Person" on the chamberlain succeed. But how precisely would you get the chamberlain in a position where he is unguarded and you're allowed to cast spells upon his person? That would be the actual challenge, more so than beating his Will save (though it would probably be solid).

That and, once you've charmed your way in, not getting killed for the insolence of it. If not by the royal guards, then by a loyalist serving wench, with a friend who's an herbalist, at your victory celebration.

"My favorite character class is super powered and everyone else's is lame" sounds to me like "the DM lets me win by having my enemies be ninnies who fall for all my plans, never come up with their own, and never recognize I'm a threat they need to eliminate".

Tennis with the net down, as it were.

And, again, we're right back to, "There's nothing wrong with the system, you're just incompetent."

Considering I posted a thread from 2003 talking about THIS EXACT situation, can't we at least agree that there just might be a systemic issue here? I mean, it's been ten years now with people pretty consistently complaining about the issue, yet we STILL get told that it's not a problem with the mechanics. Mind blowing.