Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Dwimmerlied]

Not you're just incompetent, but if you ignore certain rules, there might be problems. Apparently there are, and the link you posted is evidence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. It would appear that its systematic; the probelmatic element seems to arise from players who disregard certain rules.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I don't like this rule does not equal the system doesn't work.

 

[Hussar]

Not you're just incompetent, but if you ignore certain rules, there might be problems. Apparently there are, and the link you posted is evidence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. It would appear that its systematic; the probelmatic element seems to arise from players who disregard certain rules.

But, that's the problem. I'm not disregarding ANY rules. I'm playing by the rules. Heck, I'm using Charm Person exactly as it's meant to be used, and being told that's abusing the rules. The problematic elements are being negated for some groups, by the exertion of DM's Force and a liberal application of Rule 0 to either interpret the rules in such a way as to negate player successes (the Chamberlain's attitude cannot be changed, no matter what) or manipulate and massage the game world to negate player successes (yup, you get to see the king, but, some random NPC we mentioned three sessions ago (the barmaid) poisons you and you die - AKA Rocks fall you die).

I mean, is casting spells exactly as written, with the intent that the spell is supposed to be used really abusing the rules? Apparently it is. And this is why you don't see people casting illusions in games, because it's too much Mother May I. This is why you see DM's talking about how Invokers are the powerful casters in their games. Of course they are. When every spell is interpreted in the most negative way possible, then of course people are only going to use those options which are least subject to interpretation.

But for those of us who aren't interested in this kind of gaming, we're pretty much left in the cold. The solution being put forth is that we should abandon our playstyle and adopt a much heavier handed DMing style than we are comfortable with. How is that not pure Badwrongfun? "There's no problem with the system, you're just doing it wrong" is the basic message here.

Look, as I said earlier, this isn't a problem I saw a lot of in my own games. Mostly because my players weren't interested in core casters. When you don't have any core casters in the group, these problems go away (largely). Additionally, we didn't play high level games that often, which further reduced the number of times we saw the problem. But, on the occasions where we did have high level games with core casters, it was ALWAYS a problem. There are just so many ways for core casters to sidestep things that unless you're willing to go to the lengths that you are proposing, groups will, IMO, almost always have these issues. It's unavoidable. The cleric will overshadow the fighter. The wizard will be game changing. He can't not be game changing.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

There are just so many ways for core casters to sidestep things that unless you're willing to go to the lengths that you are proposing, groups will, IMO, almost always have these issues.

My argument is that those lengths are legitimate, and as intended. I think thats our main disagreement.

 

[ImperatorK]

Rule 0 is kinda like Optimization. Used by all, misunderstood by many and abused by some.

My argument is that those lengths are legitimate, and as intended.

Sure they're legitimate. I don't think anyone is saying that, quite the opposite actually. But intended? Nah.

 

[Campbell]

If someone else wants to culling out the relevant parts of the previous 564 posts and beat me to starting another thread... I certainly won't complain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkm1i2o6Ri8

thread here.
Culling still to come.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

First off, very few uses. That's like asking what uses of weapon attacks would be nonviolent. As even various WotC sources discuss, enchanting a person and taking their free will away from them is a pretty terrible thing to do to that person, and is illegal and subject to harsh recriminations in any civilized context.

To be clear, I'm not talking about it from a metagame perspective. When I say "abusing the rules", I mean using the rules to do things that would be considered abusive by the characters themselves. Magic simply brings with it abilities that have more disturbing ethical implications than fighting or skill use.

I don't want my players to get the idea that using an enchantment against a non-hostile opponent to get what you want is a viable strategy. After all, if it was, the game world would fall apart. Any modestly effective spellcaster would get everything he wanted for free from friendly merchants, be surrounded by an army of slaves, and basically rule his own little world. Obviously, since there is a D&D world, that does not happen in general, and I don't see the players as exceptions.

Many other rules have similar implications. Scry-teleport for example. Even to the extent that it works in the rules, it's just wrong.

 

[ImperatorK]

Neutral and Evil Wizards exist.

BTW. Brilliant argument. "It's immoral and wrong". Lol. But you forgot to add "... in my games". I know, that goes without saying, but you sound like it's some kind of universal truth. It isn't.

 

[Wicht]

No one said I had to succeed. What I said was, "I use diplomacy on the chamberlain to see the king" to which the DM replied, "The chamberlain sticks his fingers in his ears and cries 'La la la I can't hear you".

If the DM did, in fact do that, I most certainly would leave the game.

But, rolling this back to the original point of this thread, casters vs non-casters, it's extremely telling that the diplomacy skill (the only way a non-caster can mechanically affect the reactions of an NPC) get's hosed, while, a simple 1st level wizard spell (Charm Person) would get me exactly what I want without any fuss.

This is why I talk about the disparity in power. The non-casters are at the whim of DM's who feel entitled to change the rules whenever they feel like it, while the casters can generally know that the spells they cast will be ruled upon in a fair manner. Heck, you, N'raac, have talked at length about how clear interpretations of the spell effects makes for a better game. I cast a Silent Still Charm Person on the Chamberlain and he fails his save. Do I get to see the king or not?

Or, do you simply Auto-save the Chamberlain to protect your scenario. After all, you've auto-failed the fighter for trying diplomacy, so, it should be the same thing no?

And this whole game of trying to find equivalency in DM power is laughable. We've already stated that the DM has total control over the game world, barring a few, generally fairly minor, exceptions. Of course he does. That's not what GM Force refers to. GM Force refers to DM's actively changing the rules in the middle of the game for the purpose of delineating specific actions to the players.

IOW, starting your campaign in Waterdeep is not an example of GM Force. Telling a player he can't play a Cyborg Ninja is not an example of GM Force. An example of GM Force is any time, during play the GM over rules the resolution mechanics of the game.

If there are any mechanics that might cause the chamberlain to act that way, then you are arguing a strawman argument.

There are it turns out, viable, in-game, non-story, mechanical reasons for such behavior and you are therefor begging the question that the DM changed the rules. Absent evidence of such a reasoning, then your argument lacks force.

Likewise, Charm Person might get the chamberlain to side with the PCs, but he still would not necessarily let the PCs in if the king had told him on threat of death not to, because Charm Person does not, by the rules, cause a creature to act against their own self-interest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Neutral and Evil Wizards exist.

Sure. I'm not saying you can't try to do it. I'm saying if you do it, you're unlikely to get away with it.

BTW. Brilliant argument. "It's immoral and wrong". Lol. But you forgot to add "... in my games". I know, that goes without saying, but you sound like it's some kind of universal truth. It isn't.

Well, D&D rules do define alignments objectively, and if you read some of the fluff text WotC has written on magic (there's a section of applications of enchantments in Complete Arcane, for example), it becomes very clear that the people who wrote Charm Person see it that way as well.

But yes, I could hardly talk about ethics without bringing my opinion into it.