Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

My (and a lot of other people's) playstyle isn't supported by the game. That's a problem with the mechanics.

Seriously?

So I should be upset that Toon does not support my Call of Cthulhu fix, or that in Call of Cthulhu, my guys keep going insane.

The mechanics are what they are because they are designed around a playstyle. If that's not your playstyle, then you need to find a different game or a different ruleset, which I assume you have.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah, though being dead puts a real damper on that for the caster.

If you think casters are better than fighters, feel free to continue to do that. But we've already all mostly agreed its a game-style problem, not a problem with the mechanics.

Can you really separate mechanics from play style in such a clear cut manner? I don't think you can judge mechanics independently of how they function for actual groups of players playing in actual games. It is fair to say that the same set of game mechanics will be balanced under certain circumstances and not under others. The circumstances that result in balanced play will be acceptable for some and not for others.

One of the important considerations game designers must make is what play styles they should support, and this will have a dramatic impact on the game's suitability to a variety of play groups.

 

[Wicht]

Can you really separate mechanics from play style in such a clear cut manner? I don't think you can judge mechanics independently of how they function for actual groups of players playing in actual games. It is fair to say that the same set of game mechanics will be balanced under certain circumstances and not under others. The circumstances that result in balanced play will be acceptable for some and not for others.

One of the important considerations game designers must make is what play styles they should support, and this will have a dramatic impact on the game's suitability to a variety of play groups.

I don't think what you said disagrees with what I said. In any case I agree with your conclusion.

 

[ImperatorK]

Seriously?

Seriously. Nothing in D&D says that my playstyle isn't intended. I'm using rules the game gives me. I'm using guidelines the game gives me. Problems arise. Thus it's a flaw of the game, not a problem with the playstyle.

If that's not your playstyle, then you need to find a different game or a different ruleset, which I assume you have.

I'm happy with 3.P.

 

[TwoSix]

Player resources, not character resources. Characters can't manipulate scenes.

Again, that's basically abdicating any sense of the player being in the perspective of the character, which changes the nature of the game.

For the better, from my perspective. Immersion is so 1997.

Which is false. They're not granted those abilities in the RAW. A spellcaster who wants to charm someone has no more authority to dictate his target's existence or his circumstances or his response than a rogue trying to diplomatically talk to the same target. And so on and so forth.

I'm honesly not sure what abilities you're talking about. I don't think 3.X spells grant explicit player protaganizing abilities. They don't need to.

Now, if you go the other way, and you go outside the RAW (even in a subtle way) and give players powers not enumerated in the rules, or set up scenarios that screw over the fighters or cater to the spellcasters then all bets are off, including with regards to your notions of balance. Of course, you can do that if you want, you just can't blame the rules for what happens next if you don't like it.

Spellcasters win every scenario that's not explicitly tilted to penalize their major tactics. Spellcasters win sandbox worlds. A storyline game in a fortress with teleport lockdowns, multitudes of SR enemies, and 6+ encounters without rest favor warriors. Like you say, you can fix with Rule 0, but the only "neutral" game is a sandbox that doesn't change features based on what classes are being played.

Both of which are neutral and RAW tactics.

RAW, yes. Neutral, no, by my definition.

Sure you can. If a player decides to teleport in somewhere and the DM doesn't think that place should be reachable by magic, he's free to say no now and make up a reason later. Given the existence of countermeasures (there are some), it's fine to make them up on the spot without preparation. Does that require that the DM make a reasonable call as to what is and is not attainable? Sure. But that's how this game works.

So inconsistency between the stated goals of an objective campaign world and maintaining storyline via force. Check.

I think the mutually assured destruction theory and the there's always someone more powerful than you theory work just fine. In the modern world, we have the technological capacity to destroy all of civilization with a relatively modest amount of effort. This hasn't happened, for essentially those reasons: the big powers know they can't use weapons beyond a certain level of destructiveness without risking reprisal, and they work very hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of rogue actors who don't care about those consequences. It seems to be working.

And in D&D, you have tangible deities who have real power, as well as epic NPCs, dragons, mystical forces, and so on. While deus ex machina is a term generally used to describe undesirable plot devices, in D&D, it can be seen as a very tangible thing. And again, there are entire books full of deity stats. It's well within the RAW and RAI to assume that level of peacekeeping power exists and is regularly exercised.

It's also well within the RAW and RAI to assume that less omnipotent but still important NPCs understand that magic exists and take countermeasures to prevent it from being used abusively.

Now, do those always work, or can the PCs come up with a plan to achieve their goals? That's where the action is.

So a world that hinges on deus ex machina and mutually assured destruction to keep a leash on spellcaster power. Check. Yea, that's better than playing E6 or 4e.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I would gladly participate in such a test. Would you like to DM it? I'm sure we could find willing volunteers to fill out the rest of the party roles. I rather enjoyed my stint in the Tomb of Horrors, which, if you read the story earlier, was a game in which the primary arcane spellcaster was much more useful than the fighter.

How about the Red Hand of Doom? Widely considered one of the, if not the best, 3.5 module.

Yes, but I like playing Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the best reason I have seen for doing this test!

 

[Ahnehnois]

For the better, from my perspective.

As long as we're clear on that.

Spellcasters win every scenario that's not explicitly tilted to penalize their major tactics.

Not every time, or even most times. Sometimes, I suppose.

RAW, yes. Neutral, no, by my definition.

I assume that in general, my NPCs are just as competent, motivated, and successful at exploiting the mechanics as the PCs. That's what I'm calling neutral.

So a world that hinges on deus ex machina and mutually assured destruction to keep a leash on spellcaster power. Check. Yea, that's better than playing E6 or 4e.

If you want to play E6, play E6. That term arose because people realized that D&D changes as levels go up, and they liked low level play better. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Wicht]

How about the Red Hand of Doom? Widely considered one of the, if not the best, 3.5 module.

I was thinking of doing my own little mini-test adventure. I had some ideas actually. I can't commit to a full campaign, but I can do a dungeon crawl.

 

[Wicht]

I'm happy with 3.P.

If you are happy then what are you complaining about?

 

[ImperatorK]

Not every time, or even most times. Sometimes, I suppose.

How do you know if you never played this way?