No one wants to 'change the game' we just want a new friggin' class or some new class features.
Indeed.
There are more than 13 classes in fantasy!
5+ years in, old school WOTC woulda created 7 new classes by now.
No one wants to 'change the game' we just want a new friggin' class or some new class features.
No, it was not obvious. In the initial post, you referred to “situations”. I understood this to mean encounters, not adventures.No bypassing the encounter is fine. Just don’t write an adventure where it’s raison d’etre hinges on that one encounter. Is that not obvious?
Yes. I assume the intention is for it to be challenging.So your response is change the way I run the encounter?
So ignoring that, in common English, actions are "things that you do", and results are not, we'll press forward, because you've acknowledged that the results are equivalent.At the risk of flogging a dead horse, forcing it water, making it drink and then sending it to the glue factory.
If you’re going to use quotations, quote the words. Don’t misquote them.
My quote refers to the ‘thing that can be done’... the end result. Not the action to achieve it. Which I make clear takes more time and effort.
The spell is action. You don’t mimic the spell. You mimic the end result. They are not equivalent.
No, it was not obvious. In the initial post, you referred to “situations”. I understood this to mean encounters, not adventures.
From your latest post, I understand that you do not see a problem with one character bypassing encounters with a single spell. In the example I gave, this was a spell that was not the highest level a character could cast, and of which the character had 4 more castings.
To me, one character that can regularly bypass encounters using a single spell is an issue. Here’s why:
- Fairness: It just doesn’t feel fair that the spellcaster gets to shut down a CR 15 encounter by themself with a single spell while the others can’t do anything equivalent. This is also a spotlight issue. It’s just easier for that one character to get the spotlight;
- Skilled Play: I am all for characters who use clever solutions to bypass encounters! But very often, casting a spell to do the thing the spell does is not clever play. It is using the spell for its intended purpose, and kind of devalues really interesting plans characters come up with;
- Creating encounters: having to take these spells into account when designing encounters makes the process longer and harder than it otherwise should be. I start with a cool idea. Then I have to stress test that idea against the spells the characters know. Sometimes, this makes the ultimate idea better, but often, you end up putting arbitrary conditions on a cool idea, or just abandoning it altogether;
- Won’t someone think of the Newbie DMs? This is especially hard on newbie DMs, who might not realize that the “awesome” non-combat climb encounter they designed, with enemies that attack halfway up, levels of failure for the climbing checks, can be bypassed by a 2nd level levitate spell;
- Also, it takes time to come up with those encounters. Every encounter bypassed is an extra encounter the DM has to create between sessions. Sometimes this isn’t a problem, but often, the DM is spending extra time creating the encounter and setting it up on a VTT;
- Goodwill: in a perfect world, players understand it when a spell that should work doesn’t because you want to give another player some time to shine. In reality, the DM coming up with reasons why the wizard’s spells don’t work can make the wizard feel like the DM is stealth nerfing his class;
- Balance: once again, in an ideal world, the DM achieves that balance between allowing casters to shine in certain occasions, but preventing spells from steamrolling encounters. In practice, it’s a tough line to tread, and DMs and players will disagree about where to draw the line. Does allowing the Pact of the Chain familiar scout the entire dungeon invalidate the rogue? How about the wizard’s familiar giving advantage on one attack each turn?
- Verisimilitude: once again, this is a subjective issue, but adventure (or encounter) constraints on magic can strain verisimilude HARD. Dungeons that you cannot bypass using conjuration magic, random dispel magics and anti-magic shells get old fast.
But let’s return to Scotland for a moment...No TRUE adventure writer creates an adventure that can be bypassed by speak with dead, hypnotic pattern, invisibilty, augury, etc. But this is a hobby where 90% of the adventure writers are amateurs. Every DM not running a pre-existing module is an adventure writer and YES, ABSOLUTELY, many of them are creating adventures that can be bypassed and trivialized by a 2nd or 3rd level spell.
We disagree. Being able to close off a corridor with a stone wall in mere minutes is a great deal more narrative control when time is a factor.My comment about mimicking the mundane was not about power, it was about narrative control, and how most spells don’t offer more narrative control than the party already creates.
Having wall of stone would not have given the seven samurai more narrative control. They still would have erected defenses to protect the village and then manned them. Wall of stone would just have made them more substantial.
In your example either the players have teleport... in which case the DM knows this and has placed the restrictions of time and distance in place, knowing this is the case.
I still think the key is consistency vs scope.At this point, I don't really see how both groups can be happy with the same game.
If you can’t handle magic. Then play in a low magic campaign. I don’t know what else to say to you if you really struggle that much dealing with magic.No, it was not obvious. In the initial post, you referred to “situations”. I understood this to mean encounters, not adventures.
From your latest post, I understand that you do not see a problem with one character bypassing encounters with a single spell. In the example I gave, this was a spell that was not the highest level a character could cast, and of which the character had 4 more castings.
To me, one character that can regularly bypass encounters using a single spell is an issue. Here’s why:
- Fairness: It just doesn’t feel fair that the spellcaster gets to shut down a CR 15 encounter by themself with a single spell while the others can’t do anything equivalent. This is also a spotlight issue. It’s just easier for that one character to get the spotlight;
- Skilled Play: I am all for characters who use clever solutions to bypass encounters! But very often, casting a spell to do the thing the spell does is not clever play. It is using the spell for its intended purpose, and kind of devalues really interesting plans characters come up with;
- Creating encounters: having to take these spells into account when designing encounters makes the process longer and harder than it otherwise should be. I start with a cool idea. Then I have to stress test that idea against the spells the characters know. Sometimes, this makes the ultimate idea better, but often, you end up putting arbitrary conditions on a cool idea, or just abandoning it altogether;
- Won’t someone think of the Newbie DMs? This is especially hard on newbie DMs, who might not realize that the “awesome” non-combat climb encounter they designed, with enemies that attack halfway up, levels of failure for the climbing checks, can be bypassed by a 2nd level levitate spell;
- Also, it takes time to come up with those encounters. Every encounter bypassed is an extra encounter the DM has to create between sessions. Sometimes this isn’t a problem, but often, the DM is spending extra time creating the encounter and setting it up on a VTT;
- Goodwill: in a perfect world, players understand it when a spell that should work doesn’t because you want to give another player some time to shine. In reality, the DM coming up with reasons why the wizard’s spells don’t work can make the wizard feel like the DM is stealth nerfing his class;
- Balance: once again, in an ideal world, the DM achieves that balance between allowing casters to shine in certain occasions, but preventing spells from steamrolling encounters. In practice, it’s a tough line to tread, and DMs and players will disagree about where to draw the line. Does allowing the Pact of the Chain familiar scout the entire dungeon invalidate the rogue? How about the wizard’s familiar giving advantage on one attack each turn?
- Verisimilitude: once again, this is a subjective issue, but adventure (or encounter) constraints on magic can strain verisimilude HARD. Dungeons that you cannot bypass using conjuration magic, random dispel magics and anti-magic shells get old fast.
But let’s return to Scotland for a moment...No TRUE adventure writer creates an adventure that can be bypassed by speak with dead, hypnotic pattern, invisibilty, augury, etc. But this is a hobby where 90% of the adventure writers are amateurs. Every DM not running a pre-existing module is an adventure writer and YES, ABSOLUTELY, many of them are creating adventures that can be bypassed and trivialized by a 2nd or 3rd level spell.
So you have a caster and comprehend languages makes sure the alien race is understood. The caster feels useful.I just can't quite comprehend the idea put forth that spells don't actually change anything they're just short cuts. But for them to be "just shortcuts" the adventure has to be designed in such a way for them to only be just shortcuts, otherwise the claim is it's bad adventure design. So it's completely circular logic really.
It just seems obvious to me that spells (and therefore casters) can change/define the play loop.
Take an encounter with an alien race. They try to communicate with the party - no one in the party knows the alien language.
Without a caster in the party (or a caster without access to the right spells) - they have to get really creative to try and communicate - it's a scenario in and of itself.
But with a caster - 1 comprehend languages coming right up (it's not even a resource drain, since it's a ritual). Now comprehend languages is an interesting spell and only imparts the absolute literal meaning of the words (like using google translate or worse) so all sorts of funky situations could ensue. But it's quite different than not understanding period. You just can't say the spell doesn't change the approach to the encounter.
And that's assuming low level. 5+ level has access to tongues which is more a star trek style universal translator. Much less prone to weirdness (could still exist of course) and again, changes the nature of the encounter dramatically.