They are different ways to accomplish the same goal, using different resources that deplete (or not) at different rates. You really can't encourage them both the same. The only thing you can do is appeal to personal taste, which does nothing for the mechanics, which are a big part of the complaint.
What do you think is better when doubling-up on a skill: opening the door to proficiency in any other skill, or expertise? I'm rather torn on the question personally.
It's not that the rogue in 962 is being shortchanged, it's that the rogue lacks structure for the GM to hook onto while the caster does. The caster burns a spell slot & in doing so the GM can weigh that against the unreasonable expectations put on the gm by deliberate system design. The rogue (like all PCs) is overly powerful & overly durable so bypassing the guards can not result in those guards joining in on a fight later if not careful being a meaningful concern for the rogue or anyone else. The GM tossing them in would just be an annoyance for everyone unless they are the straw that makes an encounter go from no big deal to a hopeless TPK the GM would get called hostile for.
That does make sense. From that point of view, skills have to be generally less effective than magic, because skill use costs nothing.
I think the argument here is that the DM shouldn't have to manipulate the story to equal skill use with magic. You may end up with an Aquaman situation, where every scenario kludges in something for Aquaman to do.Ye old "wizards are overpowered" arguments again?
A lot of these always seem to assume wizards level 15 or above with just the right spell. Or abuse of charm person which, in 5E just makes the caster a friendly acquaintance not complete mind control. It also specifies that the target knows they were charmed, most people wouldn't be too happy about having their mind manipulated.
There have been a few times when spells are overpowered in games I played in ToA Acerak put our cleric behind a wall of force which of course nobody could counter because it takes a disintegrate spell to take down and at 9th level we didn't have access.. In another case our warlock managed to banish a demon that had been summoned before the encounter turned into a TPK.
But I have never seen in all of my 5E games a wizard completely dominating the game. Sometimes they do cool things. Sometimes the rogue, fighter or monk do cool things. There are a handful of spells I've sort-of nerfed*, but overall I've run and played games up to 20th level. Wizards can be very effective but they tend to be glass cannons that wouldn't be particularly useful without supporting PCs. Even then, they never steal the show. That wizard casts teleportation circle to get somewhere? Cool. But the only reason we had a sigil to our target was because the DM gave it to us. The only reason we had to go halfway across the continent instead of down the street was because the DM knew we had teleportation circle.
If magic is getting a free pass while skills are worthless that's on the DM, not the system. It's up to the DM to ensure that everyone that wants it has a chance to share the spotlight, in my experience the players that want to hog the spotlight has little to do with them being a wizard.
*For example banishment doesn't send an extraplanar creature back home unless it was just summoned or you are near a gate between worlds. But that's as much thematic world-building as anything.
Not exactly, at least not from my perspective.Ye old "wizards are overpowered" arguments again?
I don't think there are enough skills for either. My average table tends to be in the 4-6 player range with each player getting about 4 skills or more. 5e has a total of
