D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. Then my decisions (and reasoning for those decisions) are as relevant as anyone else's.

No, they aren't. For exactly the same reason that an author choosing to create a world that is full of bigotry, or sexualized violence targeting women, is not as relevant as one who doesn't: putting some people down via your work isn't cool.

And that is what you are doing here. You are saying some players will be forced to be second-class citizens. That's not okay.

Teamwork is the reason why. Using teamwork and creativity to overcome built-in disadvantages. IMO that is the spirit of the game (and largely the fiction)

....what? That's not "teamwork" at all! That's just riding the back of the more powerful players and contributing little to nothing to the party's success!

Like...do you even understand what that word means? It means peers cooperating toward a common goal. There is a reason students complain so bitterly about how every group project seems to end up with at least one person who shirks their duties and someone else forced to pick up the slack, or one person who ridiculously micromanages and dominates the project so everyone else is just along for the ride. That's not teamwork. That is, at absolute best, one person being the boss and everyone else being their subordinates.

Now, quite often a team will, by intent, have different roles (ooh, bet that will be a spicy discussion...) taken by or assigned to different members. That is useful, the division of labor being one of humanity's greatest technological developments. But on a sports team, a Defender is not blatantly superior to a Striker.

You know what fictional sport had such a thing? Quidditch. And most folks roundly (and rightly) criticized that fictional game for having such a stupidly obvious "I win" button. Quidditch isn't a team sport. It's a group sport where several people support the sniper attempting to win the game in one fell swoop, with only the extremely rare exception of one team scoring enough legitimate goals to outpace the stupidly overpowered snitch. The Seeker is even put front and center in "team" photos.

It's almost literally casters and caddies. Why should players tolerate being made second-class citizens simply because of their thematic preferences?

 

[Aldarc]

Being more powerful and bieng all-powerful are not the same thing.

You can't have a PC that is all-powerful, that would break the game.

You're splitting hairs here.

 

[Incenjucar]

Something to keep in mind is that there is not a need for magic to be powerful at all, it just needs to be interesting, in the same way that monk punches don't need to be stronger than a sword. Magic could just mean that a physically weak character can keep up, even if all they can do is pull rabbits out of hats to confuse the enemy.

 

[overgeeked]

If people want mages to be all-powerful, then they should either be (a) NPCs and not PCs or (b) have their total amount of spellcasting brought down by a LOT: there should be a cost or limitation to it. Choose either flexibility of lower-powered magic or a limited amount of sheer power, but not both.

Exactly. If it’s a game, which it is, all the options should be roughly on par. Either casters need a serious nerf or non-casters need a serious buff. Either is fine.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think having magic items is at all a problem.

I do think that having a situation where, one class basically hard-requires magic items to perform (which is not 100% true of Fighters etc. in 5E, but is at least 50% true, y'know?), and another doesn't, and this isn't at all accounted for in any other way (like, say a harder XP table for the one that doesn't, like Wizards had in 1E/2E), is a problem.

And I don't think it's one anyone meant to happen in some "MWHAHAHAHA" way.

I think it's been a creeping issue since 3E. In 1E/2E, casters had an uphill struggle XP-wise, were hideously vulnerable without magic items or powerful magic to protect them, and could easily be stopped from casting spells - and many of their spells took a while to cast and/or cost the earth (in a situation where money mattered more).

And slowly, slowly we've seen literally every factor which restricts and limits caster stripped away, and their baseline power actually significantly increased with stuff like cantrips, and whilst 5E limits the high-end power slightly, it's still playing too hard into a double-standard which doesn't really help anyone or make the game cooler or anything (and the huge baseline power increase from scaling cantrips sort of obviates the lower number of higher-level spells in a weird way, at least in the higher-level play I've run). It's just a sort of sad accident of design. The one thing we did get to somewhat limit stuff is Concentration, but in practice it's just worked around - it's relatively easy to figure out which spell should be your one concentration spell in any given situation.

In 3.x casters absolutely dominated combat at higher levels. In 5E I just don't see the issues. I've been playing 5E since release with multiple groups and the wizard has yet to dominate OOC. Cantrips don't hold up compared to a fighter or rogue damage.

If you actually track damage, fighters do just as much over the course of a few encounters.

I just don't see an issue, even at high levels.

 

[ECMO3]

No, they aren't. For exactly the same reason that an author choosing to create a world that is full of bigotry, or sexualized violence targeting women, is not as relevant as one who doesn't: putting some people down via your work isn't cool.

No one is being put down by me saying this.

And that is what you are doing here. You are saying some players will be forced to be second-class citizens. That's not okay.

I am not saying that. I am saying the opposite.

What if I want to play a blind character or a character with one arm or anything else that gives me a disadvantage. Should this be prohibited because such a character is at a disadvantage to another character? Because this is a disadvantage I should not be allowed to do it.

You are the one suggesting players are second class citizens if they choose to play a fighter. You need to look in the mirror before you start saying others are biggoted.

Like...do you even understand what that word means? It means peers cooperating toward a common goal.

The word "peers" does not appear in the definition of teamwork and peer does not mean equal.

American football players on a football team are peers, but they are not equals. Different positions are more valuable and even among players at the same position there are differences in players abilities. Yet those players are by definition teamates

Going back to bigotry - What I am saying is two players can be teamates even when one is better than the other. You are suggesting they can't be.

Now, quite often a team will, by intent, have different roles (ooh, bet that will be a spicy discussion...) taken by or assigned to different members. That is useful, the division of labor being one of humanity's greatest technological developments. But on a sports team, a Defender is not blatantly superior to a Striker.

Untrue. A Quarterback is blatently superior to a runningback and more important to the sucess of the team and this was specifically addressed by the players union last year. Likewise an offensive tackle is superior to an offensive guard even though they are both offensive linemen. Those two positions (quarterback and tackle) are inherently more important than other similar positions.

It's almost literally casters and caddies. Why should players tolerate being made second-class citizens simply because of their thematic preferences?

Players should not tolerate it. As a person and a player I should be allowed to play a powerful class or a weak class and you should not be able to dictate that to me that I can't or suggest I am a lessor person or player because I choose to play a weak class or because I want that class to remain comparitively weak.

 

[Incenjucar]

In 3.x casters absolutely dominated combat at higher levels. In 5E I just don't see the issues. I've been playing 5E since release with multiple groups and the wizard has yet to dominate OOC. Cantrips don't hold up compared to a fighter or rogue damage.

If you actually track damage, fighters do just as much over the course of a few encounters.

I just don't see an issue, even at high levels.

That's great that you haven't run into the issue, but it's a pretty heavily built into the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Realism doesn't come in to it for me and "realism itself is a silly argument when you are throwing around fireballs and talking to Elves.

No it's not. This objection is an evasion. Just because I toss a fireball(unrealistic) doesn't mean that I don't want it to burn things(realism) or that I don't want my elf(unrealistic) to need to eat food(realism).

fantasy and realism mix plenty well and if I find something too unrealistic with falling damage, it's entirely irrelevant to bring up fireballs as some sort of counter to the realism increase that I am talking about.

 

[ECMO3]

There aren't that many rituals in 5E, they hardly make up for shortfalls.

I said rituals and scrolls. And keep in mind a 3rd level Wizard could write scrolls of every single Wizard cantrip in the book.

There are, what 20 wizard rituals? About the only one that I see used is Tiny Hut and Comprehend Languages.

Detect Magic, Unseen Servant, Augery and Identify are all commonly used and at high levels Telepahtic Bond and contact other plane.

And comprehend languages is an excellent example of what I am talking about. With one spell I can take at 1st level I can understand ANY language at any time in the entire campaign by spending 10 minutes out of every hour.

If you give wizards unlimited money to buy scrolls, that's just another version of the 5 minute work day.

It costs 15gp to write a scroll of a cantrip. If the fighter can buy plate the Wizard can have every single Wizard cantrip on a scroll as well as a handful of 1st, 2nd or 3rd level spells.

If a wizard charms a person, that person knows they were charmed. If the DM never has repercussions from that, it's on the DM.

I didn't say never. However this misses the point. The Wizard has this as an option, there are times when it will be useful and when it is not the Wizard is still just as good as the fighter without it.

In any case if you want to be exceptional at things outside of combat, play a rogue.

Sure, or a Wizard.

A fighter can be decent at out of combat stuff if the player prioritizes it I know my fighter/rogue certainly was.

They can be decent, with compromises in combat, but a Wizard who focuses on that and selects spells for it will be better than a fighter at it.

But by default that's not the fighter schtick. Doesn't make them any less able to contribute to the group overall.

I agree they are able to contribute even if they are not as capable intrinsically, and that is my point through most of this thread.

 

[Cadence]

No it's not. This objection is an evasion. Just because I toss a fireball(unrealistic) doesn't mean that I don't want it to burn things(realism) or that I don't want my elf(unrealistic) to need to eat food(realism).

fantasy and realism mix plenty well and if I find something too unrealistic with falling damage, it's entirely irrelevant to bring up fireballs as some sort of counter to the realism increase that I am talking about.

Oh 5e fireball, you silly thing.

"The sheet of paper revealing all your contacts and secrets is on the ground, and Lord Badguy is picking it up."

"I fireball it!"

"The fireball hits the paper straight on as he holds it in his hands reading it. The ground nearby and wall behind him is scorched, but the paper is unharmed."

"!?!?! He isn't hurt at all!?!?! The paper isn't burned!?!?! Did he use magic!?!?"

"Nope, he just picked it up."

"!?!"

"Don't you know how fireball works? And how would you know if he was hurt, you could guess the fireball wasn't strong enough to drop him to 0."