First, we're not geeks. Never really were.
Doesn't mean you're immune to the "Geek Social Fallacies," like doing things you don't want to do because a friend has made it your job to support their preferences.
Please stop already. Why do you all keep missing that no one demanded anything. He made a character that needs fly to get into combat. I'm his buddy. I cast it, so he can get into battle.
I find it strange this is even being debated. I have played for years. I have always played this way. Every edition from the beginning. You play as a group with your buddies. No one demands buffs. You cast them because they help everyone bring force to bear. It was never an issue until 5E with the concentration mechanic.
Why is this concept so hard for so many of you to understand? Is the miscommunication this poor? Or do you guys really ignore the melee martial on the ground and let him fend for himself why you launch all your spells in whatever manner pleases you? I don't play that way. Never have played that way.
I think the debate occurs because you call out the concentration mechanic as the problem rather than looking at the context that is making you feel like you have to use so many concentration spells. Concentration solves a LOT of problems for a LOT of tables. It limits buffs and debuffs, gives the caster something to pay attention to, gives the enemies something to target, balances casters relative to noncasters, and generally makes the game flow smoother for a lot of groups. When you say it's a problem, an eyebrow gets raised because a lot of folks find it the exact opposite - an awesome thing.
And then it turns out it's a problem for you because your buddy "made a character that needs to fly to get into combat," and it turns out that for a lot of people at a lot of tables, the very idea of a character that
needs to fly to get into combat is itself a bizarre concept, and additionally the idea that the player of such a character would basically call dibs on one of
your character's resources so that
he doesn't have to be flexible seems like an over-reach. He's basically playing your character in part as well, dedicating more than one character's resources toward playing his character the way he wants to play it.
I'd shoot the melee members of the party into the sky if it was a better use of my 3rd-level spell slot than other stuff I could do (like, say, bring down the flyer with a
Hypnotic Pattern!), and in certain circumstances it might be (like when fighting something with Legendary Resistance), but whatever my decision, it's not up to the melee members of my party to call dibs on my magic. That's one of the decision points you face when being a melee monster - did I remember to pack a net? Do I have something to do at range? It's my character, not theirs. They get to choose their strengths and weaknesses, and so do I.
In 3E if an opponent cast fickle winds and my buddy is an archer, I dispel it. He doesn't demand it. It allows him to have fun playing his concept and he doesn't have the means to do it himself. If one my friends falls in battle or is seriously hurt, I heal him. Do you seriously not do this? That is what boggles my mind if these people around the table are your friends.
You want to talk about mind-boggling is this whole conversation that makes it seem like some selfish buddy is demanding the buffs or healing. It should be self-evident when playing with a friend that you will do what needs to be done so you can all have fun WITHOUT BEING ASKED. Do you really not do this when playing with your friends?
The difference is that the player of the archer or the wounded character don't require that other characters serve their characters. Maybe the wounded character needs to bring some friggin' healing potions next time and not eat up all of the healer's spell slots and go on the defensive for a round or two. Maybe the archer needs to be okay with not being an archer for a few rounds. I'm not going to tell my friends that they have to play their characters in a way that lines up with what I want my character to do.
My groups have always played
flexible characters, at least a little bit, who aren't reduced to incompetence by min/maxing to the nth degree and hitting an area they're min-ed in. They're able to do things that they aren't the best at for a few rounds if the combat goes that way, and it is actually part of the fun.
For instance, my gnome wild mage, his main contribution is action-denial shenanigans. But sometimes things are immune to that, and he does stuff he's not as good at, like damage. When he does that, other party members - like the high-damage ranger or dragon sorcerer - get to shine, because they are damage-focused. The party has two-and-a-half melee machines, but flying them isn't my job or the dragon sorcerer's job. Sometimes they'll just have to use javelins while we firebolt and polymorph.
At most of my tables, your melee machine would just sometimes
not be that effective. That's a choice they make by being a melee machine. They should be fine with that compromise - sometimes, they will be
crazy effective. You making a greatsword fighter isn't a requirement for me to be your chauffeur. Sometimes, you will suck. Sometimes, we all will suck. This is a game, suck is inevitable.
