A Rekindled Glimmer of Hope

[Tony Vargas]

I've never said that at-will magic shouldn't be an option, just that it should also be an option to NOT have that.

To keep the classic balancing factors on the vancian version of the wizard, the obvious thing to do would be to make the at will option part of an alternative to the vancian system. Adding at-will magic to a vancian caster, like giving him too many spell/day, undercuts the limitations which theoretically balance his spells' power and versatility.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think you're missing the key point in my reply... The part about "that apes popular fiction...". In other words I'm not saying a story isn't desired or isn't created during play of D&D... I'm saying the specific story that you favor with it's specifc tropes (like not being able to avoid minions and ambush the BBEG through cleverness and guile) aren't necessarily the types of stories everyone wants to play in or create.

But what you're suggesting isn't really supported by D&D. The bbeg is usually pretty tough(read: high level), and bypassing his traps and minions generally puts the party at a systemic mathematical disadvantage. I'm not saying players can't skip some encounters, but they can't just flip to the last chapter and poof into the bbegs lair for the final fight. If the bbeg is worth worrying about at all, you must encounter some lead-up fights.

 

[Imaro]

But what you're suggesting isn't really supported by D&D. The bbeg is usually pretty tough(read: high level), and bypassing his traps and minions generally puts the party at a systemic mathematical disadvantage. I'm not saying players can't skip some encounters, but they can't just flip to the last chapter and poof into the bbegs lair for the final fight. If the bbeg is worth worrying about at all, you must encounter some lead-up fights.

Uhm...what? I'm not understanding this at all. Perhaps we are talking about two different scales here... For clarification, I am speaking to the BBEG at the end of a particular adventure, dungeon, etc. And through "combat as war" D&D definitely has supported this.

You may be at a "mathematical" disadvantage, but mathematics isn't the sum of the game and if PC's are clever, strategic, etc. enough to bypass the encounters and get to the BBEG, whose to say they aren't clever enough to defeat him? I'm utterly confused at the notion that "you must encounter some lead-up fights", you've failed to explain why this is an absolute. In fact it kind of suggests that it is impossible to have an adventure and defeat a villain using means other then combat, and IME that is patently false.

 

[Daztur]

I think he means that if players stumble across a big bad enemy too early they'll be at too low level and get crushed. However, personally I'd like to flatten the power curse and/or slow leveling so that isn't so much of an issue. In any case, in my experience, when players get the jump on a character that I didn't expect them to fight until later the element of surprise and the PCs being fresh lead to them doing just fine.

My personal feeling is that if the DM seeds enough information into the campaign so that the PCs aren't making decisions blindly, then if they try to fight a red dragon at 1st level then that's their own damn fault for being foolhardy. Players should learn to choose their targets, it makes them interact more with the world.

 

[Imaro]

I think he means that if players stumble across a big bad enemy too early they'll be at too low level and get crushed. However, personally I'd like to flatten the power curse and/or slow leveling so that isn't so much of an issue. In any case, in my experience, when players get the jump on a character that I didn't expect them to fight until later the element of surprise and the PCs being fresh lead to them doing just fine.

Perhaps that is what he means, but each time I've posted I've talked about the PC's purposefully bypassing encounters through cleverness, guile or planning... not stumbling into the BBEG by accicdent. Maybe that's the disconnect. And yes, my experience is similar to yours, PC's tend to do fine in these situations when it is something they have planned for.

My personal feeling is that if the DM seeds enough information into the campaign so that the PCs aren't making decisions blindly, then if they try to fight a red dragon at 1st level then that's their own damn fault for being foolhardy. Players should learn to choose their targets, it makes them interact more with the world.

This as well. I like for the PC's to have meaningful decisions in the way they approach things, risk vs. reward... if I scale everything or force them to go linearly through fight after fight (so that they will be at an appropriate level to face him/her, which is just another form of scaling encounters.) , I feel as if I've taken away some of the meaning in those choices being made.

 

[Sunseeker]

Uhm...what? I'm not understanding this at all. Perhaps we are talking about two different scales here... For clarification, I am speaking to the BBEG at the end of a particular adventure, dungeon, etc. And through "combat as war" D&D definitely has supported this.

Perhaps we are looking at this on different scales. The point at which you enter a dungeon, and defeat a boss, should at best be little more than a single level worth of difference. Unless you're entering the Neverending Dungeon of Ultimate Evil.

I was thinking more on the scale of a grand campaign in which your end goal is the powerful Lich King who is massing undead hordes in the north, and your players are starting out as humble adventurerers who are steadily drawn deeper into these grand events.

You may be at a "mathematical" disadvantage, but mathematics isn't the sum of the game and if PC's are clever, strategic, etc. enough to bypass the encounters and get to the BBEG, whose to say they aren't clever enough to defeat him? I'm utterly confused at the notion that "you must encounter some lead-up fights", you've failed to explain why this is an absolute. In fact it kind of suggests that it is impossible to have an adventure and defeat a villain using means other then combat, and IME that is patently false.

See, now to me "clever" and "strategic" starts to sound a lot like DM fiat. I do like to reward my players with creative things when they find creative solutions to the problems I present. However, on the scale I was looking at, I don't feel that I can DM fiat away the fact that the undying, ten-housand year-old Fallen King is being faced by level 3 characters.

As I said, I believe the rewards for creatively solving a problem are equal to doing it the "old fashioned way", and yes, on the short scale, skipping a few encounters will not put the party at any significant disadvantage. However, on a grander scale, the party needs to fight a few fights to get to the end.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure that the rules have to address poisoning the guards with as much detail as they address fighting the guards. For whatever reason, people seem much more accepting of things playing fast and loose outside of combat.

I think your second sentence is true. But I also think that this fastness and looseness means that the way those non-combat methods are deployed is likely to be much more variable and group-specifice. And harder to plot modules for.

This doesn't have to be an issue for any particular group (and probably won't be).

But I think it puts pressure on the designers, if they are going to balance across pillars, rather than within each pillar.

And wizards from OD&D to 3e, being masters of magic, still resorted to crossbows and alchemist's fires, and AFAIK, people slogged along just peachy

The first-level MU was up there with alignment as a topic of debate in mid-80s Dragon.

 

[Ratskinner]

But I think it puts pressure on the designers, if they are going to balance across pillars, rather than within each pillar.

I don't think they are. At this point, backgrounds sound like your "Interaction Class", to me. Some interaction may get smeared into you Class, but I expect Background to do the heavy lifting. I'm not sure how to figure where Exploration will be carried. Obviously some must come from class, but will Theme or Background carry the rest? Combat, as we've pretty much been told, will be shared between Class and Theme.

I'm not even sure balance applies to Backgrounds, though. I mean, in some campaigns, the "merchant" background with all its extra languages (or whatever) will be totally irrelevant, but in others, he will be king. In the same way, an Aristocrat's trait to demand hospitality from other nobles will be useless in a campaign taking place on the untamed fringe of the known world. Such things could even vary between adventures in a longer campaign. So my guess is, that rather than try to make sure all the Backgrounds are balanced, that they will try to make sure that none of them bring any "gamebreaking" traits into play.

 

[Daztur]

Perhaps we are looking at this on different scales. The point at which you enter a dungeon, and defeat a boss, should at best be little more than a single level worth of difference. Unless you're entering the Neverending Dungeon of Ultimate Evil.

I was thinking more on the scale of a grand campaign in which your end goal is the powerful Lich King who is massing undead hordes in the north, and your players are starting out as humble adventurerers who are steadily drawn deeper into these grand events.

For me at least if someone knows what the "end goal" of the campaign will be before we start it, that takes a lot of the fun out it for me. That either means that I already know how a campaign will end (show down with the Lich King) before I start it or someone else has chosen my character's "end goal" for me.

However, on the scale I was looking at, I don't feel that I can DM fiat away the fact that the undying, ten-housand year-old Fallen King is being faced by level 3 characters.

Then the character die. Or maybe one or two dies when rest run screaming. In some more linear adventures that I've played the only way for the party to fail was through bad combat tactics, if they screwed up anywhere else the DM would still shepherd them allong to the next fight.

However, if a party of 3rd level adventurers attacks a Lich King then they've screwed up (the DM did give them plenty of clues about the Lich King, on their way to him, right?). If players screw up badly, having some of them die isn't a bad thing. Choosing the wrong target to attack is just as much screwing up as goofing badly during tactical combat.

 

[pemerton]

backgrounds sound like your "Interaction Class", to me. Some interaction may get smeared into you Class, but I expect Background to do the heavy lifting. I'm not sure how to figure where Exploration will be carried. Obviously some must come from class, but will Theme or Background carry the rest? Combat, as we've pretty much been told, will be shared between Class and Theme.

I'm not even sure balance applies to Backgrounds, though. I mean, in some campaigns, the "merchant" background with all its extra languages (or whatever) will be totally irrelevant, but in others, he will be king. In the same way, an Aristocrat's trait to demand hospitality from other nobles will be useless in a campaign taking place on the untamed fringe of the known world. Such things could even vary between adventures in a longer campaign. So my guess is, that rather than try to make sure all the Backgrounds are balanced, that they will try to make sure that none of them bring any "gamebreaking" traits into play.

I just wanted to say thanks for the good posts - I can't XP you yet unfortunately.