Bend, dont break.

[ren1999]

Well said.

 

[Andor]

The most basic issue is that certain spells bypass game systems. Charm Person just walks right around the need for diplomacy. Knock doesn't even notice the need to unlock a door.

There is a fundamental misperception here, and that is this: that problems exist in order to showcase certain game systems.

Let me rewrite the above. "The most basic issue here is that weapons bypass game systems. Kill a Duke and you don't need to negotiate with him! If you have an axe why do I need to pick a lock when the fighter can chop right through the door?" Shall we get rid of weapons?

If you have a bothersome Duke you can use Charm Person, you can use Diplomacy, you can bribe him, you can take his daughter hostage, you can go over his head, you can go around him, you can pull out your sword and go through him, you can find out his heartmost desire and quest to recover it for him to gain his favor, you can hire a doppleganger assasin to kill him.

If you have a locked door you can pick the lock, you can cast knock, you can chop through the door with an axe, you can have your hirelings tunnel through the wall next to it with pickaxes, you can turn into a mouse and crawl under the door, you can knock and ask whoever is on the other side to please open it, you can corral a rust monster next to it so that he eats the lock, you can build a fire and burn through it, you can use a battering ram, you can brick it up and ignore it.

If you are badly injured you can be cured with first aid and time, with divine magic, with potions, with the touch of a unicorns horn, with a dip in a magical spring, by borrowing a ring of regeneration, etc, etc, etc.

No system needs to be put on a pedestal and given special niche protection. Not magic, not healing, not lockpicking, not diplomacy. Game systems are there to serve the game, not to replace it, not to become the focal point, not to make a sub-game of "which specific system did the GM want used here."

 

[Neonchameleon]

No system needs to be put on a pedestal and given special niche protection. Not magic, not healing, not lockpicking, not diplomacy. Game systems are there to serve the game, not to replace it, not to become the focal point, not to make a sub-game of "which specific system did the GM want used here."

I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that in D&D, especially in 3.X, Magic sits right on that pedestal. Using an axe to solve problems like a locked door by its nature has consequences. Magic doesn't. It's an almost consequence free "I win" button handed out to the spellcasters. And it can be used in almost any situation. Diplomacy? Sure. Lockpicking? Great. Travel? Great. What can't it do.

What is the downside to using Knock? You have one fewer "I win" tokens to use on subsequent doors. You don't even have to roll.

Take magic off that pedestal. Either make it less powerful at picking locks than skill at lockpicking, or give every spell a chance to blow up in the caster's face. Or sharply limit it either through actually having limits like Vance (no more than half a dozen spells prepared at one time and substantial time to reprepare) or through rules (e.g. all magic is illusions, or all magic is elemental, or...)

Every other thing you can do has places to apply it and places not to. Magic is the universal solution.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What is the downside to using Knock? You have one fewer "I win" tokens to use on subsequent doors. You don't even have to roll.

And the problem with that is....?

IMO, a system where everything works the same (a la 4e) is really boring and samey. It's a psychology thing. Variety and difference are interesting and entertaining.

Since you don't have to compromise balance to allow for difference, why shouldn't different characters have different ways of solving problems?

Why make everyone use the same subsystem, if not balance?

Every other thing you can do has places to apply it and places not to. Magic is the universal solution.

Right. It's magic. The main thing about magic in myth and fiction is that it is a universal solution. As long as you can balance that, why shouldn't that be the case in D&D?

 

[Neonchameleon]

And the problem with that is....?

IMO, a system where everything works the same (a la 4e) is really boring and samey. It's a psychology thing. Variety and difference are interesting and entertaining.

Since you don't have to compromise balance to allow for difference, why shouldn't different characters have different ways of solving problems?

The second that Magic Can Do It All ™ you have compromised for balance. If you want different subsystems to work differently, give magic a backlash as well as the flexibility.

Right. It's magic. The main thing about magic in myth and fiction is that it is a universal solution. As long as you can balance that, why shouldn't that be the case in D&D?

1: The makers of historical D&D can't balance that. At least 1e was a failure pre-UA (and even post-UA), 2e was a failure although not as catastrophic as fighter without weapon spec vs cleric, and 3e was a miserable failure.

2: You obviously read different myth and fiction from me. Outside the realms of Harry Potter or the Belgariad, magic always comes with a price. And isn't something to play around with or you end up with The Sorceror's Apprentice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The second that Magic Can Do It All ™ you have compromised for balance. If you want different subsystems to work differently, give magic a backlash as well as the flexibility.

I feel like I've already spent a lot of words on this thread showing that this need not be the case, so if you've got any questions about it, let me know.

1: The makers of historical D&D can't balance that. At least 1e was a failure pre-UA (and even post-UA), 2e was a failure although not as catastrophic as fighter without weapon spec vs cleric, and 3e was a miserable failure.

And 5e need not be, with modern game design and an adventure-level focus.

2: You obviously read different myth and fiction from me. Outside the realms of Harry Potter or the Belgariad, magic always comes with a price. And isn't something to play around with or you end up with The Sorceror's Apprentice.

Circe turned dudes into pigs for fun. Achilles was invincible and all he had to do was get dipped in a river. Gandalf killed a balrog and appeared even more powerful than before. Luke studied hard, but then was a consummate badass. Naruto (ANIMES!) isn't even very good at it, and he can still jump around on tree branches, climb up walls, and transform. Shamans have secret knowledge, but aren't crippled by it.

Magic need not be some sort of user-debilitating dark force. It can be -- I'd love for a D&D warlock or something that used their own life-force or sanity as fuel for arcane power -- but it need not be.

The D&D wizard typically did not have magic as a self-destructive force, merely a limited force. I'd like for D&D to be true to that archetype in the wizard.

I'd like to see the self-destructive spellcasters, too, but first I'd like to see the classic D&D wizard balanced for what it is.

Which is totally within the realm of possibility.

 

[Arlough]

Well, that's just the sort of "default mode" of D&D. You go somewhere where monster/evil is, mess up its day, take its stuff, and come back to town.

It's also the default arc hero's journey (which is why I adopted the term "adventure" to begin with): Go out, do something heroic, come back.

But I think you could invert it pretty successfully in an invasion scenario, too. When orcs come to attack the town, or an earthquake strikes, or whatever, you simply don't have the option to take an extended rest. Which makes sense: you're not going to bed down for the night in the middle of an orc invasion. Or if your party is the target of an assassination plot. Or whatever.

So I am not sure what kinds of games this would not work for, off hand. If you'd like, give me an example of something you think might not work, and I'll see if it does or not, and how it looks if it does! I'd like to try that out!

I guess the problem I can see in this is best described by narrative control and aggression.
If you are not the aggressors, then you would need adequate control over the narrative to generate an opportunity to refresh. So, let us take the invasion example. You are defending a city that is being assaulted by the Daelkyr and their forces due to a dimensional rift. It makes perfect sense that they would replenish when you rest, given they have that rift available. The problem is, when do you rest? They control the timing. They control the terrain. You have nowhere to retreat to as this is your home as well.
If they are the ones that are attacking, then how does the adventure end and your adventure resources replenish?

Or, a simpler example. You are walking somewhere (because all the horses died of plague, or because you spent too much money on that awesome armor, or whatever) and on your way to the next major city, you run into trouble. It isn't that surprising given the Points of Light nature of D&D, but this is a hostile land and you keep getting attacked. What is the end of the adventure here? Is it when you finally reach your destination, or is it when you finally reach a destination, or is it when the DM feels sorry for you and meta-games a break for you guys?

If it is just the DM giving meta-game replenishment, then how is this substantially different than the DM making sure that nobody gets an extended rest?

 

[Steely_Dan]

At least 1e was a failure pre-UA (and even post-UA), 2e was a failure although not as catastrophic as fighter without weapon spec vs cleric, and 3e was a miserable failure.

How is any edition of D&D a failure, they all have many, many fans (some rabidly so)?

Sounds like the biggest rift so far is 4th Ed (which I dig in many ways).

All editions have something to offer, 5th Ed is just another link in the chain.

 

[Arlough]

How is any edition of D&D a failure, they all have many, many fans (some rabidly so)?

Sounds like the biggest rift so far is 4th Ed (which I dig in many ways).

All editions have something to offer, 5th Ed is just another link in the chain.

I think a big part of 4th being the most controversial edition has more to do with everybody having a computer and internet access at the time of the switch than anything else.
5th will have a big hoopla too, and by 6th the novelty of being able to anonymously cry out grievances and belittle those who disagree with you will have become the norm, and maybe then things will settle down a bit.

Nobody has shown me any evidence that any edition of D&D was a failure financially. And nobody has tried to make arguments about what other goals D&D has tried to accomplish unsuccessfully.

 

[Andor]

I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that in D&D, especially in 3.X, Magic sits right on that pedestal. Using an axe to solve problems like a locked door by its nature has consequences. Magic doesn't. It's an almost consequence free "I win" button handed out to the spellcasters. And it can be used in almost any situation. Diplomacy? Sure. Lockpicking? Great. Travel? Great. What can't it do.

What is the downside to using Knock? You have one fewer "I win" tokens to use on subsequent doors. You don't even have to roll.

Take magic off that pedestal. Either make it less powerful at picking locks than skill at lockpicking, or give every spell a chance to blow up in the caster's face. Or sharply limit it either through actually having limits like Vance (no more than half a dozen spells prepared at one time and substantial time to reprepare) or through rules (e.g. all magic is illusions, or all magic is elemental, or...)

Every other thing you can do has places to apply it and places not to. Magic is the universal solution.

I think you're getting a bit overblown here. Magic is not an automatic "I win" button, nor is it consequence free, it simply has a different set of consequeces than other solutions.

Locked Door:

Solution - Consequence
Lockpick - Skill check, expose to trap/mimic/ear seekers
Key - none
Magic - Spell slot, Can set off trap or wards or magic detector
Axe - Time, loud, might set off trap, might make mimic crap itself
Bribe the doorman - Cost, time, might be betrayed

That spell slot is not a negligable cost. A wizard has got, at best, 5 spell slots for 2nd level spells. Is he going to fill those with knocks? Why? Isn't freeing those slots up why he brought the [-]hobbit burglar[/-] rogue along in the first place? A rogue can make lockpick checks all day long with no risks besides the occasional trap and he has skills to detect those traps, unlike the wizard who needs to spend another spell slot to do that, for a few minutes. A Sorcerer is even worse, he gets to know 5 2nd level spells ever. If he spent one on knock he should get to open a door or two with it.

Oh wait, someone could just buy a wand of knock! Then they don't need to worry about opening the next 50 doors!

I should bloody well hope so! 4,500 gp, let's see what else we might get with that money. About a half-share in a longship or caravel. A trip to America for the entire party. A hireling wizard to cast the spell 75 times. Or a thousand skilled workmen for 2 solid weeks, enough time to excavate the entire dungeon from the top down like an archelogical dig!

The cost of a knock spell is only trivial at high levels, and at high levels any door short of the gates of hell should be trivial. At that point the fighter has adamantine weapons and the wizard has disintegrate. Doors are not a problem anymore, it's what's behind them that worries you.

Nor is magic universally applicable in 3e, 3e was rife with anti-magic zones which shut wizards down completely. A rogue never has to put up with anything like that.

As far as 5e goes, I personally would like to see wizards have only a handful of vancian spells per day. Something like level or levelX2 spell levels worth, plus I want to see most 'utility' magic moved into the ritual magic space innovated by 4e.