D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nemesis Destiny]

The point is that wizards were never overpowered as some have suggested. At worst, spells were overpowered.

That's like saying that "guns aren't the problem, bullets are!"

While true in the most technical sense, they go hand-in-hand and in the case of D&D, they most certainly do.

And, to bring in another point, if there's a typical style of play or a way that wizards are in most games, that "average" wizard picks mostly direct damage spells and utility spells. The average cleric picks random spells and burns them all for cures. The average druid picks cures because he can't spontaneously cast them and mixes in a few utility spells. None of those characters is remotely overpowered, even in 3.5 at high level with every supplement you like. If you don't like angel summoners and BMX bandits (I still have no idea what those are), they're every bit as optional as CaGI or any other specific character ability someone wants to beat on.

Again, this may be your experience, but it certainly isn't universal, clearly. And again with unprovable statements like, "most games." Maybe most games you've seen/played in. Clearly not universal. These issues are not merely theoretical, nor are they proof-of-concept thought-exercises like pun pun. Further, I and "many/most" people that have an issue with overpowered spells and caster dominance, object to this issue not merely because it "breaks immersion," but rather because it can destroy entire games/arcs/campaigns with how disruptive they are.

But you're right, if you deliberately make poor choices when selecting spells (in or out of character) and consciously avoid gaming the system (out of character), then those classes may not present an issue in play. For some people, believe it or not, this breaks immersion, especially with respect to the in-character part of spell selection.

I guess you can count yourself fortunate that you've never had to deal with it.

The most interesting part, I find, is what people who don't have issues with caster dominance don't tell you - all the little houserules and fiat that has to be used to prevent it from happening.

 

[TwoSix]

I wouldn't be surprised if something happened, should Next not make the grade.

Also, I'm really keyed up for FATE Core! Booyah!

Yea, can't wait for my approximately 150 free PDFs I get for my kick-in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's like saying that "guns aren't the problem, bullets are!"

Except that the guns are squirt guns that have to be retrofitted to fire bullets.

Again, this may be your experience, but it certainly isn't universal, clearly. And again with unprovable statements like, "most games." Maybe most games you've seen/played in. Clearly not universal.

You may be missing the context here; I'm making a purposeful overreach to respond in kind to some of the purposeful overreaches used to defend 4e. Indeed I think that games are very diverse and that my statements won't apply to all that many people, but some would disagree.

But you're right, if you deliberately make poor choices when selecting spells (in or out of character) and consciously avoid gaming the system (out of character), then those classes may not present an issue in play. For some people, believe it or not, this breaks immersion, especially with respect to the in-character part of spell selection.

I don't consider Fireball a poor choice.

The most interesting part, I find, is what people who don't have issues with caster dominance don't tell you - all the little houserules and fiat that has to be used to prevent it from happening.

Well, I'll tell you.

That being said, your statement seems to postulate that houserules and/or fiat are atypical and/or undesirable. Precisely the opposite is the case. D&D posits a DM, and it's built on rule zero. DMs can do one of two things: they can either choose to alter or rewrite or ignore rules to fit their needs, or they can choose to use a rule as written. Either way, it's the DM's choice (i.e. fiat). Not all games postulate a Dungeon Master or similar figure, but D&D most certainly does.

More to the point, if a spellcaster is running amok (or anything is wrong), this is generally not a fault of the rules, it's the DM's fault. The rules only incrementally respond to widespread concerns during generational changes. Most problems are solved by DMs. This is not a bad thing. There is nothing in any 3.5 rulebook that entitles a spellcaster player to break the game, nor is it particularly easy to do so given even a basic level of DM competence.

And while we're on the subject, many of the houserules I use add more depth and more power to the nonmagical classes, but some of them increase the power of spellcasters as well. I've never had a seriously overpowered caster using anything from straight core 3.0 to my mishmash d20 of the future. So in my case, the houserules aren't patching some big spellcaster problem; they're for other purposes.

 

[Manbearcat]

But the enemies used were universally martial, and the fear effect (not CAGI) only applied to warriors.

Going to reply to this here because I'm assuming that you're referring to my framing of the fear vs taunt/goad/ruse and your position that its a caricature. You and I seem to have a logic divide a great number of times and I think I may have figured this one out.

Here is what we have and why I framed it how I did and why I wouldn't bother loading the contention with unrelated paramaters; eg supernatural fear effects or non-warrior targets:

1) There are non-supernatural (mundane) fear effects that affect targets and cause them to move directly away from the source of the fear (a push).
2) This contest is resolved by Attack vs Will defense/saving throw.
3) CaGI is a non-supernatural (mundane) goad/taunt/ruse effect that affects targets and causes them to move directly toward the source of the goad/taunt/ruse (a pull).
4) This contest is resolved by Attack vs Will defense/saving throw.
5) Some folks find this CaGI resolution unbelievable under all circumstances; even warriors losing this Attack vs Will shouldn't be forced to move toward the CaGI warrior.
6) Some folks find this unbelievable specifically when used against ranged attackers (eg bowman or wizards). They feel that even if they lose the Attack vs Will contest that they should have immunity to the effect because of their tactical preferences (being out of the thick of melee) and because of the context of their very existence (shrewd, pragmatic, cool-headed, impermeable to a ruse or goading).
7) My thoughts are that the logic that underwrites the position in 6 should be afforded to the battle-hardened warrior who is subjected to 1 above. Using that same logic, I contend it is unbelievable specifically when used against battle-hardened warriors who spend their career moving toward death rather than away from it. Using that same logic, I contend that even if they lose the Attack vs Will contest that they should have immunity to the effect because of their tactical preferences (being in the thick of melee and interposed between the threat and their allies/charges) and because of the context of their very existence (battle-hardened, constantly moving toward the promise of death rather than away from it, ready and willing to jump on a grenade to save their comrades in arms).

Given the parameters of the argument, why would I introduce a supernatural fear effect when the problem CaGI detractors have is that it is non-supernatural/mundane? Additionally, why would I introduce a non-warrior as the problematic target of 1 when "ranged attacker (bowman or wizard) is specifically invoked as the problematic target for CaGI by its detractors?

I'm just framing the consideration on the basis of the parameters that have been set by detractors. There is no caricature there.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Except that the guns are squirt guns that have to be retrofitted to fire bullets.

Absolutely not the case. Overpowered spellcasters are not some retrofit. I don't see where you're going with this; it doesn't follow.

You may be missing the context here; I'm making a purposeful overreach to respond in kind to some of the purposeful overreaches used to defend 4e. Indeed I think that games are very diverse and that my statements won't apply to all that many people, but some would disagree.

Including the last comment you made? That might fit if you were trying to be farcical concerning overpowered spellcasters in 3.x.

I don't consider Fireball a poor choice.

In the right situation, it can be 'okay,' but there are far, far better choices most of the time. I'm not getting into the build dynamics of what makes spellcasters so utterly overpowered without houserules and fiat. That argument has been had, many times, and points made to my satisfaction, but apparently not yours. Fair enough and/or lucky you.

Well, I'll tell you.

That being said, your statement seems to postulate that houserules and/or fiat are atypical and/or undesirable. Precisely the opposite is the case. D&D posits a DM, and it's built on rule zero. DMs can do one of two things: they can either choose to alter or rewrite or ignore rules to fit their needs, or they can choose to use a rule as written. Either way, it's the DM's choice (i.e. fiat). Not all games postulate a Dungeon Master or similar figure, but D&D most certainly does.

More to the point, if a spellcaster is running amok (or anything is wrong), this is generally not a fault of the rules, it's the DM's fault. The rules only incrementally respond to widespread concerns during generational changes. Most problems are solved by DMs. This is not a bad thing. There is nothing in any 3.5 rulebook that entitles a spellcaster player to break the game, nor is it particularly easy to do so given even a basic level of DM competence.

Perhaps this is true of home games, but in organized play, and in many play-by-post environments, all books are allowed by default, and so they don't have the luxury of DM fiat to keep things under control.

Further, some cases, a player will slip something past even a veteran DM. Then the genie is out of the bottle and trying to put it back is "immersion-breaking" at best, and downright campaign-ending at worst.

But, again, this argument has been had many times by many people. You don't have the issue described. Fair enough. Some do. Can you at least see that much?

And while we're on the subject, many of the houserules I use add more depth and more power to the nonmagical classes, but some of them increase the power of spellcasters as well. I've never had a seriously overpowered caster using anything from straight core 3.0 to my mishmash d20 of the future. So in my case, the houserules aren't patching some big spellcaster problem; they're for other purposes.

Good for you, I guess? I, and "many others," however you want to interpret that, haven't been so fortunate.

 

[pemerton]

The most interesting part, I find, is what people who don't have issues with caster dominance don't tell you - all the little houserules and fiat that has to be used to prevent it from happening.

I agree that this is interesting. I have my own theory as to why it happens, which (this being a message board for people to post their pet theories!) I'll share.

Consider a game in which the main function of the mechanics is understood to be "modelling" the gameworld. If the GM (or, perhaps - and depending on how democratic the table is - the whole group) decides that they don't like some aspect of those mechanics, they change them to be - for them - a better model. For instance, if they think the system doesn't accurately reflect how hard it is for an unarmed person to parry a sword with his/her bare hands, they rule that in all such cases the attacker gets combat advantage. (If they then discover that this is hosing monks a bit, they introduce another rule, along the lines of a monk being a "living weapon" who can parry steel with flesh.)

Now consider a game in which the main function of the mechanics is understood to be "producing outcomes in the story". If the GM (or, perhaps - and depending on how democratic the table is - the whole group) decides that parts of the story suck - eg the casters might be having to much influence on outcomes and pacing - then they fudge the mechanical outcomes. For instance, when a wandering monster roll comes up "rust monster" they stick in a bookworm instead; or when a treasure roll comes up "scroll" they stick in a weapon or a healing potion instead; or when a caster tries to teleport somewhere, they fiat in an "anti-teleport" field that has no canonical expression within the system.

It's my theory that a given GM (or game group) can go a long way down one or both of these roads yet still think of themselves as playing "game X, edition Y" because they still retain some core canonical feature of that game in both character gen (eg probably still using classes, 3-18 stat generation, etc) and action resolution (eg probably still using d20s for attacks and saves). And the changes they have made they think of not as changes to the system, but as "proper GMing" or "sensible playing". Indeed, for many such groups the idea that you would pick up a game, play it just as it's written, and thereby get a worthwhile experience like that which is described on the box may be foreign - they take moving down one or both of the roads I described as part and parcel of what it is to play an RPG so as to have a worthwhile experience.

Furthermore, for such a group the mechanics that yield the desired experience are in a certain sense "invisible" - they are often not overtly part of the action resolution mechanics (eg the GM doesn't have to spend a "doom die" to fiat in an anti-teleport ward), and where they are they are understood by the group not in metagame terms ("We need to reduce caster dominance") but in ingame, "verisimilitude" terms ("It's unreaslistic that it's not easier to cut down unarmed mages like Conan does"). That's why they are happy to report that the game, in their experience, is not broken - by their lights, they are still playing "the game" - their fiats and house rules are just part of what, for them, "playing" means.

When such a group comes across a game that is designed to be played as written; that has been written with "reliability of play experience" as a higher goal than "modelling the gameworld"; that talks quite overtly about when to use GM force (eg in encounter design) and frames that in metagame rather than ingame terms (eg "your encounters will be more fun if you mix archers and spearmen" rather than "a typical force of mercenaries is composed of both archers and spearmen"); and that is happy to present elements of both player and GM force in over metagame mechanical terms (eg 4e action points as an express override of the default action economy); then I think it is undertandable that the game will come across as quite alien.

What I find a bit less explicable is that they therefore decide to hate it on the grounds that it isn't really an RPG, but I don't have a theory for everything!

 

[Hussar]

Right? Isn't this the case for any player that doesn't want their game disrupted?/snip

JC, a question. I dislike elves in D&D. I always have disliked elves in D&D for a variety of reasons that aren't really important. It's enough that any time there's a PC elf in a D&D game that I participate in, it sets my teeth on edge.

So, if I sat at your table, with you DMing, would you be happy if I told one of the other players at the table that he absolutely cannot play an elf because it would disrupt my game?

Now, what's the difference between that and what you're doing?

 

[pemerton]

There are 3 reviews of the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying system on RPG.net. They give it 5, 4 and 3 stars respectively for system design. (All three give it 5 stars for style.)

Here are some extracts from the 3 star review:

Most of the powers are left purposefully vague, leaving the Storyteller and the players to add in the blanks, usually based on their knowledge of the hero or villain they’re playing. This is a problem, since it is obvious that Mister Fantastic’s D10 Stretching, for example, works in a very different way than Carnage’s Stretching. Let’s take Elemental Control, which is a general moniker for Air Control, Cosmic Control, Darkforce Control, Earth Control, Electric Control, Fire/Heat Control, Gravity Control, Ice/Cold Control or any other type of energy one can come up with. No rules distinction is made between any of these types of control, leaving Storytellers with a general description only. The system is remarkably flexible, allowing for ‘Complications’ that can mirror just about any effect, but you really need to know the characters in order to be sure what they can do with each power. When you’re used to playing the Hero System, Fuzion or even Mutants & Masterminds, where powers are so well-defined that they’re virtually impossible to misinterpret, this is a major worry.

Another problem with powers is their very limited effect range. All Powers use either a D6, a D8, a D10 or a D12, allowing for only 4 levels of Power. In the Basic Game, Armor, Beast, Iron Man, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel, Sentry, Spider-Man and Spider-Woman all have the Power Superhuman Strength (D10). This may be cutting it too close for a lot of gamers and comic fans, as many of us love to compare statistics and discuss who is the stronger hero, etc. . .

[T]he number of dice in a pool and the limited range of the powers and Specialties also means there aren’t enough differences between the characters. This evens the playing field a little bit too much, allowing for minor characters to beat major league players too easily, for example.​

I don't know about anyone else, but I see strong resonance here of complaints that 4e PCs are too "samey"; the related complaint that relying on narrative context and framing to carry story load (eg the difference between different heroes' powers), rather than imbedding it deep into the minutiae of the resolution mechanics, "is a major worry" reminds me of concerns that 4e loses the difference between fighter and wizard because both have a +10 to Aths or Endurance at 20th level; and the concerns about lack of distinctions among elemental/energy control powers reminds me of the oft-expressed concern that a 4e fireball can't set flammable objects on fire.

In my view, the response in defence of both games is very similar: for instance, in 4e the differences in stat, training and items for a 20th level fighter compared to a 20th level wizard mean that one will frequently succeed at challenges using Athletics, whereas when the other is called upon to make an Aths check the whole table will grown; and in Marvel Heroic the differences between two heroes (eg Spider Man and Luke Cage) will emerge not thru a single rating for their Strength, but through the totatily of their descriptor sets, and the very different ways these are able to be drawn upon and combined to frame quite different responses to challenges.

Again, in 4e, the response on the "fireballs aren't fiery" front is to point out that this is to be adjudicated by the GM, drawing on the damaging objects rules - the game treats damage to creatuers as a mechanically settled matter, and relies more on fiat, negotiation and context to handle damage to objects and scenery. And the response in Marvel Heroic on the energy/elemental front is similar: when it comes to a villain trying to blow up Spidey, there is no mechanical difference between a wind blast and a fire blast - both are resolved the same. The games mechanics for this are clear and settled. But when you want to use your blast to (say) destroy a building - or when you are targetting the Human Torch rather than Spidey - then the players, and especially the GM, are expected to adjudciate the difference between wind blasts and fire blasts as part of what is involved in framing and resolving the conflict. So the difference between wind and fire will not express itself in the minutiae of resolution, but rather in terms of what sorts of conflicts can and can't be framed, and what sorts of outcomes the GM narrates. Much as in 4e. (Though 4e has a more robust keyword system than Marvel Heroic, which - given the ranage of abilities is obliged to handle - plays a bit more fast-and-loose.)

I've got not doubt that the 3-star reviewer of Marvel Heroic knows his preferences, and wouldn't particularly care for the game. But in understanding how others are playing and enjoying it, the question to ask is not "Why don't they mind playing same-y heroes?" but rather "What techiques are they using to achieve story differentiation, given that the mechanics in their most basic form appear not to do that?"

Similarly with 4e, the question to ask is no "Why don't they mind fighters with mind control?" but rather "What techniques are they using, and what is their undertanding of the fiction such that, in their game, an effect like CaGI can take place without anyone in the fiction using mind control?"

 

[Hussar]

The point is that wizards were never overpowered as some have suggested. At worst, spells were overpowered.

And, to bring in another point, if there's a typical style of play or a way that wizards are in most games, that "average" wizard picks mostly direct damage spells and utility spells. The average cleric picks random spells and burns them all for cures. The average druid picks cures because he can't spontaneously cast them and mixes in a few utility spells. None of those characters is remotely overpowered, even in 3.5 at high level with every supplement you like. If you don't like angel summoners and BMX bandits (I still have no idea what those are), they're every bit as optional as CaGI or any other specific character ability someone wants to beat on.

The unwillingness of certain individuals to judge all versions of the game by the same standards is unfortunate.

Ahnehnois - if you truly believe that there are no issues with casters, then how do you explain that both WOTC AND Paizo have gone to great lengths in their respective games to fix the issue? Are the designers at both companies really that clueless as to how the game is played?

Are you seriously stating that 4 powers, spread across three classes, all of which are optional, all of which last exactly 1 action long, are on the same level of game changing power as Scry/Buff/Teleport or Polymorphing/Shapechanging? Really? If you're going to talk about using the same standards, I would assume that you would want to apply things equally.

 

[Hussar]

/snippage for brevity

Furthermore, for such a group the mechanics that yield the desired experience are in a certain sense "invisible" - they are often not overtly part of the action resolution mechanics (eg the GM doesn't have to spend a "doom die" to fiat in an anti-teleport ward), and where they are they are understood by the group not in metagame terms ("We need to reduce caster dominance") but in ingame, "verisimilitude" terms ("It's unreaslistic that it's not easier to cut down unarmed mages like Conan does"). That's why they are happy to report that the game, in their experience, is not broken - by their lights, they are still playing "the game" - their fiats and house rules are just part of what, for them, "playing" means.

When such a group comes across a game that is designed to be played as written; that has been written with "reliability of play experience" as a higher goal than "modelling the gameworld"; that talks quite overtly about when to use GM force (eg in encounter design) and frames that in metagame rather than ingame terms (eg "your encounters will be more fun if you mix archers and spearmen" rather than "a typical force of mercenaries is composed of both archers and spearmen"); and that is happy to present elements of both player and GM force in over metagame mechanical terms (eg 4e action points as an express override of the default action economy); then I think it is undertandable that the game will come across as quite alien.

What I find a bit less explicable is that they therefore decide to hate it on the grounds that it isn't really an RPG, but I don't have a theory for everything!

I can't posrep this, but, wow does this post deserve it.