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

[Nagol]

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?

I'm not JC, but in my case, I never tell other players at the table how/what to play. I simply decide not to participate if I don't believe I'll enjoy the game. Much like pizza, a table has to find a set everyone finds pleasing enough or agree to have multiple.

 

[FireLance]

Or the same as someone refusing to play 3e because of a couple of spells (i.e. the mentality this thread started from).

Actually, I thought the mentality of the OP was summarized in this paragraph:

We shouldn't try to balance wizards and fighters by making wizards suck. We should give fighters some cool toys of their own! And no, I don't mean "MOAR DAMAGE RAWR!" It's the other two pillars where they need help. Alot of help. I have a few ideas on how to do that.

I don't see anything related to refusing to play 3e here. In fact, refusing to play 3e would only be necessary if fighters are absolutely not allowed to have cool toys in 3e. And I am sure that it is not the case, right?

 

[Balesir]

Did you miss the post a few pages back where I was informed that most D&D games are "basically the same" according to "industry insiders"? And that reading these boards would lead one to vastly overestimate the differences between games?

Miss? Heck, no - that's a classic example of just what I'm describing, combined with a dose of confirmation bias!

"I like playing this way; all these people sat around gaming look pretty much like we do when we game, ergo they must be playing the same way!"

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I mean this sincerely: you worded this beautifully. I'm being 100% truthful (I say this because things can get ambiguous with a text medium). This opening alone made me open to the rest of what you write.

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.

I'm following all of this so far. With you so far.

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.

I agree that some people have this problem, yes. It has been expressed in this thread, by a number of posters.

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).

Yep, those views have also been expressed. With you so far.

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).

Okay, this makes sense to me. A type of fear immunity would help you with this, right? And on the flip side, you think there might be a double standard for loss of character control?

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.

I thought you were setting this up for the double standard, when the conversation had been broadly about fear effects in 3.Xe and the forced movement being acceptable to some posters. Moving the focus to people that should be resistant or immune (warriors) kind of sidestepped that broader discussion, and set it in a more outrageous view (since it's easier to see a thief archetype scared, and your example left that out). If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize. Honestly; sorry I said that. Thanks for your thoughtful replies. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

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?

That I'm not doing that?

I'm saying that groups might have individual players who get their immersion disrupted by these things. It's a table issue. It'd be resolved by the table (and at my table, by me, since I'm likely running the game, and I get final say). I've said "no elves" before, and I've said "no spellcasters" before. I have no problem doing this. So, if there was a problem at my table, I'd talk with my players, and then make a decision.

For example, my brother once had a character in a core-only 3.5 game who was a commander type. He wanted to be a Bard / Fighter. It was a "no spellcasters" game, so I told him he could play Bard, but he'd get no spells. He agreed. No problem so far. However, he wanted to be Lawful Good, and Bard is "non-Lawful". The reasoning for this in 3.5 seems a little dubious, in my group's mind (something like "Bards move around a lot"... and Paladins don't? I know there's more to it than that, but I don't have my books, since I'm out of town). So, he wanted to know if he could be Lawful and be a Bard. This was an immersion issue for him. I let him be Lawful here, but asked him to have a slight neutral lean (but still Lawful). This was all talked about with input from the other players, and we all agreed that it worked for us.

This is basically a "your Come And Get It power pulls me out of immersion" for 4e, or "your Scry and Fry is ruining my fun" for 3.X. People don't like having their game disrupted. The table can decide on how to deal with that. That's why I called it a table issue. Did that answer your question? As always, play what you like

I'm not JC, but in my case, I never tell other players at the table how/what to play. I simply decide not to participate if I don't believe I'll enjoy the game. Much like pizza, a table has to find a set everyone finds pleasing enough or agree to have multiple.

Yep. If I was playing, then I'd back out if I thought I wouldn't have fun because of someone else's character and it didn't get resolved when I tried to politely bring it up (unless everyone else was having a blast -then I'd likely just back out). If I was playing with friends I knew well (which is by far the most likely scenario for me playing or running a game), I'd bring it up. And, depending on how it unfolded, I'd make my decision.

But, when dealing with this from the GM side, I try to find a solution that works for everyone. If none can be reached, I'll take the best I can get, and someone might have to deal with it, or drop out. Nobody yet has dropped out due to this issue. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

@JamesonCourage Clarity and understanding on a subject has been attained on the internet! This is a borderline Hallmark moment

 

[Hussar]

But, JC, you didn't say you would "back out" before. Before, you said:

Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
In short people aren't OK with other people having it if they want it. They don't like it and they don't want anyone else at the table to want it either.

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

Am I misreading things? You'd simply back out of a game which featured something that another player wanted but that bothered you? Fair enough. That's fine. It didn't sound like that before. Before it sounded a lot more like you would force other players to conform to your tastes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hey man, I said I'm fine with it being optional, so don't shoot me. I was saying reasons why "but it's an option" may not satisfy other people. So, aim your shots elsewhere -I'm just the messenger. As always, play what you like

Oh please! You are asking for the messenger not to be shot. When you have come in here doing nothing more than repeat talking points that almost everyone on one side of the argument finds to be almost entirely without merit and has read literally probably a hundred times before. As such your "This is what other people might think" comes off as something like either "I'm just saying" or the sort of letter which starts "As a lifelong member of the Democratic/Republican/Tory/Labour/Monster Raving Loony Party I must say that..." followed by a list of the opposition's talking points.

A claim to neutrality in any contentious matter needs to be demonstrated. And right now, you haven't. You've merely repeated partisan talking points and then claimed to be just the messenger when you have been responded to as if you actually hold the points you claim you are trying to explain. Whether or not you actually hold the arguments you present, own them. You are supporting those arguments - and so far as I can tell this isn't an active devil's advocate situation. The purpose of your writing is to support them.

If you are genuinely going in as someone who is trying to explain a point of view to people who don't get it in the middle of a heated debate and are a sincere neutral then your technique is terrible. To be taken seriously as a neutral while trying to make an argument that is indellibly associated with partisans in a partisan debate you start by accepting literally every other point made by that side you can or otherwise encouraging them to identify with you, and doing it explicitely and openly. If you don't do that, any claims you're just a messenger come off like a mixture of "I'm just saying" and "As a lifelong member of the ____ party..."

Or to summarise if your arguments are nothing but partisan arguments from one side then you'll be treated as a partisan of that side.

And with the specific arguments you are repeating, your "As always play what you like " only adds fuel to the fire. Because the arguments are telling people to not play what they like. So the counterpoint between a post that can be summed up as "Playing what you like is badwrongfun" and the tagline "As always play what you like " appears patronising even if that wasn't the intent.

I thought you were setting this up for the double standard, when the conversation had been broadly about fear effects in 3.Xe and the forced movement being acceptable to some posters.

Which non-magic fear effects in 3.X cause forced movement? Magic can justify anything - this is where the "Fighters can't get nice things" meme comes from.

I'm saying that groups might have individual players who get their immersion disrupted by these things. It's a table issue. It'd be resolved by the table (and at my table, by me, since I'm likely running the game, and I get final say). I've said "no elves" before, and I've said "no spellcasters" before. I have no problem doing this. So, if there was a problem at my table, I'd talk with my players, and then make a decision.

So have I (for the record 4e works extremely well with no spellcasters). I just don't see the need to write reams on saying "An optional class feature that a lot of people like in a game I don't like is bad and wrong and a reason no one should play the game".

This is basically a "your Come And Get It power pulls me out of immersion" for 4e, or "your Scry and Fry is ruining my fun" for 3.X. People don't like having their game disrupted. The table can decide on how to deal with that.

There's two major differences between the CAGI and the Scry And Fry examples. Both involve optional abilities - but by default Scry and Fry takes two spells available as in character choices as well as out of game - CAGI must have been chosen out of game. As long as scry and teleport are both known magic, a wizard needs to have a good reason in character not to try and get both by level 10. The second is CAGI doesn't make a whole lot of planned adventure redundant and have massive impact on a world's logistics, unlike Teleport. The difference between a world with CAGI and a lightly cinematic one without is almost unnoticeable.

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

Two entire schools (Conjuration and Transmutation) were full of overpowered spells.

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.

In short, a game set up to deliberately reward system mastery (according to Monte Cook) only has problems when people have system mastery, read the rule books, and think how to use a really high intelligence or strength. Or just think like sneaky bastards as a default.

If you don't like angel summoners and BMX bandits (I still have no idea what those are),

A series of scetches by Mitchell and Webb (British comedians). Entertaining in its own right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

they're every bit as optional as CaGI or any other specific character ability someone wants to beat on.

It's simply that the 4e PHB has four such abilities. Total. The 3.5 PHB has loads including an entire class with Wild Shape as a major class feature. Three classes out of thirteen in the 3.5 PHB have polymorphing (four if you count the Bard getting Alter Self) - one with it as a full blown class feature. A fourth class is capable of self-buffing to beat up fighters. And the Bard gets the utterly broken Glibness spell.

All four and a half primary casters get scrying. All druids and clerics of the right level can cast it effectively as a class feature.

Two classes get teleport. The Druid has a weaker version effectively as a class feature (all druids of the right level know and can prepare it).

Three and a half primary casters get AoE no SR save or suck spells that can turn a whole battle into a mopping up excercise. (The cleric doesn't).

In fact the core only cleric is a pretty reasonable class. A bit on the strong side but probably only Tier 3. The wizard and druid (and to a lesser extent the sorceror) on the other hand aren't.

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

Yes. I don't judge 3.5 just by there being a few specific spells that are ridiculously overpowered and entirely optional. You, however, appear to be judging 4e by a few very optional abilities.

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

You mean that the guns are in fact grenade launchers and come with a mix of paintballs and grenades. The only one of the casters that needs any retrofitting at all is the cleric.

I don't consider Fireball a poor choice.

Given what it has to compete with, I consider it an extremely poor one.

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.

Houserules and/or fiat are not of themselves undesirable. Needing houserules because the game is broken out of the box is undesirable. Making the DM make up for the mistakes of the designers that have been paid so the DM doesn't need to bother with fixing the game and can instead houserule to customise the game is undesirable.

 

[Hussar]

Houserules and/or fiat are not of themselves undesirable. Needing houserules because the game is broken out of the box is undesirable. Making the DM make up for the mistakes of the designers that have been paid so the DM doesn't need to bother with fixing the game and can instead houserule to customise the game is undesirable.

Just as a point. This is probably the single biggest reason I played 3e over 2e. I mean, I was very, very heavily invested in 2e and knew the system inside and out. I'd played the HELL out of 2e and had no real interest in changing.

Until I actually got to play 3e and realized that it works. It works pretty darn well out of the box. Yeah, the casters get out of hand, but, OTOH, the groups I played with didn't really go for full casters, so, it rarely caused any personal problems at my table. I can totally see why it needs to be handed at the mechanical level, because D&D is more than just my table, but, for myself, it was rarely a serious issue.

Mostly we just ignored it.

And, 4e works on a very similar principle to 3e - write rules that work. You don't really need to houserule 4e all that much to make it work. At the moment, our 4e game has exactly one houserule - long term damage effects to add a bit of grittiness to the game. Next time I DM, I'm adding in Morale rules.

My 3e games were pretty similar. Very, very few house rules. And, by and large, if you looked at rule discussions in 3e, just like in 4e, reading the manual goes a long way to resolving almost all but some corner case issues. Which was certainly not the case in 2e or 1e where the rules were often vague and contradictory.

But, I've also come very much to the point of view that I have zero interest in playing Amateur Game Designer. It's not my thing. I don't want to. I pay people for that. If the game you hand me requires me to massively change my playstyle just to spackle over balance issues, for example, I am not interested in that game anymore. There are just too many games out there that will serve me better.

 

[Bluenose]

For once we agree. If they really wanted to look for talent the people they'd be courting wouldn't be the crowd they've got there at the moment so far as I can tell - and neither Mearls nor Monte Cook would have been taken seriously. They'd probably try for Luke Crane (who is these days arguably as much of an expert on oD&D as there is, as well as writing Burning Wheel), Fred Hicks and Rob Donahugue (FATE/Spirit of the Century/FATE Core), Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World), possibly Cam Banks (Smallville, Leverage, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) and Robin Laws (Feng Shui, Hillfolk, a lot of good guidance - and he's written for WotC before but his skills are more on the advice than the design/development side), and maybe Jason Morningstar (Fiasco). Those are all people who've developed innovative games that have significant followings without starting with the D&D name or much of a publishing house behind them before they started.

Of course the mandate is to "unite the editions" - and that's very much an inside the box thing. And for the record Heinsoo's post-D&D attempt at 13th Age is significantly less interesting than 4e.

Can't give you experience points, and there are names I'd like to add, but they'd certainly be on my list of people to approach. I'd imagine they could certainly come up with something that simulated the spirit of D&D, whatever that is in a game which apparently also isn't 4e with it's reputed One True Way playstyle when all other editions could handle anything.

Or the same as someone refusing to play 3e because of a couple of spells (i.e. the mentality this thread started from).

That's not the mentality this thread started at; it's more than just a couple of spells that are problematic with 3e.