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

[TwoSix]

For you.

The rules work for you so long as you do not put pressure on them.

The rules have worked acceptably for *tens of thousands of people*, for years. Acceptably enough that when they were replaced, a separate company was able to pick it up and make successful business of it. So, how about we drop the implications that somehow the thing is objectively fundamentally flawed, and admit that we all play differently, and what works for someone else may not be the best for you?

1) We all play differently. Very differently.
2) The game works for many people. It's worked for me many times through the years, although it's taken some effort.
3) The game IS objectively flawed. However, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] pointed out in his brilliant post before, no one plays D&D objectively. Everyone who has run D&D has drifted it in their own direction, responding to subtle game pressures. Many people view this assumption of game drift as a feature. Consider the success of the game, that's probably true.

 

[Guest 85555]

Not removed, but dealt with. Some need to be written better (Evard's tentacles), somme simply have been valued incorrectly and need a change in level or power (Teleport). There's a case for making some spells explicitly optional or under the DM's purview like resurrection and polymorphs. yes.

For me, something that really helps balance out these sorts of spells is casting time and potential blowback or consequences. I also think many of these spells will vary from campaign to campaign. I sometimes hear complaints about teleport from GMs, but personally teleport has never been an issue for me when I run campaigns. So I think there is a huge gulf in terms of perception between people who have had issues with particular spells and those who haven't.

 

[Guest 85555]

3) The game IS objectively flawed. However, as @pemerton pointed out in his brilliant post before, no one plays D&D objectively. Everyone who has run D&D has drifted it in their own direction, responding to subtle game pressures. Many people view this assumption of game drift as a feature. Consider the success of the game, that's probably true.

I see people asserting this, but I don't think it has been proven or accepted by everyone. You may agree with pemerton's post, but not everyone does.

 

[TwoSix]

Conversely, I don't think that's true about 4e (for me anyway). I mean, CaGI is a problem, but my first issue with 4e is the first-level fighter power that lets you deal triple damage (or 3[W]; whatever it's called) once a day. I'd never accept a version of D&D that had a structure anything like the power system. I think that many people however, even those who do have issues with 3e, would be willing to accept a version of D&D in which casters had spells and noncasters had nothing similar (as is currently the case in 5e and has been in every non-4e version of the game).

Edit: sounds like the answer to that is yes.

Continuing in that framework, would the presence of a class like the Warblade cause you to reject the game? Do you allow anything from the Book of Nine Swords in your own game?

 

[Hussar]

Lessee, btw, I'll bite. If we find more than 4 problem spells in this level alone, will you concede the point Ahn?

Problematic spells:

Black Tentacles - very powerful spell, signficantly more powerful than most other offensive spells of the level.
Solid Fog - very, very effective crowd control spell - all targets limited to 5 feet per round movement, no save, no SR. 20 foot radius means you've locked down a target for 4 rounds.
Scry - game changing spell.
Charm Monster - Save or Die, effectively.
Animate Dead - largely unlimited source of meat shields. Yay, I don't need the fighter anymore. As I recall, skeletal hydras are a fav here.
Polymorph - ok, obvious issues here.

And, dude, I'm not really a min/maxer here. This is pretty basic stuff. That's just 4th level. Let's not forget that most of the stuff that's really over the top is lower level. Because that's the stuff you can easily whack onto a scroll and it changes the game so much.

How's that for problematic?

 

[Hussar]

Not removed, but dealt with. Some need to be written better (Evard's tentacles), somme simply have been valued incorrectly and need a change in level or power (Teleport). There's a case for making some spells explicitly optional or under the DM's purview like resurrection and polymorphs.

But yes, that's my thesis.

Conversely, I don't think that's true about 4e (for me anyway). I mean, CaGI is a problem, but my first issue with 4e is the first-level fighter power that lets you deal triple damage (or 3[W]; whatever it's called) once a day. I'd never accept a version of D&D that had a structure anything like the power system. I think that many people however, even those who do have issues with 3e, would be willing to accept a version of D&D in which casters had spells and noncasters had nothing similar (as is currently the case in 5e and has been in every non-4e version of the game).

Edit: sounds like the answer to that is yes.

So, you don't allow x3 critical weapons in your game Ahn?

Because, if you do, what is the difference between how you narrate a power that deals [3w] damage and a weapons that deals triple damage on a crit?

And, do you have similar issues with the 3e power systems like that of the Bard (why can he only do bardic music X times/day) and barbarian rage powers? Or any class which has /day (or /time period) powers? Because, AFAIK, every single edition has had classes with that limitation.

 

[Hussar]

I see people asserting this, but I don't think it has been proven or accepted by everyone. You may agree with pemerton's post, but not everyone does.

Really? Is his point really all that contentious? I mean, if you go back to AD&D days, and if you happened to play at three different tables, what are the odds that all three tables used the same rules?

Heck, didn't Ahn just posit upthread that no two campaigns share much of anything? Do you agree or disagree with his point? Wasn't he talking about how no one actually plays the game the same?

 

[Guest 85555]

And, do you have similar issues with the 3e power systems like that of the Bard (why can he only do bardic music X times/day) and barbarian rage powers? Or any class which has /day (or /time period) powers? Because, AFAIK, every single edition has had classes with that limitation.

Can't answer for Anh, but this point has been raised before. First there is a big difference between a handful of daily class powers in the game and structuring the entire system around AEDU which neccessitate the regular use of daily and encounter abilities. That said, I have always found things like the barbarian rage a it problemttic. However it is at least somewhat explainable, as you can only go into a mad fit and rage so many times in a day because its exhausting. It is still wierd how it is soread out, but it is easier for me to explain than a particular fighting manuever I can only get off once per encounter or once a day. The bardic ability is something I have always regarded as magical. But if it isn't magical, the bard ability makes zero sense.

Again, just because earlier editions has a small helpfing of mechanics like this, and enjoyed those editions, it doesn't mean we have to like an edition that has massive helpings of these kinds of mechanics. In small doses these sorts of things are easier to overlook.

 

[TwoSix]

So, you don't allow x3 critical weapons in your game Ahn?

Because, if you do, what is the difference between how you narrate a power that deals [3w] damage and a weapons that deals triple damage on a crit?

Because one is the result of a resolution of the process, and the other is the result is the invocation of a metagame resource of luck/skill. The first is acceptable, the second is not. The result is secondary; the fact that the resolution method matches to the fictional input is primary.

Haven't we been down this road before enough to know the arguments of the trad RPG camp?

And, do you have similar issues with the 3e power systems like that of the Bard (why can he only do bardic music X times/day) and barbarian rage powers? Or any class which has /day (or /time period) powers? Because, AFAIK, every single edition has had classes with that limitation.

Magic/fatigue.

 

[Guest 85555]

Really? Is his point really all that contentious? I mean, if you go back to AD&D days, and if you happened to play at three different tables, what are the odds that all three tables used the same rules?

Heck, didn't Ahn just posit upthread that no two campaigns share much of anything? Do you agree or disagree with his point? Wasn't he talking about how no one actually plays the game the same?

You are confusing a lot of different points here. People certainly played with plenty of houserules back in the day. But I don't think that proves the game was flawed, just that we had a culture that was open to variation from table to table. In my own groups we pretty much ran 2E the same for the most part. Most variations ofplay were around the optional rules provided in the PHB. 1E was a much more open system, where the dm was supposed to make a lot of ad hoc calls. By its very nature it led to different mechanical resolutions to things at different tables, but that wasn't neccessarily because it was a flawed game. In fact there is something to be said for letting the GM apply what makes most sense to a given situation rather than be a slave to an elaborate system of rules that attempts to account for every eventuality.

The talk about campaigns wasn't so much about rules as adventure styles and structures.


Either way, none of these demonstrate the game is flawed.