D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I see. For me it’s really more about the whole process and not some part of it.

If you use a d20 to determine when to invoke a fate deck that then only determines where the teleport takes you then that's not a house rule in my view.

If you use a d20 to determine when to invoke a fate deck that then has the possibility of leaving an item behind then that’s a house rule in my view.

For me - It's not about having a Fate Deck. It's not about the d20. It's about whether the holistic process you invoke can yield a result that's outside the written scope of the spell or ability in question.

Don't get me wrong, I think your 'critical fumble' teleporting is a more interesting way to resolve the spell. I like it overall. It just doesn't fall in the realm of things I'd call a ruling.
It's not only more interesting, it's not really a critical fumble system for teleporting or anything else. It can also be a critical success. It's Fate, which can be fickle and go either way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Personally I think I'm done with the teleportation tangent. Everything pertinent to it has already been said. And IMO the issue being discussed is really much deeper than teleportation. Teleportation is just the manifestation of that deeper issue. That deeper issue is really about how a DM should use fiat. That might make an interesting discussion, but probably one best left to another thread.

I think an aspect of this is VERY appropriate for this thread.

Namely, IME, DM fiat is generally used to reign in the caster (vs. give the caster more leeway) while DM fiat is generally used to give the martial as much leeway as possible (vs. reign in the martial). This says A LOT as to the given power levels of the two.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
No, it really doesn't.
You can say that, but doing so doesn't add up with your stated reasons & creates a few problems that need addressing at the table.

This started out with you suggesting collecting a random object every day so that you could use teleport to effectively evac from bad situations. I don't run d&d like a dcc funnel and think I can safely say that is very much normal. Given that normal baseline, having a back pocket evac in the waiting should not be needed unless they intend to do things like become a super villian out of the blue without warning. If a player still thinks it is needed for reasons other than surviving chaotic stupid campaign melting scenarios after pointing out that disconnect then having a more firmly linked object tied to a known safe place they can prepare that I can plan around should improve the ability for the purposes of their reason.


If pointing all of that out in a discussion doesn't accomplish that, then I as a gm need to know the real reason or can expect that it's because the player feels that they need to hide that reason in some sort of stupid adversarial player vrs gm plot surprise. In my experience those surprises often detract from the fun everyone has at the table and may require extra time to progress from without causing wider unfun campaign problems for players other than That Guy with the plot. Since I'm usually fairly permissive in allowing creative applications of abilities*
that seem logical I need to be extra vigilant about player activities that seem illogical* to avoid discovering that they hinge on exploiting some rules exception I created, that is extra true when the reasons given for why they are doing itdon't seem to match up with what they are doing like in this case

* both caster & martial abilities
 
Last edited:

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I think an aspect of this is VERY appropriate for this thread.

Namely, IME, DM fiat is generally used to reign in the caster (vs. give the caster more leeway) while DM fiat is generally used to give the martial as much leeway as possible (vs. reign in the martial). This says A LOT as to the given power levels of the two.
That's generally my experience as well with o5e, especially with newer GMs who didn't GM much if older editions where they had tools like DM's best friend& bonus types or the older 1e/2e with more nebulous support. In o5e that lack of mechanical support tends to result in the fighter's dominance in a fight being extended to other areas of the game that allow a fighter's athletics & history proficiency to overcome almost any obstacle in areas that should be the wheelhouse of a different class in contrast to casters who need the exact situation allowed by a spell to occur at a time when they also have said spell prepared.

Even getting caster players to attempt at asking about creative applications other than "will this kill that" is often a pretty tough hurdle to clear as a gm.
 

That's generally my experience as well with o5e, especially with newer GMs who didn't GM much if older editions where they had tools like DM's best friend& bonus types or the older 1e/2e with more nebulous support. In o5e that lack of mechanical support tends to result in the fighter's dominance in a fight being extended to other areas of the game that allow a fighter's athletics & history proficiency to overcome almost any obstacle in areas that should be the wheelhouse of a different class in contrast to casters who need the exact situation allowed by a spell to occur at a time when they also have said spell prepared.

Even getting caster players to attempt at asking about creative applications other than "will this kill that" is often a pretty tough hurdle to clear as a gm.
That sounds kind of like you came to the exact opposite conclusion they did, though through similar logic. At least, the implication I'm hearing in that last sentence of their post is that fighters need more explicit leeway and casters need less, as the current dynamic requires or at least suggests that the DM adjust toward the more permissive to give fighters out of combat agency and less permissive with casters to prevent them overshadowing the rest of the party with overly generous interpretations of their existing capability.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
That sounds kind of like you came to the exact opposite conclusion they did, though through similar logic. At least, the implication I'm hearing in that last sentence of their post is that fighters need more explicit leeway and casters need less, as the current dynamic requires or at least suggests that the DM adjust toward the more permissive to give fighters out of combat agency and less permissive with casters to prevent them overshadowing the rest of the party with overly generous interpretations of their existing capability.
These threads tend to involve a lot of bad white room assumptions like quantum spell lists that always have any preparable spell prepared when needed unlimited long rests with no short rests ever& fighters who somehow never obtain magic weapons by any level as the default state of d&d games to support the complaint that fighters need 20 attacks per round* and such to compensate so it's not really surprising in that light.

* I'm pretty sure that actually was suggested earlier in this thread but might be off on the number of attacks or some other recent thread.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
You can say that, but doing so doesn't add up with your stated reasons & creates a few problems that need addressing at the table.

This started out with you suggesting collecting a random object every day so that you could use teleport to effectively evac from bad situations. I don't run d&d like a dcc funnel and think I can safely say that is very much normal. Given that normal baseline, having a back pocket evac in the waiting should not be needed unless they intend to do things like become a super villian out of the blue without warning. If a player still thinks it is needed for reasons other than surviving chaotic stupid campaign melting scenarios after pointing out that disconnect then having a more firmly linked object tied to a known safe place they can prepare that I can plan around should improve the ability for the purposes of their reason.


If pointing all of that out in a discussion doesn't accomplish that, then I as a gm need to know the real reason or can expect that it's because the player feels that they need to hide that reason in some sort of stupid adversarial player vrs gm plot surprise. In my experience those surprises often detract from the fun everyone has at the table and may require extra time to progress from without causing wider unfun campaign problems for players other than That Guy with the plot. Since I'm usually fairly permissive in allowing creative applications of abilities*
that seem logical I need to be extra vigilant about player activities that seem illogical* to avoid discovering that they hinge on exploiting some rules exception I created, that is extra true when the reasons given for why they are doing itdon't seem to match up with what they are doing like in this case

* both caster & martial abilities
Yeah, we don't run the game like a DCC funnel either, yet we still have the occasional encounter that goes sideways that we've had to retreat from (or that resulted in character deaths/TPK because we didn't/couldn't retreat). The characters are never at risk of losing an encounter in your game? Clearly there's at least some risk of capture, since your scenario was based around capturing the PCs, right? I'd still find having a teleport escape plan handy, even if capture was the worst outcome of losing an encounter.

The whole player plotting something comes across to me as DM paranoia. I literally stated that the reason for collecting an associated object from the campsite was to use as an escape from a bad encounter. That was the established premise from the get go.

If you think the player has some ulterior motive, simple TALK to them. Don't dream up some paranoid fantasy and then try to punish them for it. That's not healthy behavior, regardless of whether you're at the gaming table or not.

Moreover, speaking as a DM who has run multiple high level campaigns, as far as I'm concerned at that level unexpected shenanigans are to be expected and are part of the fun of the game. Let's assume that your premise is true and the player is plotting something nefarious. Unless this is a problem player who is willing to sacrifice everyone else's fun for their own amusement, what's the worst that can happen? The campaign takes a turn unexpected by the DM? Those are the moments I live for as a DM! Some of the best times I've ever had at the gaming table have been those where I, as DM, was just as surprised as the players about what happened next. If it is a problem player, then it still shouldn't be handled by punishing them through the character. Just have a discussion with them about their behavior, like an adult.
 

Well, I use the gritty rest rules so teleporting out won't buy you anything unless you want to risk a week going by. That's generally a bad idea. Teleporting out? Sure. But would the tower be collapsing if y'all didn't have teleport or would there be another option to escape?
I think the point is that there is a way to escape the collapsing tower…but that casting teleport is a massive shortcut around it unless the DM pulls out “the walls are made of anti-magic” card.

It seems to me that the gritty rest rules are a variant that explicitly recognizes that casters are overpowered compared to martials under the standard rules, but ignores that there are many reasons why groups may choose not to play with it, including:
  • the campaign has both long encounter days and short encounter days, with martials only being overshadowed on short encounter days, and characters being more or less even on long encounter days;
  • gritty rest being unduly punitive for casters at lower levels;
  • recovering spell slots on a non-daily basis “doesn’t feel like D&D”;
  • play exclusively or most often in Adventurer’s League;
  • you are a player, and the DM doesn’t see the problem (or sees the problem but is worried about implementing a variant rule as a solution);
  • not aware of the gritty rest rules brcause no one reads the DMG anyway;
  • they feel the gritty rest rules stretch verisimilitude.
  • they feel the problem is not all long rest classes and they don’t want to hose another class in trying to fix the problem.
 

I think an aspect of this is VERY appropriate for this thread.

Namely, IME, DM fiat is generally used to reign in the caster (vs. give the caster more leeway) while DM fiat is generally used to give the martial as much leeway as possible (vs. reign in the martial). This says A LOT as to the given power levels of the two.
Very true. And relevant to this thread, DMs that are hesitant to invoke fiat (for all manner of reasons), find it that much harder to deal with casters.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think the point is that there is a way to escape the collapsing tower…but that casting teleport is a massive shortcut around it unless the DM pulls out “the walls are made of anti-magic” card.
What I'm saying is that if the DM doesn't know you have teleport, the tower won't collapse immediately. We make the narrative as we go but the DM takes into account your capabilities.
It seems to me that the gritty rest rules are a variant that explicitly recognizes that casters are overpowered compared to martials under the standard rules, but ignores that there are many reasons why groups may choose not to play with it, including:

  • the campaign has both long encounter days and short encounter days, with martials only being overshadowed on short encounter days, and characters being more or less even on long encounter days;
  • gritty rest being unduly punitive for casters at lower levels;
  • recovering spell slots on a non-daily basis “doesn’t feel like D&D”;
  • play exclusively or most often in Adventurer’s League;
  • you are a player, and the DM doesn’t see the problem (or sees the problem but is worried about implementing a variant rule as a solution);
  • not aware of the gritty rest rules brcause no one reads the DMG anyway;
  • they feel the gritty rest rules stretch verisimilitude.
  • they feel the problem is not all long rest classes and they don’t want to hose another class in trying to fix the problem.

As far as the gritty rest rules, primarily I use it for pacing but one of the reasons is to balance out casters. If you only have an encounter or two between long rests they will be overpowered. It's also easy to fix, all without changing martial characters into just another supernatural class.

There is no easy fix, that's what the other thread on rest options is about. But even in games where we didn't use the gritty rest rules that I played in, it was never this yawning gulf of superhero vs plebe that others claim. If someone can teleport us out of the tower, great. It never mattered to me who did it, different PCs had different roles to play. 🤷‍♂️
 

That's generally my experience as well with o5e, especially with newer GMs who didn't GM much if older editions where they had tools like DM's best friend& bonus types or the older 1e/2e with more nebulous support. In o5e that lack of mechanical support tends to result in the fighter's dominance in a fight being extended to other areas of the game that allow a fighter's athletics & history proficiency to overcome almost any obstacle in areas that should be the wheelhouse of a different class in contrast to casters who need the exact situation allowed by a spell to occur at a time when they also have said spell prepared.
Aren’t wizards much better at History than Fighters given that History is an Int skill, on Wizards’ class list, and in many cases, makes sense for Wizards to be proficient in?
 

Oofta

Legend
I think an aspect of this is VERY appropriate for this thread.

Namely, IME, DM fiat is generally used to reign in the caster (vs. give the caster more leeway) while DM fiat is generally used to give the martial as much leeway as possible (vs. reign in the martial). This says A LOT as to the given power levels of the two.
I put some limits on spells. Banishment is not as powerful, teleport is largely nerfed. The banishment thing doesn't return creatures to their home plane unless they are near the portal that brought them because of how the planes work in my cosmology. I think teleport just makes for boring stories.

On the other hand, if a caster comes up with a unique way of using a spell, I'm all for it. Just like the fighter can swing from a chandelier if they want.
 

What I'm saying is that if the DM doesn't know you have teleport, the tower won't collapse immediately. We make the narrative as we go but the DM takes into account your capabilities
That seems to be the opposite from the situation described: the DM designs a situation based on the characters using a particular spell, and for whatever reason, the players don’t (or can’t use that spell).

That also doesn’t seem to be “shenanigans” under any common understanding of the phrase. What about situations where the use of spells bypass or simply ignore a part of the adventure?

I also want to dig in on the last sentence of your response:
We make the narrative as we go but the DM takes into account your capabilities
Emphasis added. IME, the DM only has to take into account your capabilities (specifically your class features) if you are playing a caster. That is part of the problem.
 

Oofta

Legend
That seems to be the opposite from the situation described: the DM designs a situation based on the characters using a particular spell, and for whatever reason, the players don’t (or can’t use that spell).

That also doesn’t seem to be “shenanigans” under any common understanding of the phrase. What about situations where the use of spells bypass or simply ignore a part of the adventure?

I also want to dig in on the last sentence of your response:

Emphasis added. IME, the DM only has to take into account your capabilities (specifically your class features) if you are playing a caster. That is part of the problem.
Magic is a big part of the game. If we didn't have magic, it wouldn't be D&D. So of course the DM has to take magic into consideration. For that matter, if I have a couple of PC fighters in the party that have high AC, I also have to take that into consideration. I have a fighter in my current game that has double the HP of the wizard and significantly more than anyone other PC. If I want to put that PC at risk I have to work at it, and yes, sometimes I build encounters with that in mind. I want everyone to be challenged now and then.

But saying the DM has to take into account all aspects of the party is just common sense. Same way that I wouldn't want a gamer where "Rocks fall everyone dies" if there is one and only one solution to a problem.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
I put some limits on spells. Banishment is not as powerful, teleport is largely nerfed. The banishment thing doesn't return creatures to their home plane unless they are near the portal that brought them because of how the planes work in my cosmology. I think teleport just makes for boring stories.

On the other hand, if a caster comes up with a unique way of using a spell, I'm all for it. Just like the fighter can swing from a chandelier if they want.

Casters have so many "I win" buttons that I'm extremely hesitant to allow "creative" application of spells.

I've found that just allows for casters to step on even more toes than they already do.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Casters have so many "I win" buttons that I'm extremely hesitant to allow "creative" application of spells.

I've found that just allows for casters to step on even more toes than they already do.
I don't know that "creative" necessarily has to mean "beyond the normal scope of the spell". There are plenty of creative uses for spells that just use them as written.

For example, we once had a powerful allied NPC that was taken over by a parasitic organism that made her hostile. It resisted everything we could think of to cure it. So we killed her, which in turn killed the parasite, and then Resurrected her (but not the parasite)

Which is a bog standard use of Resurrection, but a creative (IMO) application thereof.
 

Oofta

Legend
I'm not saying that magic is not powerful. It is, obviously. I simply disagree with the idea that casters are far and beyond more powerful, that a fighter is pointless or needs to become yet another caster in all but name to compete. The game wouldn't be D&D without magic. But if someone can cast teleport in the party, why does that make my fighter less and not just different?

As far as DMs going out of their way to nerf casters? I can't count how many times my fighter that relies on heavy armor has been nerfed.
  • No weapons allowed for this encounter. Wizard with a "walking staff"? No problem?
  • Armor is forbidden in the city
  • Wearing armor overnight while camping is forbidden*
  • Heat metal cast on armor has no counter and you just suck
  • Wearing heavy armor adjacent to water or heaven forbid a boat? You, and likely only you, will be going in the water where you immediately sink to the bottom.
  • You can't wear heavy armor if the average temperature is above 80 Fahrenheit. The fact that any real world armor had a heavy quilted gambeson padding underneath is not relevant.
I'm sure I could come up with a longer list if I thought for a moment and it's a different topic.

*I have no idea how bad it would be, unless you've tried it in well fitting armor, neither do you.
 



Mort

Legend
Supporter
I don't know that "creative" necessarily has to mean "beyond the normal scope of the spell". There are plenty of creative uses for spells that just use them as written.

For example, we once had a powerful allied NPC that was taken over by a parasitic organism that made her hostile. It resisted everything we could think of to cure it. So we killed her, which in turn killed the parasite, and then Resurrected her (but not the parasite)

Which is a bog standard use of Resurrection, but a creative (IMO) application thereof.

Well, sure - that's using the spell as intended, even though it's a good use of it. Using the spell for its intended purpose but applied just right? That's great.

But, IME "creative" use of a spell means trying to go outside those boundaries (for ex. I can't count how many players in earlier editions tried to use the light spell as a "blind" spell). And that's usually a step too far for me. I refuse to have D&D magic, which is 100% reliable ALSO be extremely versatile in application. That's just gilding the lily!
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top