D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)

[EzekielRaiden]

How often do you actually see anti magic in play?

I don't consider the frequency relevant. The fact that the limitation exists is all I need to say that, yes, it is in fact magic, even if it is magic replicating a mundane action.

 

[CleverNickName]

"getting to play the worst character in the party"? "an empty gun that needs to be a club now"? "crossbows suck as weapons for characters not specced into them"?

@Vaalingrade I think you and I are playing different games. Or we are playing the same game very differently. I don't know what else I can say.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sure you figured it out by now, but I was being facetious.

Not really. I mean, I had a suspicion, but on the internet with this kind of discussion, it is impossible to be sure unless someone explicitly says, and occasionally even then it's not always clear. (The conditions for such unclear seriousness don't apply here and are much too sensitive to specify in a conversation like this. Suffice it to say I believe you, but there are contexts where someone saying "c'mon, I'm obviously joking!" would not be even remotely convincing.)

I will never understand the argument against wizards with crossbows. For some folks, a wizard with a weapon is a character design flaw. And for others, the lack of a weapon is the real problem. I don't really have a problem with either. It seems like you do, however, and that's fine. I'm not here to change anyone's mind.

As long as the effort is functional and within effective design parameters, I couldn't care less whether it is a crossbow or a cantrip or a thrown playing card.

The problem is, D&D never lets it be functional in this way. A Magic-User(/Wizard) using a crossbow is nearly useless. This is intended to compensate for them being extremely powerful when they aren't using said crossbow, so that the class gets an overall average power output comparable to the "reliable" Fighting-Man(/Fighter) or Thief(/Rogue.) The problem, of course, is that the time spent in the crossbow state can be controlled, at least in part, by the Wizard player himself. If it is reduced as much as possible, he gets to be as powerful as possible; the ideal state of affairs being one where he completely eliminates the dull, ineffectual crossbow-Wizard state entirely, leaving only the phenomenal-cosmic-power spellcasting-Wizard. Now, consider the same calculus from the Fighter's perspective. She, naturally, wishes to succeed at her goals in the game. The succeeds most when she and her allies have the greatest power they can achieve while minimizing cost and risk. Hence, it is also in her own rational best interest to support the Wizard's efforts to never ever be forced into the crossbow-Wizard state if it can be avoided. Because her own power level is essentially constant, it makes no difference to her individually whether she rests now or rests in several hours. Hence, unless there is outside pressure to stop it, she will rationally support the Wizard's efforts to increase his own potency per unit time, even though this is a detriment to her own contributions. Even if she has negative feelings about making such decisions, the objective fact that greater success is within reach if the Wizard has (to borrow a video game term) "100% uptime" means it would require a very large negative sentiment in order to overcome the objective benefits. "Dominant Strategy" and all that.

These facts then immediately lead to the DM/Wizard tug of war, and thence to their arms race. The DM is obliged to apply external motivations to force the Wizard player into sucky crossbow-Wizard time, and the Wizard is obliged to pull every trick and ploy they can to avoid the un-fun, uninteresting, unproductive crossbow-Wizard time. This then encourages the Wizard to view every situation from the position of how it can be exploited to minimize crossbow-Wizard time, and the DM to view every situation for how it can prevent the Wizard from walking all over it: an immediate arms race made only more critical by the sheer number of ridiculously powerful spells that obviate undesirable situations.

All this...because D&D clings to this idea that crossbows should only be good if you're invested into them and Wizards should suck when they have no proper spells left to cast.

This, this thing right here? This is players "optimizing the fun" out of a game. It is players making rational decisions even when those decisions aren't what they would generally be happy with, because they want to succeed. The correct fix is not to double down and try to make it even harder to optimize so people eventually give up. It is, instead, to make it so there is no difference between "choose to do the fun thing" and "choose to do a successful thing." When the distance between optimal strategy and doing things for fun shrinks to (effectively) zero, the game ceases to be subject to these problems, and instead actively rewards and encourages players who play it for the joy doing so. Those who have intrinsic motivation will not be punished for following those intrinsic motives, and thus won't feel resentful for (in their minds) "playing right." Those who only have extrinsic motivation will be rewarded not only with success, but with being prosocial and constructive, and thus won't feel demonized for (in their minds) "playing right."

"getting to play the worst character in the party"? "an empty gun that needs to be a club now"? "crossbows suck as weapons for characters not specced into them"?

@Vaalingrade I think you and I are playing different games. Or we are playing the same game very differently. I don't know what else I can say.

Are we talking 5e or other editions? Because it is objectively the case that an ordinary Wizard using a crossbow is worse than that same ordinary Wizard using a cantrip. Wizards don't get Extra Attack (barring subclass) and thus can only potentially hit a single time, while cantrips go up in number of damage dice rolled, and crossbows must be reloaded, further degrading the performance thereof. I am fairly sure these patterns applied in previous editions. Certainly, you must grant that the crossbow in a Wizard's hands is significantly inferior to almost any other class, regardless of edition, yes?

 

[Shadowdweller00]

One of the things I've personally been a bit iffy on in 5e so is the idea of cantrips being the base attack routines of casters in 5e. Or at least being able to fire energy bolts at will. Doing so kinda makes the magic feel... less magical... to me? Amongst other things it seems generally too easy to bypass regeneration, or physical damage resistance. One alternative I've toyed with conceptually would be to have "magically enhanced" weapon attacks that scale as energy cantrips used to. Example: You could have some "magestrike" or "anoint weapon" ability, using a staff/crossbow/dart as the base damage dice, scaling every 5 levels as cantrips presently do, with a spell attack bonus. But still dealing physical damage as a nonmagic weapon.

Back in the 1e/2e days piddly M-U weapon attacks did negligible damage; but could still disrupt another casters' spells for the round, so still had control uses.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

And it is by far the part of 5e I hate the most. Hate is not casually chosen here. I legitimately despise this.

Because it means 5e is explicitly and intentionally the "rug pull" edition. Enjoy having everything rewritten on a whim! Unless, of course, you play a caster. Because spells should always work as advertised. Play a martial? Hahahahah get bent.

Sounds like a you problem; or more accurately "your groups". The groups I play in, and I personally as DM, alter spell effects, interpretations, or enemy susceptibilities all the time to make the game better. (Not on the fly, of course, that would be cheating). Unless you are referring to some hitherto un-pointed-out actions/errata by WotC? In which case, could you elaborate?

 

[Aldarc]

Sounds like a you problem; or more accurately "your groups". The groups I play in, and I personally as DM, alter spell effects, interpretations, or enemy susceptibilities all the time to make the game better. (Not on the fly, of course, that would be cheating). Unless you are referring to some hitherto un-pointed-out actions/errata by WotC? In which case, examples please?

All men are angels in their own stories.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

All men are angels in their own stories.

Or all people have different ideas as to what is fun or balanced. Some with considerably more experience than others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of the things I've personally been a bit iffy on in 5e so is the idea of cantrips being the base attack routines of casters in 5e. Or at least being able to fire energy bolts at will. Doing so kinda makes the magic feel... less magical... to me?

So. What does it mean for "magic [to] feel magical"?

The statement is too ambiguous to discuss, and thus prone to generating frustration and difficulty rather than productive talk. Hence: what does it take for "magic [to] feel magical"? Why is it that being able to shoot fire from your fingertips several times a day is "magical," but being able to do it most of the time is not "magical"?

My tone is somewhat harsh here, and for that I apologize. But without really drilling down and getting specific answers on this, it's worse than a dead end for discussion, it specifically pushes things toward being at one another's throats. I'd rather be blunt and try to cut such problems off well in advance.

Amongst other things it seems generally too easy to bypass regeneration, or physical damage resistance. One alternative I've toyed with conceptually would be to have "magically enhanced" weapon attacks that scale as energy cantrips used to. Example: You could have some "magestrike" or "anoint weapon" ability, using a staff/crossbow/dart as the base damage dice, scaling every 5 levels as cantrips presently do, with a spell attack bonus. But still dealing physical damage as a nonmagic weapon.

What, exactly, is the benefit here? Don't spellcasters already rule the roost for dealing with these problems anyway?

Back in the 1e/2e days piddly M-U weapon attacks did crap damage; but could still disrupt another casters' spells for the round, so still had control uses.

If you could hit with them. Wizard AC might not have been very low, but Wizard attack tables/THAC0 values weren't that good either. Which was part of my point above. The outright design intent of the 1e/2e Magic-User/Wizard was that it would be incredibly powerful when it had a useful spell, but spells were supposed to be narrow in utility and rare in supply so the Wizard would have to ration out their phenomenal cosmic power. In practice, this just created incentives to (a) develop new spells that were generally useful or acquire already existing powerful and near-universal spells like fly, haste, and invisibility; and to (b) minimize as much as possible any time spent firing crossbows, aka the 5MWD and spending a spell or two to obviate problems long before they could show up (e.g. food/water, shelter, transportation, communication, etc.)

In other words, the Magic-User/Wizard is taught, by the rules of the game, to reject the two intended constraints on the Wizard: do everything you can to get the most broadly-applicable spells you can find, so that you will never be in a situation where you have spells prepared but none of them are useful, and do everything you can to regain your spells as frequently as possible, so that your spells are not a rare resource but instead a reliable one. (The two also synergize: if you do get caught with a prepared spell you have no use for, resting is how you switch to a spell that would be useful.)

The Wizard is rewarded for playing in a selfish, do-it-my-way manner. The non-Wizard is indirectly punished for failing to go along with the Wizard's selfish interests.

Sounds like a you problem; or more accurately "your groups". The groups I play in, and I personally as DM, alter spell effects, interpretations, or enemy susceptibilities all the time to make the game better. (Not on the fly, of course, that would be cheating). Unless you are referring to some hitherto un-pointed-out actions/errata by WotC? In which case, could you elaborate?

But "on the fly" is exactly the thing being discussed. Everyone has always had the ability to tweak the rules openly and outside of play. That benefit has never, not once, in all of TTRPG history, ever been denied, nor could it be, short of outright mind control or violent coercion (aka "putting a gun to someone's head.")

Hence, if something differs, it can only be in the secret sense. I called it "rug pull" and "illusionism" for a very good reason. 5e encourages the DM to change both the rules and the world whenever and however they feel like it. And because it is the "DM empowerment" edition, if the players don't like it, tough crap, they should have had the prescience to know that this would be a bad game and that no gaming is better than bad gaming!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or all people have different ideas as to what is fun or balanced. Some with considerably more experience than others.

I hope you realize how condescending this sounds.

 

[Aldarc]

Or all people have different ideas as to what is fun or balanced. Some with considerably more experience than others.

I hope you are not positioning yourself to lord your greater experience over us plebs because that would be downright condescending.