Ethos for a New Edition

[Sunseeker]

You reduce the access and automaticity (making up a word) of spellcasting. It is powerful given optimum conditions, but those optimum conditions are not easily garnered, particularly during combat. Combat needs to be a rough place for the wizard to be.

This really sums up the problem though.

How do we balance casters to non-casters? Nerf casters.

This is something I see regularly in MMO design. The solution is almost universally to nerf a superior class in order to put i on par with an inferior class. Why is the solution never to improve an inferior class?

 

[Dannager]

I think that the answer ought to be: he doesn't (compete, that is).

I think it's fine for some classes to be unable to compete with others in certain spheres, at certain times, or in certain circumstances. A fighter (of just about any level) unable to compete with a high-level wizard seems pretty logical to me.

Then this is a fundamental disagreement through which I very much doubt common ground can be found. A game in which a core character choice that is presented as utterly valid is similarly utterly unable to compete with another core character choice is a poor game. A poor game. The rest of your post addresses issues like finding a way to slay the Wizard when he's not protected, but those are barely worth addressing - a Wizard worth his salt, in nearly every edition of the game, would be nigh impossible to catch vulnerable, especially by a Fighter. On the other hand, a Fighter would find it very nearly impossible to protect himself from the Wizard were the scenario to be reversed. Again, the Wizard and Fighter are playing different games. The Fighter is playing a game of hitting things and being restricted to believable reality, and the Wizard is playing a game of doing anything that he wants to anyone he wants.

If the opinion you express above is one that you plan to continue to hold, then I have nothing more to offer beyond the following: I sincerely hope that you find another game - one that is not Dungeons & Dragons - to enjoy and influence the development of.

I'm still hoping that someone comes up with a solution to the fighter-wizard problem, that allows magic to be flexible and powerful, while also allowing non-spellcasters to play in the same game that they do, and while preserving enough "verisimilitude" (an oft-abused word) that the Fighters-can't-have-nice-things crowd is satisfied. I just really don't think it can be done, given how diametrically opposed those priorities are.

 

[SKyOdin]

I think that the answer ought to be: he doesn't (compete, that is).

I think it's fine for some classes to be unable to compete with others in certain spheres, at certain times, or in certain circumstances. A fighter (of just about any level) unable to compete with a high-level wizard seems pretty logical to me. I've never felt compelled to play a wizard (or a spellcaster) over any other class in 1E and 3E, because the other classes were still fun to play.

I also think that the basic precept that classes ought to be balanced is flawed. A RPG is not about competition anyway. If it was, the DM could simply have all PCs die and be done with it, and he'd win. An RPG is about an experience in gaming where character flaws contribute to the story. This is recognized by many, some gaming systems even include flaws in the core rules (Savage Worlds, for example). If I play a fighter that wishes to defeat a wizard, the idea is not to find a way to slay the invisible, flying, protected-from-arrows mage in a 1v1 battle; it's about finding a way to defeat him when he's not invisible, flying and protected from arrows.

So I think that a wizard outshining a fighter in high-level combat should be expected. The fighter still needs to be in that adventure group when the wizard hasn't cast his protective spells, when the group is low level, and generally he's always pretty useful anyway, in the end. (And many fighters find a way to fly too, ultimately ).

I think that is a painfully short-sighted position to take. Who the heck would play the fighter in that situation? What is the point of playing a fighter in that kind of game? Why shouldn't everyone play wizards? Why would playing a fighter be any fun in that style of game? It might be fun for the wizard, but it would not be very fun for the fighter at all!


In any case, I think the ultimate problem to this verisimilitude problem is interjecting some verisimilitude into the wizard class itself. Traditionally, magic in D&D comes down to:
1) The Wizard wiggles his fingers and says some funny words.
2) ???
3) Reality upends itself for the Wizard's benefit.

Can anyone actually tell me how a wizard is supposed to turn a lump of bat guano into a fireball? There isn't an answer to that question! Arcane magic is so completely divested of actual flavor or any nod to realism that even the simplist question about it is impossible to answer.

In a lot of the fantasy stories I enjoy can explain answer these kinds of question. In some, wizards can throw around fireballs because they are tapping into great leylines and nodes of natural magical energy that crisscross the world. In other works, mages astrally project themselves into neighboring realities and acquire the aid of he powerful spirits dwelling there. In others still, spellcasters combine their inner mental and physical energy with complex hand-signs and inherent element natures to bring forth powerful magic. For this kind of fantasy, magic is explainable, but that makes it interesting and evocative.

The problem is that this kind of evocative flavor comes with a necessary partner: limitation. A wizard who draws upon leylines for power can't exactly wield his best magic where there isn't a leyline. That means that any kind of flavorful magic isn't going to be nearly as complete in scope as magic has always been in D&D.

That is the ultimate root of the verisimilitude problem in D&D: the desire for magic that is complete in scope is at odds with the desire for magic that is flavorful and interesting. D&D magic has sacrificed flavor on the alter of more mechanical power.

 

[Dannager]

This really sums up the problem though.

How do we balance casters to non-casters? Nerf casters.

This is something I see regularly in MMO design. The solution is almost universally to nerf a superior class in order to put i on par with an inferior class. Why is the solution never to improve an inferior class?

In the case of MMOs, it's to tighten the reins on the game's steadily-increasing overall power level, something that needs to be carefully managed.

In the case of D&D, it's to satisfy the people who want verisimilitude at the top of their priority list.

 

[Umbran]

Then this is a fundamental disagreement through which I very much doubt common ground can be found. A game in which a core character choice that is presented as utterly valid is similarly utterly unable to compete with another core character choice is a poor game.

Let me repeat what he said there, as there's qualifiers that matter (emphasis mine):

"I think it's fine for some classes to be unable to compete with others in certain spheres, at certain times, or in certain circumstances. "

This is not saying, "wizard always trumps warrior".

If I may, it sounds a bit like you're focused on tactics, but disallowing strategy. The soul of tactics is the ability to use what you've been given to good effect. The soul of strategy is arranging to be given what you need to win. If the BBEG picks the ground, the sphere, time, and circumstance, well then he *should* kick your behind. This is a fairly solid heroic genre trope, and I wonder that you argue against it.

 

[SKyOdin]

This really sums up the problem though.

How do we balance casters to non-casters? Nerf casters.

This is something I see regularly in MMO design. The solution is almost universally to nerf a superior class in order to put i on par with an inferior class. Why is the solution never to improve an inferior class?

I would be fine with buffing fighters up to caster power levels and versatility. I am a huge fan of anime where fighters can move so fast they practically teleport across battlefields, can jump 60 feet into the air, and can take out 15 enemies with a single secret technique. Unfortunately, there is resistance against letting this kind of stuff into D&D, possibly from the same people who want wizards to do all of that stuff.

 

[Dannager]

Let me repeat what he said there, as there's qualifiers that matter (emphasis mine):

"I think it's fine for some classes to be unable to compete with others in certain spheres, at certain times, or in certain circumstances. "

This is not saying, "wizard always trumps warrior".

If I may, it sounds a bit like you're focused on tactics, but disallowing strategy. The soul of tactics is the ability to use what you've been given to good effect. The soul of strategy is arranging to be given what you need to win. If the BBEG picks the ground, the sphere, time, and circumstance, well then he *should* kick your behind. This is a fairly solid heroic genre trope, and I wonder that you argue against it.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether you're arguing on tactics or strategy; the Wizard has the inherent advantage in both.

Spellcasters in D&D, especially at high levels (where the spellcaster/non-spellcaster disparity becomes both most obvious and most detrimental to play), are miles better-positioned to decide on the circumstances of an encounter than a non-spellcaster is. They have access to teleportation, scrying, summoning, plane shifting, game-altering zone effects, time-slowing, and any number of other tools - any one of which by itself would be enough to cripple even a well-crafted mundane plot (and, ironically, this is something that we hear complaints about constantly - "Help! My players are running spellcasters and they're ruining my adventure in high-level play!")

It seems like your point here is boiled down to, "But the Fighter could craft a plan to beat the Wizard!" and the obvious response to that is, "So could the Wizard, except he has this massive box of tools to help him craft that plan / disrupt the Fighter's plan that the Fighter doesn't have."

 

[Sunseeker]

In the case of D&D, it's to satisfy the people who want verisimilitude at the top of their priority list.

Versimilitude is such a ridiculous concept in a FANTASY game. Oh mages and their variants can raise undead warriors, bring forests and stone statues to life, teleport across the planes, great! But a fighter? No all they can do is use a sword and shield. Wanna let fighters jump great distances? That's not real!

It's disgusting hipocracy and usually comes from the mouths of people who only play casters.

 

[Dannager]

Versimilitude is such a ridiculous concept in a FANTASY game. Oh mages and their variants can raise undead warriors, bring forests and stone statues to life, teleport across the planes, great! But a fighter? No all they can do is use a sword and shield. Wanna let fighters jump great distances? That's not real!

It's disgusting hipocracy and usually comes from the mouths of people who only play casters.

Verisimilitude has a place within fiction. I won't deny them that. But fiction and games have different priorities (or ought to). Verisimilitude needs to give way to any number of other priorities in game design.

 

[Sunseeker]

Verisimilitude has a place within fiction. I won't deny them that. But fiction and games have different priorities (or ought to). Verisimilitude needs to give way to any number of other priorities in game design.

Sure, but you can't hypocritically say wizards get to break all the rules 'cause they've got magic, but fighters have to abide by real-world physics.