Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

Which is why I don't buy the argument that you can simply limit caster power by exercising DM force.

I thought I would try again to posit a philosophical viewpoint and my approach to the game, and maybe this time the point will sink in.

There is no effort on my part, in any of my games, to actively and purposefully "limit" caster power. None. Nada. Zilch.


Now that does not mean that casters can then just do what they want. They must abide by the rules and the restrictions of the same (and those of the game world). They cannot, for instance, all of a sudden, decide that their magic missiles do 1d8+23 points of damage each or that they automatically overcome spell resistance. Nor can they use polymorph to grant themselves the power to cast wishes (I turn into a noble djinn!). Nor can they mind-control people through charm. But these are not ME trying to limit them; its a consensus that we are going to abide by the rules and that each person is constrained by the limits the rules impose on their ability.

Within that paradigm, however, my casters, non-casters, quasi-casters, and any character unsure of their caster identity, can attempt anything they want. And they generally do. And we have fun. The whole idea of working to "limit" caster power just seems rather silly.

My primary purpose in this thread then, besides trying to make that point, is to engage in a dialogue about how people are allowing spells to be used. And it does seem to me that there is a misunderstanding about certain things which leads to spells being improperly used. I have to wonder how many people try to actually do these things in game, but most of what has been suggested has simply been, imo, bad rules interpretation (the simulacrum casting wish being a good example; the astral projected luck blade being another).

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION]
Seconded on that.

 

[Aenghus]

Re Simulacrum, it's my experience that one or more NPCs of the DM use the spell first as it's apparently intended, as a "bad guy" spell to replace existing NPCs or perhaps PCs, or make loyal minions. For that purpose granting half levels, caster powers etc assists in the deception and/or their effectiveness.

I can't provide a reference but I believe I do remember at least one printed module where a simulacrum with casting powers of a spellcaster was used.

So the spell can be interpreted in a number of ways, and if it stays in the hands of NPCs the interpretation doesn't matter so much. In 3.x it is much more likely the party will eventually be able to use the spell themselves, and then the interpretation matters.

If the PCs rise to the level they can cast Simulacrum the precedent is already set. The way the spell works can be changed at that point, but it's probably obvious to the players what's happening even if they are not told.

A 4e solution to this issue is to make spells like Simulacrum into rituals, in which case it's easier to have bad-guy plot device rituals that are inconvenient or impossible for the PCs to cast even if they get their hands on them. 4e tries to break the expectation that PCs can duplicate anything they see NPCs do, as some powers that are fine for NPCs are potentially broken when used by PCs.

 

[Wicht]

I know that James Jacobs, among others, has suggested simulacrum works best as an NPC spell and that it requires a DM to give careful consideration to what powers can or cannot be used by the created. I think that's right. Its definitely a spell that everyone acknowledges demands by its very nature, DM fiat when used by PCs. But even so, players who want to abuse the spell have no ground to stand on, via the spell text, to demand specific spell casting abilities for their creation. It is up to the DM to decide what is appropriate for the creature to have.

As stated above, I would not allow any PC, sans additional spells, to create a creature that has spellcasting abilities or spell like abilities. I would dictate that much as crafting a magic item requires additional spells to power each effect, you must cast the spells themselves to give your creation access to the spells or spell like abilities. That is, think of the simulacrum in terms of crafting a magical item and you get some guidelines as to how it might work best. But even besides this, any spell or spell like ability above 6th level (ie. wish) should just a non-starter regardless of the creature (again sans additional crafting requirements).

As for NPC creation/use of the spell, it happens off-screen and one can always assume they provided the necessary ingredients and spells to power the spell to create the NPC simulacrum desired.

 

[Imaro]

In summation, 4e, when played to its default and its sweet spot, plays very similar to a MHRP or Dungeon World with an order of magnitude more tactical overhead (no these two concepts don't have to be at tension).

I guess we all have our opinions but I have played MHRP and I don't find that 4e plays anything like it (Not sure about Dungeon World since I've never played it but the discussions I've seen paints it as a pretty traditional rpg that happens to codify many things)... they are literally (IMO) two totally different experiences when running or playing them... but to each his own. I'll let this tangent go since apparently me not agreeing with how another views 4e is no longer fodder for discussion but instead has become me not liking the individual poster...

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess we all have our opinions but I have played MHRP and I don't find that 4e plays anything like it (Not sure about Dungeon World since I've never played it but the discussions I've seen paints it as a pretty traditional rpg that happens to codify many things)... they are literally (IMO) two totally different experiences when running or playing them... but to each his own. I'll let this tangent go since apparently me not agreeing with how another views 4e is no longer fodder for discussion but instead has become me not liking the individual poster...

Mate, I don't think you need to "let it go", but I think the area you're treading would be better served:

A) As another thread

B) One that focuses very specifically on an issue with respect to what you have here. For instance. I think a conversation discussing 4e, 13th Age, MHRP, and Dungeon Worlds (pick 2 or 3 of those)default playstyle/creative agenda, their respective GMing advice and their respective techniques to propogate the default playstale and GMing advice would probably be a very functional and interesting thread. I think there we could probably get "under the hood" and discuss the differences and "what they mean." You just played a bout of 13th Age. I've ran 2 one-offs and have read the book in full and I'm a firm advocate of both systems but there are distinctions to be made. I suspect that there would be enough folks to generate interesting commentary there.

As I posted above, I've just posted way, way, way too many words on these subjects and I know I'm not alone in that. And our experiences are so deeply different that its difficult to even start at a focused base, let alone cover the nuance (of which we've probably both posted about over and over). I'm in awe of @pemerton 's ability and willingness to continuously generate commentary or reframe things he's written prior. I just can't do it. I start to facepalm, cost-benifit analysis and eventually I glaze over with disinterest (given your words, I suspect you're of the same position just cutting the other way).

As to what the game's default plays like. All I can say is that I've run both of those afformentioned systems tons (and plenty others like them). With this group. The 3 players that I have (who aren't internet RPG bloggy people) all have commented on how similar (with some certain nuance, most specifically the tactical crunch) the 3 games are as manifested at my table.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

One of the issues I have with Simulacrum is that listing "special abilities" from the start creates issues because the entire special abilities index is so broad that there will certainly be problems with keeping things appropriate to the campaign if the players are going to actively use it. I think it could have been helpful if some of the spells had been put in the DMG and said explicitly "These spells are best used by the DM. Only through careful consideration should the DM let these spells be used by players due to the way they can change the very game being played." or something along those lines.

If the idea of only the DM having access to certain spells is abhorrent then perhaps those spells either shouldn't exist in the first place or they should be changed to not screw with the campaign world in so many different ways.

But the key with that is making sure the players know how the DM handles something like that before the player(s) put a lot of time and/or effort into it. One of the key parts of that for both players and DMs is that they won't foresee all the possible consequences, so it's up to both to be calm, collected, and upfront about things. As a DM I'd have no problem saying "I wish you had told me what you planned on doing before you got into it. I don't allow X in my games because I find it creates problems (and explain what some of the problems are). If you want we can reset things to before you started doing this stuff."

I would hope players would be patient enough with that sort of explanation not to have such issues with it that they become resentful. happens, don't let it carry you away into the sewers!

 

[Wicht]

One of the issues I have with Simulacrum is that listing "special abilities" from the start creates issues because the entire special abilities index is so broad that there will certainly be problems with keeping things appropriate to the campaign if the players are going to actively use it. I think it could have been helpful if some of the spells had been put in the DMG and said explicitly "These spells are best used by the DM. Only through careful consideration should the DM let these spells be used by players due to the way they can change the very game being played." or something along those lines.

I can actually see Sumulacrum being far more open to abuse than just about any other spell mentioned thus far, excepting maybe polymorph (though again that issue was fixed in Pathfinder), and for much the same reason (large number of npc creatures). And it does require DM oversight to keep it in check (not by sticking it to the casters, but by making sure that the more open ended spells are kept within the spirit of the rules as intended). But I don't see this as a bug. Though I can understand why a group looking to interpret things in a certain way could certainly push the game into break territory, being able to break something does not prove its broken. (Look, I broke my car by driving 200 miles per hour down the side of a mountain road - stupid engineers!) In truth, as a designer, adventure writer and creative tinkerer sort, I like a system thats a little open ended but still has nice guides to give you direction. I see it as a feature of the system. But you do have to maintain some guidelines (one being that a 6th level spell or a 7th level spell should never get you a 9th level spell for free.) And you do have to use some common sense.

But Simulacrum, while being ripe for abuse in the hands of malicious players and a push-over DM, is not broken. Its just one of the more easily abused spells. I don't personally mind players having it, but I could see why some DMs might want it to be DM only.

 

[N'raac]

@Wicht
Seconded on that.

Thirded.

 

[Quartz]

The Simulacrum spell isn't a problem. You've just got to enforce the restrictions. For example, the spell takes 12 hours to cast so you cannot create an instant army. And each simulacrum is going to have to memorise spells (if a wizard) separately, so either they each have their own spellbooks or extra time is required. And there's no telepathic link. You need a source of ice or snow. You need the rubies. You need to pay the XP cost. Etc. For further example, a 13th level caster is going to create only a 6th level simulacrum of herself, and maybe an 8th level simulacrum of her 16th level fighter colleagues. Simulacra of those levels are not going to last long in a high-level adventure anyway. The aforementioned wizard will need to be at least 34th level to create a simulacrum of herself that can cast 9th level spells; well before that time Eidolon is a better option.

Top tip: simply drag out the PC's old character sheet from when they were that level and make a copy to save time.