Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

And for heaven's sake 3x/4x start making abilities that function both in-combat and out-of-combat equally well! I want my cleave to work outside combat. I want my sneak attack to work outside combat. I want my diplomacy skill to work in combat. I want abilities that are useful whatever the situation so I can start making characters that are well rounded and yet specialized in what they can do and the way they can do it.

I'm hoping we'll see a bit of this in the scenario with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - it won't go as far as you want (4e, as written, can't), but I think it can be pushed further than is sometimes suggested.

3E I can't really comment on in this respect, except to say if played with a more process-sim approach that might be an obstacle; 4e allows (some) crossover of abilities by eschewing process sim.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. A boat that gets too many hole in it eventually turns from boat to sieve, and sinks. An RPG that gets too much player over authority and backstory becomes a shared story-telling game. Neither boats nor RPGs (indie or otherwise) are between two poles. They just have points of potential vulnerability to their funtion.

In an RPG playing one's character is fairly key. Hence, authority over backstory and situation have to be handled with care, because it can be hard for a player to at one and the same time play his/her PC and narrate (certain elements of) backstory and situation.

So in this paradigm, an "indie rpg" is a ship with a leak, and the players are the guys with buckets throwing water overboard?

This is what I have in mind: you (Ahnehnois) tend to assert a continuity between classic D&D and 3E (presumably via 2nd ed AD&D) and deny that 4e is part of that trajectory.

I don't know about that. 3e was released in 2000. I'd call 3e "classic" at this point. 2e as well, I suppose.

There does seem to be a clear trajectory from the late 2e stuff I'm familiar with to 3.0 to 3.5, and no 4e is not on that trajectory.

As for what is best for 3E, I defer to those with more experince.

Great! I'm still running it.

But I can guarantee that there are (or, at least, were) a lot of peoople playing it (or trying to play it) in a player driven style: the Necromancer modules (classic D&D gamism), the Penumbra modules (shades of indie), in fact the whole "back to the dungeon" slogan suggests a departure from 2nd ed norms.

Some, no doubt. As there are people who modify every other aspect of the game. I'm only saying that this isn't what's on the page; I can't account for everyone's individual game.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm hoping we'll see a bit of this in the scenario with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - it won't go as far as you want (4e, as written, can't), but I think it can be pushed further than is sometimes suggested.

3E I can't really comment on in this respect, except to say if played with a more process-sim approach that might be an obstacle; 4e allows (some) crossover of abilities by eschewing process sim.

I'm hoping so as well, which is one of the reasons I'm playing in it. The hard part I'm finding is to ignore the "damage" part of abilities and focus on the effects. What if I want to use an ability to push people back but not damage them, when the ability only triggers on an attack? That sort of thing. It's in my top 5 grumps about 4e, the missed opportunity to combine combat and non combat abilities, especially since at the release, there were so few non-combat powers.

Anyway, it'll be interesting.

 

[Wicht]

So, you admit that you have changed the text of the spell in order to maintain game balance?

No...

I have repeatedly said I am interpreting the text in a way that maintain's game balance. I have made no changes to the text for my interpretation.

How is my interpretation generous? I'm going by what's actually written there. It doesn't say that racial abilities are limited in some fashion.

The spell does not mention racial abilities at all. Racial abilities must be included in special abilities, which are each and every one subject to DM fiat in this particular spell.

The simulacrum does not actually belong to the race in question, whatever race that is. Notice the text. "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creatureof that level or HD)."

Notice the highlights. It is an illusion, not the real thing. It is partially real, but its not actually completely real. There is no mention of the creatures type or race. It appears to be the same, but it is not the same. It has the special abilities typical to a creature's level or HD. The word "creature" there is generic and there is no mention of race. It does not say it has the special abilities for a creature of that race. The underlined text specifically refers to level and HD. Not to race.

To read racial abilities into the text, you must add words to the text.

Umm, you have actually changed the text of the spell in question. A simulacrum of a 14th level cleric would have 4th level spells. A simulacrum of a dragon would have a breath weapon and caster abilities of a dragon half its hit dice. Limiting simulacrum's to 1-3rd level spells is completely outside the text of the spell. You have re-written the spell.

No I haven't. Your assertion is simply and factually wrong.

A simulacrum dragon might have a breath weapon. But there is nothing in the text that says it has to have any particular ability. Racial abilities are not mentioned at all, except as they are special abilities, and ALL special abilities are subject to DM discretion by a reasonable reading of the wording of the spell.

I would point out, that in reading some other threads on this, I am not alone in this interpretation: all special abilities are subject to DM discretion. There is nothing in the spell that mandates spell casting remains. Its simply not there and you cannot point to a sentence that says it.

Just to be absolutely clear here, by the text of the spell, there is nothing preventing a wizard from doing it to himself to gain a wizard completely under his own control. That simulacrum could study from his spell book and cast spells as a caster half the level of the original. And, it would have all the feats of the wizard half the level.

"Nothing" except the DM, whose interpretation of what is permissible or not permissible under the spell, is the actual standard in each game in which this spell is going to be used.

How's that for a potions and scroll making machine? I'm 14th level, so, I create a 7th level simulacrum of myself, complete with magic crafting skills. The simulacrum creates items until it runs out of xp (7th level is 21000 xp), which allows me to craft magic items free of xp cost - although the raw material cost remains the same. All for 700 gp in ruby and 700 xp. Nice work if you can get it.

Well I use Pathfinder and XP costs are not a factor (in point of fact I had already dispensed with xp cost when running 3.5 myself), so all you are doing is spending spell resources to manufacture potions and scrolls faster than you could otherwise do it. I don't find that particularly game-breaking. You still have to pay for the ingredients.

IOW, the spell is completely broken.

The spell requires a stronger DM hand than most others. But it is not broken unless you assume that all racial special abilities must be given to the illusionary creature.

 

[Wicht]

Only when we actually override the rules of the spell (which I believe Wicht does when he suggests removing all spell-like and casting abilities from a simulacrum) do I believe we have crossed the line to “GM Force”.

Well, I have said that I am open to discussion on this part of the ruling.

But the inclusion of "Special Abilities" does not have to, of necessity, mandate spell-like abilities as an absolute must.

I think that, in truth, a simulacrum should appear to be the creature in question, but there should be some things missing as an indication of its lack of actual substance. A "dwarf" without darkvision, for instance, would be such a creation, or a "cleric" that can use wands but doesn't actually have divine spells (why would a deity grant an illusion actual divine spells?). Each such creation must be handled on a case by case basis. Thus the need for strong DM participation in this particular spell.

The spell text, incidentally, I would point out, not only excludes "race" as an actual factor in determining special abilities, it also excludes "class" as a factor. The only two factors spelled out are "Level" and "HD." Everything else is, of necessity, optional.

I do think there are ways the spell could be made clearer; its not perfect. But I don't think its broken either. It just requires significant DM adjucation.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm hoping we'll see a bit of this in the scenario with @Manbearcat - it won't go as far as you want (4e, as written, can't), but I think it can be pushed further than is sometimes suggested.

3E I can't really comment on in this respect, except to say if played with a more process-sim approach that might be an obstacle; 4e allows (some) crossover of abilities by eschewing process sim.

I'm hoping so as well, which is one of the reasons I'm playing in it. The hard part I'm finding is to ignore the "damage" part of abilities and focus on the effects. What if I want to use an ability to push people back but not damage them, when the ability only triggers on an attack? That sort of thing. It's in my top 5 grumps about 4e, the missed opportunity to combine combat and non combat abilities, especially since at the release, there were so few non-combat powers.

Anyway, it'll be interesting.

Much of this is in leveraging good GMing principles. The DMG2 gives some good (but sparse) advice on this but I find that MHRP guidelines are most helpful here:

(a) - Clearly set the general stakes and scene elements such that they are relevant and engaging to the PCs, challenging both their ethos and their build elements.

(b) - Know your PCs' build elements/archetype.

(c) - Adeptly frame the scene (and its elements) to specifically pressure the current PC with respect to their build capabilities. In the same way that you would frame superheroes with area attacks against a bunch of mooks so they can leverage an AoE/flurry/cleave, if the Fighter is a cleave build, give him opportunities to express that with mulitple enemies either engaging him or engaging what is at stake (the princess or the MacGuffin, etc).

(d) - Be willing to say yes to players who are doing what you want; they are being proactive and "attacking" the fiction with tight respect to genre constraints and fictional positioning. As in the above example, just as you would frame Wolverine into a mook-fest and say yes when he wants to deploy AoE (and give him the dice to his dice pool), you would also say yes to the Fighter analogue; engage him with mooks, award him for being proactive and "attacking" the fictional positioning with coherent deployment of cleave/flurry abilities, and give him a + 2 (or perhaps more if he deploys a limited use ability) bonus to this resolution roll.

(e) - Know the system and its math. If the general % of a successful skill roll with a trained skill is a mean 75 % (or more with other investments), don't be afraid to buff an attack roll if the player is properly engaged, attacking the moment, and leveraging functional fictional positioning. A + 2 might just move you from a ~ 65 % chance to a ~ 75 % chance (right where a trained skill would be). No problem. Deeper investment (limited use) should increase chances further or give the player outright fiat (such as auto success with a daily) with a future, applicable rider (such as + 2 on the next attack roll against the target). You can certainly get the player in on how that rider will emerge; a + 2 to one future roll is a good start. Encounter power investment I typically allow the player a + 3 to distrubute how they wish, either on their own resolution or as a bonus to another player's future roll. With Dailies, its typically auto-success on current resolution (with the expenditure of a healing surge) with a future + 2 to be distributed by the player as it best makes sense (with respect to the specific deployed ability and the fictional positioning).

(f) - Keep other assets in mind. You still want to be challenging players' skills, not just their combat resources.

(g) - Micro-losses accrue healing surge loss across the entirety of the PCs with loss conditions being met resulting in further surge loss as well as failure in whatever stakes-issue was set. When I do this with 4e, the stakes will never be "live or die" for the players. it will typically be "live or die" or a loss of someone or some thing they are trying to protect/control/maintain with that loss complicating future events.

Anyway, that is what I do. There is some disfunction now and again but it generally does the trick reasonably well. Again, right now its just Transition Scene stuff; fixing a few elements of unfixed backstory, establishing some resources/scene elements for future deployment in the Action Scene, etc. When we run the Action Scene we will see how it goes. If its done right, you will both be framed into specific situations that leverage your PC build components and archetype. If its done wrong then I probably screwed up!

 

[N'raac]

The spell does not mention racial abilities at all. Racial abilities must be included in special abilities, which are each and every one subject to DM fiat in this particular spell.

An srd search of special abilities leads me to http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm. Special abilities are extraordinary, spell-like or supernatural. Natural abilities are "everything else", and are not mentioned at all in the spell text (except for levels, hit dice, hit points, feats and skills).

It is no more "altering the text" to allow no racial abilities whatsoever than to allow all of them. The text is silent. To me, the "most generous interpretation" (which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] adopts) is "they get all racial abilities, no exceptions and no weakening" and the "most restrictive" is that they gain none. No point within that range is outside the wording of the spell.

In other words,

To read racial abilities into the text, you must add words to the text.

However...

I would point out, that in reading some other threads on this, I am not alone in this interpretation: all special abilities are subject to DM discretion. There is nothing in the spell that mandates spell casting remains. Its simply not there and you cannot point to a sentence that says it.

Here we disagree - which is fine. My interpretation is that a creature with half the levels of a spellcaster has spell casting ability appropriate to that level. Practically, a wizard has little else from his levels.

Well I use Pathfinder and XP costs are not a factor (in point of fact I had already dispensed with xp cost when running 3.5 myself), so all you are doing is spending spell resources to manufacture potions and scrolls faster than you could otherwise do it. I don't find that particularly game-breaking. You still have to pay for the ingredients.

To me, the wealth restrictions are the real restrictions. The xp cost is nominal, and a lot of posters past have noted that, if you can fall behind just enough to be 1 level down on the party, the extra xp you get from the next adventure often pushes you ahead of the rest in terms of xp, though not level, so that cost was of limited impact unless you went crazy with item creation.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - the xp charts are, of course, not online. Another interpretation of the L7 wizard simulacrum would be that he has precisely enough xp to be L7. Since you cannot spend xp that would drop you a level, he cannot spend xp to create items. Since he does not gain xp, he would never be able to do so. So even if you consider the backroom item creator an issue, it doesn't work in 3.5. It works just fine in Pathfinder, but all it does is provide extra time for crafting.

 

[Wicht]

Here we disagree - which is fine. My interpretation is that a creature with half the levels of a spellcaster has spell casting ability appropriate to that level. Practically, a wizard has little else from his levels.

I'm not sure that I am disagreeing with you exactly on this point, except to disagree that the spell, as written, actually mandates that the simulacrum possess the same class as the original. It does not. What it says is the simulacrum has half the levels of the original, but it does not specify the levels are of the same class. It is conceivably within the parameters of the spell that creating a simulacrum of a 14th level wizard gets you a 7th level creature that might be a fighter. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the most natural use of the spell, but I don't think it would be a misuse of the spell either. There is, indeed, in the literature (cf. Azure Bonds) a bit of a precedent for such a creation occurring (Alias was, iirc, a sort of clone or copy of a female spell-caster; I realize that the simulacrum spell was not exactly what was used, but the idea is very similar).

I think I mentioned it before, but James Jacob notes that Simulacrum is primarily a DM spell for story-telling purposes and its open-ness should be understood in light of this fact. If I, as a DM, want a Simulacrum of a fire-breathing dragon, then the spell allows for that. But if I want a sort of dwarvish doppleganger assassin, which tries to infiltrate a group of dwarves but does not have dark-vision, then the spell allows for that too. If I want a simulacrum to pretend to be a cleric (but deny the simulacrum divine spells), the spell allows for that too. The flexibility of the spell allows for great DM creativity when being used on the story-telling side of the screen.

But with a player using it, then the DM needs to have some sort of clear ideas of what he will or will not allow the player to do with it. My initial suggestion of allowing the player to determine what spell-like abilities the creature has through the use of additional spells was just one idea of how to do this without actually changing the spell. It would be superior, I think, to the DM telling the player what the creature did or did not have. I do not think the player just arbitrarily picking the abilities he likes is the way to go however; indeed story-wise, it is better for the simulacrum to have some deviations from exactly what the player envisioned, potential flaws as it were. But the more the player can pick and choose, the better for his side, which is why I think the inclusion of additional spells is not a bad way to go. Alternatively, like I also said, a point system which allows the player to build in abilities would be a rather neat alteration to the spell and might prove superior play-wise, though more limiting from the DM side of the screen.

 

[cross ofth carpenter]

No. A boat that gets too many hole in it eventually turns from boat to sieve, and sinks.....As for what is best for 3E, I defer to those with more experince. But I can guarantee that there are (or, at least, were) a lot of peoople playing it (or trying to play it) in a player driven style: the Necromancer modules (classic D&D gamism), the Penumbra modules (shades of indie), in fact the whole "back to the dungeon" slogan suggests a departure from 2nd ed norms.

I would like to commemorate the 1800th post in this thread, posted by pemerton on Tuesday November 5th, 2013 at 12:28 PM.

 

[Hussar]

Third, READ THE SPELL – the minimum xp cost of any simulacrum is 1,000 xp, so you are claiming a 30% discount above. I stress READ THE SPELL because, with very limited exceptions, that is al Wicht and I are doing – we READ THE SPELL and we then interpret the words to assess the intent for the game.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page179#ixzz2jpBLpWDU

Sorry, you're right. I missed the minimum 1000 xp. Granted, I still get 21000 xp worth of magic items for 1000 xp. The point does still remain.

No one but you is saying that. I, and I believe Wicht, are sorry you feel you have been abused and victimized by mean, nasty GMs in the past. However, your psychological trauma is impairing your objectivity in this discussion.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page179#ixzz2jpBLpWDU

This would carry a lot more weight if you guys didn't screw over the casters with every single interpretation you've put forth in this thread. Not once have you stepped up and given an interpretation that didn't screw over the caster. Any wish will never be sufficiently vile. Heck, burning down orphanages and murdering priests of good wasn't sufficiently vile.

So, yeah, if the shoe fits...