Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[TwoSix]

@pemerton That is quite an excellent and thorough post 182. Can't xp so if someone could cover for me.

Covered. Surprisingly I could, since I XP [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] all the time.

 

[Dandu]

I chalk it up to writer laziness in cut & paste of standard elf abilities as we write up another half dozen elven subraces. Looking at their w/u, “A lizardfolk is automatically proficient with simple weapons and shields.” I believe that makes bow users unusual.

By that logic, it would make crossbow users... usual.

In any case, would it be reasonable to agree that, in a game where the appropriate response to “the dragon’s keen sense of smell detects the invisible wizard creeping into his lair” is “dragons do not have scent included in their writeup, so that cannot happen”, the bow wielding lizardfolk are equally impossible? That’s not the game I play, and I suspect it’s not the game you’re playing, so the only point that bow-wielding lizardfolk would concern me is if the outlier guards/scouts/hunting parties all had javelins, but once we planned an attack based on that level of armament, suddenly the other lizardfok had bows.

The difference is that bows are equipment that can be purchased or crafted. If the dragon has a means of acquiring Scent though templates or whatnot, that's entirely fair by the rules. Simply tacking on the Scent ability, however, is not.

Depends on his time requirements. One minute per level is a “full combat” spell, but not that long for reconnoitering. Overland Flight is long term, but its maneuverability imposes that stall speed, so the wizard loses the ability to hover and has to constantly move, meaning a greater risk of detection even if invisible as he moves back and forth through the swampy areas.

If you think time is an issue, note that my example wizard has a lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend Spell. 20 minutes should be enough for going in, snatching a lizardfolk, and getting out again.

You know, I never considered what happens if a flying wizard stops taking actions. If he “cannot act”, does he fall (presumably at the slowed rate as a Fly spell ends) or hover? Which one requires he use an action? Is that clarified anywhere?

The subject only descends slowly if the spell is dispelled or comes to an end.

I would assume that the spell maintains position unless directed otherwise. Remember, you can cast a full round Summon Monster spell and you won't descend or anything.

Honestly, there's no reason to think the subject would descend.

Regardless, it would require Fly, not Overland Flight. He could certainly be invisible up there and be within the 100’ or more range to use his Magic Jar. Be a bad time for the dragon to fly in through his airspace, but that’s not far off the previous javelin users discovering the bow just in time for our attack.

I would think having a dragon flying out of his lair and through the 5x5 space the wizard occupies in the sky full of 5x5 spaces in the ten or so minutes the wizard is there to be far more unlikely and contrived than liardfolk learning archery.

OK, let me ensure I understand the proposition. First, the wizard secretes his invisible body somewhere it’s not easily stumbled upon, but within (say) 100’ of the lizardfolk village. Then he Magic Jars into a Lizardfolk (presumably selecting an area where there are only two life forces that could be lizardfolk, and selecting one, ideally one with a 4+ HD advantage over the other, being the finest differentiation he can make). Assuming that works out (and I don’t like the Lizard targets odds of making the save), we now have a wizard in a lizardfolk body who attempts to take down the second lizard quickly, without attracting more attention to himself. He’s a L10 or so wizard, and likely arranged to ambush a 2 HD standard Lizard who is taken by surprise, so that should be practical.

What? No, you do the simple thing and order your possessed Lizardfolk to walk off and bind and gag himself so you can teleport him out of there.

I enjoy wacky, convoluted plans, but not that convoluted.

What now? He’s in the Lizard body. Does he drag the prisoner back to his body (easier said than done if he’s using that hover in place trick, and likely to attract attention if he has to drag the fellow through the village)? Does he end the Magic Jar and hope his now vacated host doesn’t raise the alarm? He’ll have to vacate eventually. Does his Lizard host teleport him back to his host body so he can then teleport out after ending the magic jar? Does the GM notice that “You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent (see below) per three caster levels.”, emphasis added, and question the willingness of the KO’d lizardperson? Does he accept a KO’d Lizardperson is really more an object, and if so does it fall within “You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed your maximum load.”, emphasis added? Lizardfolk weigh 200 lb plus.

As the plan is to capture the possessed lizardfolk, none of this is relevant. You will forgive me for not addressing it.

Overall, I’d say it can be done. I don’t think it’s foolproof or trivial in its simplicity, though.

What do you think of my actual plan which is somewhat simpler?

I doubt either wants the dragon to fall ON him.

I would not worry. The dragon cannot end his movement in the fighter's square.

Why is the Cleric out of spells, and the Fighter the one holding the line?

They split the party.

 

[TwoSix]

What is the difference between the "storyteller" approach and railroading?

Railroading is forcing any character action to be overruled if it doesn't serve the overall predetermined plot. Ranging from "To the north, east, and south are unpassable mountains that block uncrossable deserts" to "Charm person can't work on the boss fight."

A "storyteller" approach means that encounters will be reframed to enforce a generally desired balance of overall spotlight time and character effectiveness. Wizards who buff a lot will start to face enemies with Dispel Magic. Conjurers will keep facing enemies with scrolls of Protection from Evil. Barbarians with power attack will face enemies who can fly. Etc, etc.

 

[N'raac]

Although I have a clear preferred style (and there are surely other styles that I haven't mentioned, such as exploratory sandboxing) I've tried to be fair and sincere in my characterisation of all three.

Clipped the style descriptions. I think that’s a fair and reasonably objective presentation.

I think your comments here are a (strongly worded) response from someone who prefers "wargame" style to someone who prefers "storyteller" style. From the wargame (or indie) point of view, all encounters in the storyteller game are in a certain sense "rocks fall" encounters, in that the role of the GM in framing them, and then adjudicating them by reference to the roleplaying responses of the players (to which mechanics may be very secondary, especially outside of combat), is the most important determinant of how they resolve.

I think there are styles within these styles. For example, wargamer style can be a team style, more individual style or even Player vs Player style. The GM can be a neutral arbiter or an adversarial presenter of challenges (“winning” by racking up PC body counts and TPK’s just as the players “win“ by overcoming the challenges set by the GM an accumulating wealth and/or power, ideally to a level that they win future challenges more easily).

Some wargamers are about power fantasy and glory in their characters crushing their enemies easily, while others would be bored silly by such scenarios as they face no real challenge.

In that play style, it may be true that a wizard player is "coddled" - that the GM does not frame and resolve situations so as to put pressure on the player of that PC to really push the limits - and it may also be true that a fighter is more powerful than a wizard - because the fighter player might engage the GM's fiction more energetically and enthusiastically than does the player of a wizard.

I think here we get the “let the chips fall where they may” aspect of wargaming juxtaposed with the player investment (and often GM/campaign investment) a storyteller.

I have more difficulty with indie style, however I read this almost as a cross between the two, where there is a story (or many stories) to be told, but they are dictated by action resolution mechanics. Are you interpreting “storyteller” as being a single, predestined storyline that all around the table are dedicated to acting out and moving to resolution (I hate to use “railroad as it’s a loaded term), with indie being lots of possible storylines, any one or more of which could resolve in any number of different ways?

(The particular example Wiseblood has given also has another subtext - the collision of "storyteller" playstyle with the remnants of "wargame" mechanical design - and so there are worries that if you push the wizard player to hard in story terms, you might get an unhappy result in mechanical terms, namely of a failed Fort save or death by hp loss. From the perspective of "indie" players, eliminating these contradictions between story aspirations and mechanical possibilities is part of getting the maths right (to borrow Neonchameleon's words) and thereby reducing the role of GM force and allowing story and mechancial possiblity to become more integrated as Manbearcat has talked about.)

This also flows into the historical evolution where low level wizards have moved from weak, easily killed characters, but if you survive that challenge, you get rewarded with greater and greater power, to being more balanced, playable characters at lower levels. The question posed by threads such as this is whether that has been properly effected at the higher levels by removing that reward in a manner commensurate with the reduced risk at lower levels. The “if you survive, you become very powerful” aspect of the wizard was a wargame mechanism, to be sure.

@pemerton That is quite an excellent and thorough post 182. Can't xp so if someone could cover for me.

Sorry I can’t either.

You've done a great job in tying it all together. I would like to hear how the various parties (the ones that you mentioned as well as @Dandu and @N'raac) in this thread feel that you've pinned down their table agendas and if it comports with how you predict their "Fighter vs Spellcaster" position comes together (here and in play).

Good question. I think we’d (my group) fall into a bit of a blend. Tactical combat, as a wargame aspect, is definitely there. We’re not huge optimizers, and favour characters with personality over the mechanical best choice, both in character design and execution (“no, I don’t care that the best tactical choice is X – my character would do Y”, as opposed to “how could anyone with a 20 INT ever choose to do something less than 100% optimal”). We’re a pretty laid back bunch, content to let the story lead us on. I don’t really know which pool that puts us in, and there’s probably some variance between the individual players.

What pemerton is referring to is the legitimacy of the engagement of the resolution mechanics as arbiter of "what happens in the fiction" when a conflict manifests versus GM fiat/force as arbiter. "Rocks fall. You die." is problematic for you (and me) because its either framed (arbitrarily, without context/foreshadowing) as an unwinnable challenge and engages the resolution mechanics with impossible odds of success...or it doesn't engage the resolution mechanics at all.

There’s the reverse position espoused here by “the wizard is omnipotent – all challenges fall before him and any interpretation that says otherwise is just wrong”. The player causes the rocks to fall.

GM fiat/force as arbiter. Contrast that to a healthy dose of foreshadowing/context and functional mechanical resolution of the hazard that allows PCs to deploy strategic countermeasures and, failing that turning out, engages the resolution mechanics to determine how the PC build choices (defenses/HPs/suite of relevant actions) interfaces with the attack/damage/status effect thresholds of the hazard.

Every encounter, from social to combat, can be mapped out in the same way as the infamous "rocks fall, you die" "encounter." Suzy the player has great charisma, social skills, understanding of the human condition, and is extroverted. Her Orc Fighter, Bracka, has an 8 Charisma with no social skills to speak of. Andy the player is the inverse of Suzy; uncharismatic, socially awkward, aloof, introverted. His suave Half-elf Bard Don Juan has an 18 Charisma and a full suite of social skills/powers etc. While Andy is a quiet wallflower, Suzy regularly dominates scenes of social conflict because the GM is moved by her (the player) adept roleplaying and re-framing of the situation. He either engages the resolution mechanics with such considerable looseness/lack of stringency that Suzy cannot lose or he doesn't engage them at all because "rollplaying, not roleplaying."

In the same way that GM fiat forces "death" upon your character in the "rocks fall, you die" exploration scenario (and your character's fictional positioning is now "dead"), the fictional positioning in the social scenario above represents Suzy's Orc as "Face of the A-Team" and Andy's half-elf as "the mousey girl in the corner at prom", because conflict arbitration by way of GM ruling (putting the onus on "roleplaying not rollplaying") overrides/circumvents the action resolution mechanics (which interface with PC build choices).

Not sure whether that’s Indie, Storyteller or Wargamer. I think Wargamer could go either way (“I built my character with these skills and abilities – engage the mechanics so I win” or “My brilliant play of my character should clearly provide my character with a huge advantage, thereby overriding the mechanics so I win”).

Indie (storyteller?) seems more likely to focus on “I built a character with great (poor) social skills – the game should therefore result in success (failure) of my character in this situation”, not in Suzy making an eloquent speech on behalf of Bracka.

Anyway, Mabearcat explained my point. There are ways of framing an encounter which challenges without killing a wizard, provided the GM is prepared to do things a certain way. For instance, a high level caster (NPC, lich, dragon, whatever) casts some sort of Hold or Paralysis spell on the wizard, and then toys with him/her while whatever else the table things is interesting unfolds. 2nd ed AD&D modules are full of this sort of stuff.

However, the wargame mindset…well,

irst, Hold X is Mind-Affecting and Paralyzes, two things I'd hope any wizard would have protections against. Even if not, it doesn't stop Teleport/Door/etc, so the wizard can still get the hell out. Second, I don't know about anyone else, but I can't take seriously casters who can't act like their mental stats. If a high-level caster has a wizard at their mercy and doesn't have a damned good reason not to kill or Dominate them, I'd expect they'd do so.

The wargamer sees only tactics. The Evil Overlord would not gloat over his prisoners, because the tactically correct move is to execute them. He will carefully and accurately assess their power, and the possibility they could cause him problems - he will never make an error due to underestimating the heroes. Screw genre conventions – tactics over all!

These are the players who, as the campaign reaches its crescendo, interrupts the GM’s half completed description of the Master Villain twirling his moustache as he begins his monologue with “Enough flavour text – I waste him with my crossbow!” Their Lawful and Good Heroes liberally apply torches to the groins of anyone they suspect might have valuable intel because “that gives the best bonus on the interrogation charts”, and their personalities change with the wind as they see what approach will be the best tactic in the instant case.

Spend a skill point on Cooking skills? Not unless it helps me get poison into my enemies’ mouths – my character has no purpose in life beyond amassing ever more power!

Hold person does prevent speech, meaning a held Wizard couldn't cast teleport or dimension door, since both have Verbal components. There are ways to bypass the component, of course, but they tend not to feature in optimised builds because the opportunity cost tends to be too high. (And, of course, because as you say, you'd expect the Wizard to avoid being held in the first place.)

Well, the Omnipotent Wizard always has exactly the spells, feats and items he needs to resolve any hypothetical situation, however unlikely, suggested to him. So of course, he has a memorized Silent Spell, a chain of Contingences, the Sudden Silent feat and/or a Metamagic Rod in a configuration that it will work – after all, there is no way the Wizard would not be prepared for any and all eventualities.

“But wait, as it says so clearly on Page 47 of my character’s Standard Operating Procedures, each morning he washes his Ring of Teleport carefully, then swallows it with a Prune Juice chaser. Things should start moving any minute now, and then we’ll be able to Teleport on out of this dungeon.”

 

[Dandu]

These are the players who, as the campaign reaches its crescendo, interrupts the GM’s half completed description of the Master Villain twirling his moustache as he begins his monologue with “Enough flavour text – I waste him with my crossbow!” Their Lawful and Good Heroes liberally apply torches to the groins of anyone they suspect might have valuable intel because “that gives the best bonus on the interrogation charts”, and their personalities change with the wind as they see what approach will be the best tactic in the instant case.

Spend a skill point on Cooking skills? Not unless it helps me get poison into my enemies’ mouths – my character has no purpose in life beyond amassing ever more power!

Today, I learned that Navy SEALS are wargaming munchkins.

 

[Wiseblood]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I wouldn't call myself a storyteller. I do see how that might add up in my posts here.

The I win button often requires perfect preparation and that is at best rare. I say it is rare because it requires a specific suite of abilities to overcome obstacle X and all too often that perfect preparation is assumed or portrayed as inevitable. Character resources are limited and that seems to be ignored frequently when comparisons such as these are made.

I can see how "rocks fall" is believed to be what I was getting at, it's not. I was pointing to the fact that Wizards often get a pass when it comes to being a target.
a) Because the fighter can survive targeting, (AC, or HP)
b) Because a fighter is more likely to make the scary fort save
c) Because a failed will save is not going to kill the fighter (too often)
d) Because the fighter that is not disabled by spells can inflict serious damage (and that is hard to ignore)

 

[N'raac]

Turning to your particular example, "Clean this basement" strikes me as not open-ended. "Keep this basement clean" strike me as open-ended. What happens if you give the first instruction and then, just as the bound creatures is putting the last bit of old junk onto a shelf a dragon flies through and knocks everything over with the buffeting of its wings? Does the creature have to start again? Or has it discharged it's obligation? Should the GM roll another check for the creature to choose between these options? I don't think the spell description on its own settles these questions. It's trying to set up a framework for giving mechanical effect to a classic trope - the bound demon which might turn on its binder. It's not surprising that it gives rise to edge cases whose resolution is uncertain.

That's not where I would draw the boundary, precisely because I think it tends to make the spell over-powered. Obviously other tables can have their own interpretive practices.

The assumption that the intent was not an overpowered spell (ie not an easter egg for clever players twisting every word to find) is one not shared by rules lawyer adversarial wargamers.

Just one thought with regard to the "protect me from all harm" instruction to the summoned devil... bear in mind that such creatures both have high mental stats and are the ultimate in rules-lawyers. The most efficient way for the devil to protect the Wizard from harm is probably to take him back to Hell and keep him safely imprisoned there - the Wizard would need to phrase his request extremely carefully, or it will be abused.

Here, the styles converge. The adversarial wargamer GM will wish to twist the terms. The storyteller will do so if needed to move the story forward. The Indie must, to keep pressure on the PC.

I know, and I'm not questioning that, and, although I'd enjoy the karmic hilarity of it, I'd not and I doubt many DMs would waste time making the person write it out in extreme clarity, especially since wizards are all polyglots in fictional languages and all vastly smarter than the players. But that's a metagame problem that I'll not argue, just point out that, were I to bother spamming Planar Binding, I actually would go and write up a several page contract.

To my mind, if the player goes through the effort of writing out that contract, then reading it aloud to his captive Devil (remembering that the wizard can’t hand it across the magic circle for the Devil’s review), then the GM is entitled to apply the same level of word-twisting implemented in the various rules discussions on this and other threads to the Devil’s interpretation of the contract. And it can only agree to what it hears – it presumably “hears” in Infernal, since it communicates with Telepathy, not with language skills. The player’s skill with contract drafting will determine success or failure - this is that “role playing, not roll playing” assessed above.

Alternatively, we can rely on the action resolution mechanics – the character’s abilities, not the player’s, will determine success or failure. In this case, let us look at the Wizard’s capabilities and consider an opposed roll. What skills does the Wizard have to assist in drafting this contract? Did he invest ranks in Profession: Lawyer, or something similar? Knowing Infernal is not a huge stretch, especially if the wizard plans on binding a lot of Devils. That Evil Heirarchy may be quite helpful, as he can pass the contract up the chain to a real expert if need be (the terms of the contract aren’t relevant only while he is Magic Circled and debuffed).

Of course, an Indie or Storyteller player might well have built a character who is turning his skills with the law to mystical purposes, and would have those many Profession ranks. His means of imposing his will on the shared narrative may well be contracts with such creatures. It would be wrong NOT to:

• Provide that character with opportunities to shine by preparing ironclad deals and/or finding the holes in deals that don’t suit his interests;

• Set the occasional situation where the character is up against an opponent of equal or greater talent, such that his skills are put to a true test

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you’ve commented a few times on games with open ended skill/ability selection. Those are the games where that high skill in Contract Drafting and Interpretation can be placed on the character sheet in a manner which sends the message “this is central to my character – please ensure it comes up often”

 

[delericho]

Well, the Omnipotent Wizard always has exactly the spells, feats and items he needs to resolve any hypothetical situation, however unlikely, suggested to him. So of course, he has a memorized Silent Spell, a chain of Contingences, the Sudden Silent feat and/or a Metamagic Rod in a configuration that it will work – after all, there is no way the Wizard would not be prepared for any and all eventualities.

“But wait, as it says so clearly on Page 47 of my character’s Standard Operating Procedures, each morning he washes his Ring of Teleport carefully, then swallows it with a Prune Juice chaser. Things should start moving any minute now, and then we’ll be able to Teleport on out of this dungeon.”

Heh.

 

[Wiseblood]

No wait, maybe Pemerton nailed me down after all.

 

[Dandu]

@pemerton I wouldn't call myself a storyteller. I do see how that might add up in my posts here.

The I win button often requires perfect preparation and that is at best rare. I say it is rare because it requires a specific suite of abilities to overcome obstacle X and all too often that perfect preparation is assumed or portrayed as inevitable. Character resources are limited and that seems to be ignored frequently when comparisons such as these are made.

I can see how "rocks fall" is believed to be what I was getting at, it's not. I was pointing to the fact that Wizards often get a pass when it comes to being a target.
a) Because the fighter can survive targeting, (AC, or HP)
b) Because a fighter is more likely to make the scary fort save
c) Because a failed will save is not going to kill the fighter (too often)
d) Because the fighter that is not disabled by spells can inflict serious damage (and that is hard to ignore)

I would be very much interested in playing a sorcerer or wizard in a game with you as the DM where you neither coddled nor invoked "rocks fall" on the spellcasters, as I have evidently been spared horrid death by a benevolent or incompetent DM.