Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

As far as the whole getting into a lizard's village goes, there are going to be mechanical differences between how one class can handle it versus another and some may not have any ability to do it at all.

According to the actual class writeups, the ranger should be the best at this. And the druid perhaps second best, along with the rogue (the rogue has more stealth, but the druid more swamp capability). For me it's a genre worry if the wizard is best, or if the druid is better than the ranger. After all, it was Aragorn, not any of the Elven lords (some of whom in D&D terms might be thought of as druids), who tracked down and captured Gollum.

Why isn't it "using GM force" to target fighters with effects requiring a Will save, have opponents who don't just stand there or close for melee to be chopped to bits, and can actually hit the fighter in all that armor and weather a couple of hits?

Maybe it is - we need to know more about what is going on at the table, in the framing, in the adjudication etc.

But stepping back a bit - everything else being equal, the person who builds a (non-archer) fighter wants to play a heroic melee-fighting type. (Various editions of the game have nominated such legendary figures as Hercules and Arthurian knights as fighter exemplars.) In the "indie" style, then, the GM's job is to make possibility a combination of gratification and challenge. The balance between gratification and challenge will depend on both table expectations and system expectations (4e leans towards gratification; Burning Wheel leans towards challenge). For the challenge to arise, the player of the fighter therefore needs resources to turn his/her PC into a melee-fighting hero, while the GM has the resources to oppose to these attempts. In 4e, the player's resources include the Athletics skill, magic items, Come and Get It (to pull enemies in) plus terrain that the GM is expected to build into the encounter. The GM's resources include terrain (especially pits, chasms etc) and then archers and controllers on the other side of such terrain, which make the fighter's life hard by inflicting damage and debuff outside melee range.

4e's rules and guidelines make it pretty easy to build this sort of challenge for the fighter player (I can't comment on 3E in this respect). It mostly requires GM force at the point of framing, and then just following the logic of the resources presented when it comes to the moment of adjudication.

What about for the wizard player? The contention of those who think 3E wizards are more versatile, and more capable, is that there is no simple way of framing a situation in which the GM provides him-/herself with certain resources (monsters, terrain etc) and the player brings to bear his/her resources (ie PC capabiliites) and then by simply adjudicating in accordance with the logic of those resources the GM can provide the wizard player with an engaging challenge in which the wizard's arcane prowess has the chance to shine through. I think that the sorts of capabilities that they would point to include: Protection from Arrows for negating many ranged attacks; Stoneskin for negating many melee attacks; Dimension Door and Teleport for negating the GM's terrain based resources and in many cases for in fact reframing the scene altogether; Charm, Dominate, Magic Jar etc for sidestepping challenges posed by hostile NPCs/creatures; etc.

When [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] talks about the use of GM Force to balance the wizard I think what is being pointed to is not the force of scene framing, nor of adjudication via following the logic of the GM's resources within the framed scene, but GM force to radically change the suite of resources enjoyed by the wizard (or other spellcaster player): eg depriving wizards of their spellbooks, depriving clerics of their symbols or divine patronage, etc. The analgoue for a fighter would be suggesting that they be balanced by having thieves break in and steal all their armour and weapons. But while some people think this might be a fun scenario from time-to-time, I've never seen it suggested as a balancing requirement for fighters.

Your "unnecessary kludge" is an established, essential part of D&D, not just the opinion of some.

Personally I don't think it's part of, nor an essential part of, 4e, but I can't comment on 3E, which is what this thread is primarily about.

I like that, but it only suggests storytelling from a different angle.

I'm not sure what your actual play is like, or what different styles you play in, or have played in. But my own experience - and I don't think it's unique, but I also don't know how widely it generalises - is that once you switch to "players hook the GM" it makes no sense to talk of storytelling because there is no individual person telling the story. There are, rather, game participants with suites of resources engaging one another via the action resolution mechanics, with the GM having put certain things at stake (via framing the scene) but the players essentially taking the lead in resolution (because their PCs are the protagonists, wheres the GM's characters are the antagonists). How it unfolds isn't known, or knowable, in advance.

I'm not sure I concur that specific games become wargamer, storyteller or "indie" by their mechanics.

I don't think I said that mechanics determine playstyle. I did say that some mechanics get in the way of some playstyles, and others facilitate it. For instance, on the assumption that carrying capacity is not, in general, a very dramatically gripping topic, my view is that any mechanical system that looks to encumbrance as a significant factor in action resolution (and you have pointed to this in multiple posts on this thread) is a mechanical system that is impeding rather than facilitating "indie" play because it is a mechanical system that draws the table's attention away from dramatic stakes and onto prosaic matters like carrying capacity.

Converseley, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has given a good example in a post just a little bit upthread of how some mechanics can facilitate one form of play over another, for instance by allowing stakes to be set and then establishing an uncontentious resolution system for working out what happens, in which the way in which players and GM can deploy their respective resources and the impact of those resources on resolution is pretty clear.

By classifying this approach as "indie", I think you restrict the ability of others to comment, as Indie games are less widely played.

The description isn't meant to be exclusive. The more technical terms is "narrativist", but as I said earlier on ENworld this word is not generally used in the way that it is used at The Forge.

But there are plenty of ENworld posters who are familiar with the approach, and play (or have played) D&D in more-or-less this way. For instance, on this thread posters like Campbell, Manbearcat, [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and others haven't had much trouble self-identifying. Conversely, if you read through the current alignment thread in which you are participating with these playstyle distinctions in mind, I think that you'll find that nearly all the posts there are assuming a "storyteller" approach to play, emphasising the priority of GM-contributed over player-contributed story and thematic elements. Whereas in wargame style alignment plays quite a different role (for instance, being Chaotic is meant to make moment-by-moment decisions easier, but makes it harder to gain the long-term benefits of reliance and reliability); and in narrativist style alignment is mostly unnecessary, or perhaps a player-chosen personaltiy descriptor shorthand (which, interestingly, is also its main role in 4e).

 

[Manbearcat]

According to the actual class writeups, the ranger should be the best at this. And the druid perhaps second best, along with the rogue (the rogue has more stealth, but the druid more swamp capability). For me it's a genre worry if the wizard is best, or if the druid is better than the ranger. After all, it was Aragorn, not any of the Elven lords (some of whom in D&D terms might be thought of as druids), who tracked down and captured Gollum.

This was my thought as well. The contrived scenario is picture perfect for a Ranger and he should unequivocally have the greatest odds of successfully resolving such a conflict (locate and infiltrate the dragon's lair with help from lizardmen proxy). To be fair, 3.x does provide a Ranger some means of successfully facilitating the resolution of this conflict. Assume the Ranger took the (very narrow group of antagonists) Favored Enemy Reptilian at 1st (or 5th/10th) level. By 10th level (we're assuming an 11th level Wizard), he would have + 6 (or 4/2) to Bluff, Listen & Spot (Perception in 4e), Sense Motive (Insight in 4e), and Survival (one portion of Nature in 4e) and + 6 (or 4/2) to hit and weapon damage vs the lizardmen. He moves swiftly while tracking, has an animal companion, can cast (probably, contingent upon Wisdom) two 1st level Druid spells and one 2nd level Druid spell. I'm also assuming he would know their language (given they are his favored enemy). If his favored enemy is Dragon (there being no lizardmen tribe as proxy to further the effort), then those bonuses would apply to the dragon. If a Skill Challenge system was bolted onto 3.x, he would be top notch in resolving the challenge of locating the lair (via lizardmen tribe or just interacting with the "dragon" tag of the effort). This is, of course, assuming that the conflict plays into the Ranger's Favored Enemies. If that is off the grid then forget about it.

However, in 3.x orthodoxy, task resolution is interpreted in a process-simulation, binary manner. As such, working outside of the task resolution mechanics (eg leveraging spells as fiat/narrative imposition) is still superior. Its debatable if a level 11 Ranger could devastate an entire lizard-folk tribe. Perhaps with Manyshot (Twin Strike +), great use of move actions for stealth, skulking/hit-and-run (Obscuring Mist, Camouflage, Entangle, Hawkeye, One With the Land, Solid Fog, etc) it would be well within reach. I could certainly see it. He could keep hunting them, snaring them, and forcing an answer from then until one of them gives up the goods. But with 3.x task resolution, straight finesse (eg Divination) is not nearly as assured as the Wizard's means (hence the problem...as this should be the Ranger's sweet spot). It suffers from the same issue as the "cool martial combat stunt" being resolved by a complex check, each step with its ow respective pass/fail out, creating an algorithmic test that fails at a hefty clip...with an outcome punitive enough to drown out the reward aspect of risk/reward.

The safely navigating the trap-laden chimney/vertical tunnel (with resources not too terribly diminished and without alerting guardians/dragon) and slaying the dragon is really not even on the table for the Ranger.

 

[pemerton]

If a Skill Challenge system was bolted onto 3.x, he would be top notch in resolving the challenge of locating the lair (via lizardmen tribe or just interacting with the "dragon" tag of the effort). This is, of course, assuming that the conflict plays into the Ranger's Favored Enemies.

<snip>

However, in 3.x orthodoxy, task resolution is interpreted in a process-simulation, binary manner.

<snip>

It suffers from the same issue as the "cool martial combat stunt" being resolved by a complex check, each step with its ow respective pass/fail out, creating an algorithmic test that fails at a hefty clip...with an outcome punitive enough to drown out the reward aspect of risk/reward.

Thanks for that - so the ranger looks great on paper, when we're only looking at the output of character building, but tends to suffer when the actual orthodox action resolution mechanics are applied.

This, then, looks like a good point from which different playstlyes might diverge: in the indie or wargamer style, players abandon rangers for other sorts of characters who are more effective in action resolution terms (and the indie players write off the ability of the game to support Aragon-esque conflicts); whereas in the storyteller style, it is the job of the GM to fiat situation and action resolution so that the ranger in play lives up to the ranger on paper. "Rulings not rules" and fiating check DCs (as seen in the Next playtest) both fit into that storyteller approach.

 

[Manbearcat]

Thanks for that - so the ranger looks great on paper, when we're only looking at the output of character building, but tends to suffer when the actual orthodox action resolution mechanics are applied.

This, then, looks like a good point from which different playstlyes might diverge: in the indie or wargamer style, players abandon rangers for other sorts of characters who are more effective in action resolution terms (and the indie players write off the ability of the game to support Aragon-esque conflicts); whereas in the storyteller style, it is the job of the GM to fiat situation and action resolution so that the ranger in play lives up to the ranger on paper. "Rulings not rules" and fiating check DCs (as seen in the Next playtest) both fit into that storyteller approach.

Yup, precisely. The Mearls et al podcasts (where Mearls is GMing) is an exhibition of storyteller approach; replete with the illusion of consequential task resolution (Roll Charisma <versus arbitrary or non-explicated DC>) to access the "plot dump". Which, as always, is fine so long as everyone is on board with the GMing techniques involved and the game it creates by extension.

As a personal anecdote, I didn't run 3.x as a storyteller system. It seemed meant to be the crunchiest, D&D process simulator to date...so I ran it as such. I think running it in this fashion, vs running it with a heaping of GM force (charting martial characters on an upward trajectory with "Rulings Not Rules" handling, while doing the inverse with spellcasters), is probably at the heart of this issue. The 3.x GMs who ran it purely as "D&D process simulator" vs the 3.x GMs who ran it in the vein of AD&D 2e "Storyteller/Rulings Not Rules" almost assuredly maps the divergence in the Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards debate. Either that or certain GMs had (i) spellcasters as "nukers" rather than Batman/Codzilla or (ii) they had exclusively martial characters in their campaigns and they didn't "bring the heat" with their pushback when deploying high level NPC spellcasters as antagonists. I've seen a few anecdotes on "fair rulings" for Martial PCs vs enemy spellcasters that if ruled in the same scenario, only inverted, would have sown extraordinary discord/ire at my table; such as the leveraging of encumbrance rules and Monk speed to get trapped players out of a debilitating control effect of slow + hefty damage by jumping on the Monk's shoulders/head/whathaveyou.

 

[Manbearcat]

In other news, I think Pathfinder probably resolved much of these Ranger vs Wizard issues above (the 3.x Ranger being fully outclassed by the Wizard in the Locate Black Dragon Lair via lizardman proxy, infiltrate and take down the Black Dragon):

- Stackable Favored Enemy Bonuses (Dragon at 1st/Lizardman at 5th) and Favored Terrain Bonuses (Swamp at 3rd).
- Hunter's Quarry at level 11 with crit-fisher build.
- Evasion vs Dragon's Breath.
- More spells, including 3rd level.

If the Ranger is 12 vs the level 11 Wizard (for Camouflage), he is basically untrackable, borderline invisible, can track anything with 0 trouble, does a ridiculous amount of (burst) damage to Dragons and Lizardmen, can use relevant Divination spells (Speak With Plants and Animals) to supplement the "locate lair" portion and can use a number of Transmutation/Abjuration spells (Ape Walk, Forest Walk, Protection from Energy, Darkvision, Wildheart, Burrow, Mire of Stone and Earth, Mistsight + Obscuring Mist) to aid the infiltration and dragon-slaying portion.

In other, other news, in Pathfinder at least, there is an explicit level 1 spell (Ranger) that is for making yourself immune to Scent. Does that have Rules guidance on Prestidigitation's usage versus Scent? Personally, if that was orthodox/core, I would say that the specific, level 1 spell should be used as "Rulings" guidance on whether the usage of a general, level 0 spell should have application to circumvent Scent; eg, no it would not.

 

[Dandu]

I return to the fact that your Lizardfolk claiming a need to use the privy (so much so that he's hustling at top speed), yet not heading in the direction of the privy (known to the other lizardfolk, but not to you) provides a reasonable probability to draw questions from the lizardfolk.

How do you know the have a privvy in the first place?

It provides examples. From these, we need to interpret items less directly covered. For example, can I cast a Lightning Bolt or Magic Missile on my erstwhile "friend", or stab him with a dagger, without ending the effect because "he's a friend"? I'd say no, but one can interpret the spell to say yes. Similarly, the Magic Jar effect allows the character on whom the spell was cast to attempt to possess a victim, a direct spell effect we agree is an attack. So the question is whether the intermediary step of entering the Magic Jar voids the attack's cancellation of the invisibility spell. I say it does not. That's not the only reasonable interpretation, but it is one reasonable interpretation.

Keep in mind, casting Reduce Person on an allied rogue while invisible counts as buffing him. Doing so on an enemy fighter counts as a debuff. So the first case would not break invisibility, while the second case would.

There are even cases where casting Scorching Ray on an ally would not be counted as an attack. Remember Clockwork Armor? If it takes too much cold damage, it freezes. The only way to counter this is is to hit the wearer with fire damage.

If you are possessing him, the question first becomes whether that is an attack, another matter for interpretation. In part, the question is whether it is the wizard's physical form that must initiate the attack, or whether there is a link to the invisible person's animating spirit. A good question. My inclination is to consider the second possessed person a separate entity for purposes of the invisibility spell, but to consider "possessing from magic jar" to remain an action of the caster of the magic jar, and thus capable of ending the Invisibility spell. As I said, I can see wider or narrower interpretations both being reasonable.

I can propose to you an instance where possession from Magic Jar would be beneficial to the victim; the party rogue has failed a will save vs paralysis vs a trap in the Jefferies tube and someone needs to take control of his body and move it out of there.

I believe the clause refers to Conjurations in general, not Creations specifically, which is why I am looking for other spells of that subschool. My quick search did not locate a convenient list. Summon Monster spells, though not Creation, provide you can direct them beyond simple attacks only if you can establish communications. I'm unclear what language a "quasi-real horselike creature" speaks. That would again suggest it is directed by its rider through reigns, etc.

Horses also take verbal commands in real life, though admittedly what a quasi-horselike creature does is less certain.

Summon Monster also specifies your control over the creature. Summon Swarm indicates you do not. I'm not seeing a preponderance of evidence for any specific default. Nor am I convinced the "usually" is a default rule rather than a survey of the spells existing when the statement was penned.

The Mount spell does not specify the degree of control you have over the created mount or how to control it, other than it serves willingly and well. Presumably, though it acts like a pony or horse that you can issue physical and verbal commands to.

Precious little, realistically. It's a metagame concept providing a measure based on activities that are prevalent in-game to determine results which arise from a combination of background (like research and training) and in game (like overcoming challenges) to determine when the GM should reward the players with an enhancement to their characters' power. Loss of xp tends to be described as a loss or weakening of life force, but gaining levels doesn't have that same connotation. It is certainly not "I am within 16 xp of gaining a level, so let's stomp and crash around the wilderness to attract a wandering monster we can kill so I can gain my level".

Then I have a question. How does the PC, in game, know whether he can cast, say, Limited Wish or not? If he doesn't have the XP for it, he's just going to waste the spell slot.

One which can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the soul, where people are killed by falling in their kitchen yet survive plummeting from an airplane. The real world is much more random than game worlds!

Hold on.

The existence of a soul is not a scientific question and as such, can neither be proved nor disproved. It is like me making up an imaginary friend and saying that, because you can neither prove nor disprove my imaginary friend, he is the one that ate your lunch and not me.

Falling damage in the real world is governed by the laws of physics. Dying from a fall in your kitchen, or surviving one from an airplane, depends on dozens of variables, but it is not a random, magical process.

We currently live in a world where we are gaining a good understanding of the mysterious forces and laws that govern existence. Quantim mechanics may be incredibly complex and seemingly arbitrary, but it is the branch of science that gives us semiconductors, lasers, computers, CAT scans, and explains much about how the universe came to be in the state we see today.

All of it came about as the result of people asking probing questions and examining the world methodologically when they noticed the slightest strange thing, such as the fact that if you shine light though a slit in a cardboard panel, it produces one band of light, but if you have two slits, you produce an interference pattern of many bands of light, instead of just two. The 'double-slit experiment' established the principal of wave-particle duality, which if you think about it, makes no sense.

So, we have one anecdote that your friend believes that one of her two cats treats the other differently after it gets bathed, and maybe that's because you/she think that the shower changes its smell. Not exactly the kind of persuasive evidence I would hope for, especially when the link you reference makes it pretty clear the expert doesn't think a shower changes scent enough to make a difference to a creature who uses its sense of smell as a primary tool.

What would you like, a definitive study as to the subject funded by the NIH?

I'm not sure where you perceive the rules providing some intermediate step between creatures with the scent ability (like dogs, who even get a bonus to track, so they're better than most creatures with scent, or like cats) and creatures whose sense of smell is, like ours, weak and pathetic.

Is there such an intermediary step?

I find wizards are commonly seen as overpowered on the basis they can do all these things reliably, without fail, simultaneously and generally well beyond the terms of the spells. Teleport is especially open to such "beyond spell" interpretations. "Hey, let's go to a distant land I have heard of" versus "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." (Teleport) and " you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location." (greater teleport).

You know that the Greater Teleport spell exists for a reason, right?

Teleport is often merely a facilitator. We need to get to a far distant land in really short order to participate in the adventure. Luckily, the wizard had a Teleport spell, or we would have been months too late to defeat the enemy, or even participate in the adventure! Funny how this only happens when we have a wizard capable of Teleportation, or when we have access to some other means of Teleportation. If, instead, we must spend weeks or months travelling by ship or by horse, the urgency of accomplishing the next steps of the adventure are exactly the same than when we avoid that travel with a Teleport spell. The villain has never complete his agenda two days after our travels started, and long since moved on once we arrive.

So you're arguing that teleport isn't useful because the GM will not impose a time limit on the party. That's... really interesting logic.

And the typically forgotten aspect - you can't do all these things repeatedly, as the fighter can, so if the game does not (to use a much-maligned term) coddle the spellcasters by allowing them to go Nova in each encounter, then rest after one or two for a day so they can be fully reloaded, then they actually need to manage their resources

Prying Eyes, Teleportation and Plane Shift only take 3 spell slots. Leaves the rest of the Wizard's spell slots rather open.

relying on teammates like the fighter who can keep delivering their combat abilities repeatedly.

But here we get to an interesting question: Why not a cleric or druid, especially at higher levels?

 

[N'raac]

In other, other news, in Pathfinder at least, there is an explicit level 1 spell (Ranger) that is for making yourself immune to Scent. Does that have Rules guidance on Prestidigitation's usage versus Scent? Personally, if that was orthodox/core, I would say that the specific, level 1 spell should be used as "Rulings" guidance on whether the usage of a general, level 0 spell should have application to circumvent Scent; eg, no it would not.

Clipped the Ranger discussion, but I agree Pathfinder did a lot to give the non-spellcasters (and even the less versatile spellcasters) more parity.

Prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate other spell effects, so the Ranger spell would eliminate any argument.

How do you know the have a privvy in the first place?

I am not the one who decided to use "I need to take a dump" as an excuse to beg off interacting with the Lizardfolk who might perceive something odd about your possessed Lizard fellow. My initial suggestion implied they would not - you dismissed it. Now that the possibility they do have one might cause your plan some challenges, they should not have one. The simple point is that you don't know. And Local Knowledge is an area the wizard seldom focuses on because it is a class skill for others.

Keep in mind, casting Reduce Person on an allied rogue while invisible counts as buffing him. Doing so on an enemy fighter counts as a debuff. So the first case would not break invisibility, while the second case would.

There are even cases where casting Scorching Ray on an ally would not be counted as an attack. Remember Clockwork Armor? If it takes too much cold damage, it freezes. The only way to counter this is is to hit the wearer with fire damage.

I can propose to you an instance where possession from Magic Jar would be beneficial to the victim; the party rogue has failed a will save vs paralysis vs a trap in the Jefferies tube and someone needs to take control of his body and move it out of there.

So the Invisibility spell can make all of these subtle distinctions, but the fact you move your soul to a new container is beyond its capacity? All the above really shows is the array of situations where interpretation of what will, and will not, cause in Invisibility spell to fail is significant.

Horses also take verbal commands in real life, though admittedly what a quasi-horselike creature does is less certain.

So does a typical horse listen to anyone who might say "Whoa", or does it typically listen to its rider? As you say, a quasi-horselike creature is not a perfect match. It clearly has considerable attunement to a single rider.

The Mount spell does not specify the degree of control you have over the created mount or how to control it, other than it serves willingly and well. Presumably, though it acts like a pony or horse that you can issue physical and verbal commands to.

Yup - it's a Summoning spell, so it's a real, trained riding animal. It does not specify that it can carry the specific rider it was summoned for, otherwise it's limited to 10lb per level. It interacts with the actual weight of the rider, for good or ill.

Then I have a question. How does the PC, in game, know whether he can cast, say, Limited Wish or not? If he doesn't have the XP for it, he's just going to waste the spell slot.

Perhaps he does not. Or perhaps he is attuned enough with his spiritual well-being to know if he possesses the spiritual stamina to weather such a strain on his soul without losing control of the spell. Perhaps (departing from RAW) he feels that lack as he prepares the spell, thus becoming aware that its preparation would be pointless. Or perhaps it is a metagame construct to simulate the wizard knowing there are limits to how much even a powerful Wizard can safely rearrange the very structure of reality.

The one thing I'm pretty comfortable it's not is a rotating dial the wizard can check on an ongoing basis. How often does it arise that a wizard is within 300 xp of dropping a level? Why is he not capable of casting a spell with an XP cost if he would lose a level? The metaphysics seem pretty questionable, all things considered, but that's an essential compromise for playability.

The existence of a soul is not a scientific question and as such, can neither be proved nor disproved. It is like me making up an imaginary friend and saying that, because you can neither prove nor disprove my imaginary friend, he is the one that ate your lunch and not me.

"Does this exist or does it not" seems a pretty scientific question. One that science has, as yet, been unable to answer.

We currently live in a world where we are gaining a good understanding of the mysterious forces and laws that govern existence. Quantim mechanics may be incredibly complex and seemingly arbitrary, but it is the branch of science that gives us semiconductors, lasers, computers, CAT scans, and explains much about how the universe came to be in the state we see today.

It is a world where we continue to have a lot of unknowns as well.

What would you like, a definitive study as to the subject funded by the NIH?

So we know all about the universe, other than whether a bath prevents your dog from recognizing you by sense of smell? There we go with those unknowns again. Do I think it's worth a lot of funding to find out? No, I think there may still be other unknowns whose discovery carries greater benefits, such as the root causes and foolproof treatments for a wide array of genetic conditions, or how to duplicate the taste of unhealthy foods with healthy components.

Is there such an intermediary step?

Your comment that you think Prestidigitation should be able to render the sense of smell useless to detect its target, but not if the target has the Scent ability, suggests one, since those without the Scent ability lack the ability to detect targets by scent anyway.

Is there anything further to be gained by discussion of the Invisibility/Possession, Prestidigitation/Scent or ability to instruct (rather than dismiss) a Phantom Steed issues? It seems like we can agree all three are matters of interpretation, with no definitive answer and a case to be made for either interpretation (at least unless that Mask Scent spell is in 3.5 - my quick search only finds Pathfinder references, and it's in the Advanced layer's Guide, where they started branching out from predecessor material).

You know that the Greater Teleport spell exists for a reason, right?

EITHER:
(a) No, I specifically referred to it in my comment, complete with the quote "you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location.", which you quoted in your response, without knowing the spell, named right after that quote, existed at all.

(b) Yes, and I pointed out that it has limits - it is described as "This spell functions like teleport, except that there is no range limit and there is no chance you arrive off target. In addition, you need not have seen the destination," after which my first quote comes in. It removes the range limit and the roll to see whether you arrive off target. To complete the detail, it does not allow inter-planar travel.

May I suggest (b)?

So you're arguing that teleport isn't useful because the GM will not impose a time limit on the party. That's... really interesting logic.

I'm arguing that it is not nearly so useful as often suggested in being a gamechanger because the challenge it overcomes is typically not present until/unless it is available. Neither the wizard nor the warrior generally fails in a challenge because it is not available. When it becomes available, it is used primarily to allow "success" in a challenge which would have been failure for characters of lower level, but because we're now 9th (or 13th) level and meet all the requirements, the group gets to Teleport instead.

Prying Eyes, Teleportation and Plane Shift only take 3 spell slots. Leaves the rest of the Wizard's spell slots rather open.

Every time Teleport becomes a discussion, it is suggested to me that the party (or just the wizard) teleports home to a cozy bed as their spells start to be depleted, teleporting back in the morning to a carefully studied location nearby to resume the adventure, and carrying at least one Teleport scroll in case they don't arrive on target, as even a 1% chance tends to come up when we roll at least twice a day. That's two slots for the Teleport. But the point I made had nothing to do with utility spells. If the wizard must plan for several encounters in the day, he's a lot less cavalier about blasting off all his best attack spells in the first one. If, on the other hand, he can rely on being able to rest and regain all his spells after each encounter, while the rest of the world remains in stasis, he (and other spellcasters, like clerics) seem a lot more powerful.

Are there only to be time constraints when we can overcome them through Teleportation?

But here we get to an interesting question: Why not a cleric or druid, especially at higher levels?

The Cleric can work as a replacement fighter. The higher level we get, the more potent spells are needed to cover the BAB spread and the benefits the fighter gets from feats that don't use up spell slots. Can the cleric duplicate the fighter? Sure - he has spells to make him a potent melee combatant. But his spells, like the wizard's, run out. And each spell he uses to match the fighter in his own field is not available to be used for things only the cleric could do. In our games, the cleric often buffs the fighter first, because he plans on hanging back, not spending every round in melee combat. That's traditionally worked pretty well.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Scientific questions can only be scientific if they can be tested; preferably repeatedly to verify the results. It is not possible, at the moment anyway, to test whether souls exist just like it's not possible to test whether any deities exist in the real world. We might eventually be able to test those hypotheses, but that's definitely not now, thus asking the question itself would turn into "how can we test this in the first place?"

However, souls and deities in D&D are very real, thus it's necessary to discuss the game with that paradigm in mind. In that sense of things, there are very clear differences between the real world and the fantasy world and as such bringing real world stuff into it does not actually serve a purpose except maybe to frustrate or be pedantic. Some might even call that trolling.

I do have a question for both of you, as well as anyone else reading this: Are you capable of going beyond your own experiences to see what might actually be happening, or at least what someone else might be claiming? So far various impasses I've seen tend to be caused by people being incapable of understanding something beyond what they themselves have experienced as well as only being able to argue from their own point of view.

 

[Manbearcat]

Clipped the Ranger discussion, but I agree Pathfinder did a lot to give the non-spellcasters (and even the less versatile spellcasters) more parity.

I agree that they did as well. However, I should clarify my position to be:

1 - The PF Ranger that has built his Ranger with the favored enemies of Dragons, Reptilians, favored terrain of swamp, and Archery, has greater parity with the Batman Wizard in this specific contrived scenario. He is specialized for this scenario and thus should be extremely potent for it. Further, spell advancement (spellcasting again) and PF specific spells (spellcasting again) carry a decent bit of the load in the infiltration portion to make this scenario doable. All of that being said, while his task resolution, contest bonuses, and synergy are enormous for this specific task, the effort would still involve a significant amount of engagement with the resolution mechanics and thus the chance for significant complication from that mechanical resolution (which I think he can probably handle). (A) The Wizard still has limited engagement of resolution mechanics (most is just fiat by way of strategic spell-use and deployment of "this will happen" effects) to do the trick and (B) the Batman Wizard outclasses the Ranger in any other number of devised scenarios that are outside of this Ranger build's "sweet spot."

2 - None of this really helps the poor Fighter out who is still pretty much exclusively "point at bad guys and mash fight buttan." He's better than the 3.x version, but he flat out doesn't have the requisite fiat resources to deploy nor the non-combat task resolution bonuses to pull off this job (or really any other that doesn't involve surviving HP ablation - unless he just tries to brunt force the lizardman tribe - and smashing doors/chests/bad guys...of which he is clearly above average at).

 

[N'raac]

Scientific questions can only be scientific if they can be tested; preferably repeatedly to verify the results. It is not possible, at the moment anyway, to test whether souls exist just like it's not possible to test whether any deities exist in the real world. We might eventually be able to test those hypotheses, but that's definitely not now, thus asking the question itself would turn into "how can we test this in the first place?"

Which, to come back to the question of the Wizard wishing to cast Limited Wish, comes back to how he objectively measures the 300 xp he will lose within the game milieu's terms. Note that my comment on determining whether souls exist was a response to the modern world's research on quantum mechanics. When the light comes from the Sun God's chariot, our real world knowledge falls a bit flat.

1 - The PF Ranger that has built his Ranger with the favored enemies of Dragons, Reptilians, favored terrain of swamp, and Archery, has greater parity with the Batman Wizard in this specific contrived scenario. He is specialized for this scenario and thus should be extremely potent for it. Further, spell advancement (spellcasting again) and PF specific spells (spellcasting again) carry a decent bit of the load in the infiltration portion to make this scenario doable. All of that being said, while his task resolution, contest bonuses, and synergy are enormous for this specific task, the effort would still involve a significant amount of engagement with the resolution mechanics and thus the chance for significant complication from that mechanical resolution (which I think he can probably handle). (A) The Wizard still has limited engagement of resolution mechanics (most is just fiat by way of strategic spell-use and deployment of "this will happen" effects) to do the trick and (B) the Batman Wizard outclasses the Ranger in any other number of devised scenarios that are outside of this Ranger build's "sweet spot."

Emphasis added. Much of the spell discussion seems to be "how I will avoid any engagement with the resolution mechanics". We've mentioned, for example, how the Wizard will get Larry Lizardman out of sight of the others to don his manacles, drink his sleeping draught, etc. Yet neither Dandu nor I considered the very simple engagement of those mechanics. When Lizard 1 asks Larry "Hey, how come you're not headed back to Guard Duty where you're supposed to be" and Larry replies "Gotta take a dump", the resolution mechanics suggest that the occupying wizard make a Bluff check, opposed by the other Lizard's +0 Sense Motive check. Prima facie, it seems like the other Lizard may not care much, so +0 to Sense Motive. However, if Larry's actions are not consistent with the Bluff ("hey, Larry, the privy is THAT way"), it's a little hard to believe, so the other lizard gets +5 to his check. It seems very unlikely we get beyond the +5 level, but what's our Wizard's Bluff roll?

There it is at http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=56823. So Bluff at -1 versus the Lizard's Sense Motive +0 (maybe +5 if the Wizard doesn't guess the right direction to the privy). Let's engage the mechanics, then. Suddenly, the possibility of losing time in discussions with the lizardfolk seems a lot more real. Meanwhile, those Invisibility and Fly durations are slowly ticking away.

2 - None of this really helps the poor Fighter out who is still pretty much exclusively "point at bad guys and mash fight buttan." He's better than the 3.x version, but he flat out doesn't have the requisite fiat resources to deploy nor the non-combat task resolution bonuses to pull off this job (or really any other that doesn't involve surviving HP ablation - unless he just tries to brunt force the lizardman tribe - and smashing doors/chests/bad guys...of which he is clearly above average at).

The fighter's no worse at bluffing that he was sent by the dragon, although that may be less likely to be believed, depending on how big a network the dragon has. The assumption is that the Fighter is 100% combat-focused, and has a dumped INT and CHA stat. Pathfinder did little to move him beyond that role ("little" being getting good at a cross class skill or two is now not totally out of the realm of possibility). Of course, if he devotes some resources to CHA or INT, skill points outside combat or feats outside combat, he'll get dumped on by the optimizers, so he has to stay narrowly focused on his little niche, not use the added combat boosts to maintain a 3.5 level of combat skill and direct some resources at non-combat abilities, so even his limited potential will never be realized.

Fighters are the new Clerics! We finally got the Cleric out of being the devoted party medic just in time to pigeonhole the fighter and not allow him any skills outside combat.