Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

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.

You won't get an argument from me on this. This is a good example of a bit of adept, and fair, GMing that inserts some dynamic conflict into the scenario and requires the Magic Jar-using-Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics. This specific, isolated use isn't GM force. However, 2 things:

1 - Engagement of the resolution mechanics is not an internal conceit inherent to these spells and their individual mechanics. The engagement with the resolution mechanics must occur externally by the GM in re-framing the scene by either (i) bringing fictional positioning pressure that was not overtly present (and therefore could be accounted for by the Wizard) within the fiction prior or (ii) leveraging a hole in the strategic planning of the Wizard. There is inherently a lot of contextual, strategic scene-framing and scene-reframing potency in a Wizard's deployment of spells like Magic Jar, Divination lines et al. As such, a well-played Batman Wizard will work hard to minimize or utterly remove the possibility of (ii) manifesting in play. If, due to sound strategic planning by the Wizard, a GM cannot bring (ii) to bear the GM then consistently (meaning any frequency beyond anomalous) brings about (i) in order to impose conflict and force the Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics, I submit that table problems will ensue.

2 - Much of the problem with 1 above lies in the task resolution system expectations/conceits of 3.x. When you have a complex, conflict resolution system (such as a Skill Challenge or a "stress system"), engagement of the resolution mechanics is an expectation each step of the way. For instance, if the challenge requires the movement down a conflict/stress track (from d4 to win at d12) or requires 8 successes before 3 failures, the Wizard is then expecting to have complications imposed upon them within the framework of the complex conflict system. The same thing applies when the rules for "Mark XP" are when a wizard fails at a conflict or when a complication arises due to a micro-failure in the greater conflict. The Wizard might be achieving an automatic success (or movement from d4 stress to d6 in his effort to "stress out" the conflict before he himself is "stressed out") by casting the Magic Jar Ritual and then have to engage the resolution mechanics many more times to have "success conditions" for the challenge met. At that point, a complication such as Larry Lizardman's buddy Louie who has come to relieve him from guard duty would be inevitable, natural and expected. The Wizard would then engage the resolution mechanics for the Bluff vs (medium or hard) DC or use an Encounter power (such as Suggestion) to sub Arcana for Bluff and then you would have either a Failure Forward or a Success with Complications arising afterward. 3.x doesn't work off of that premise. Again, the expectation is binary task resolution resolved by causal logic (simulation of process) rather than genre logic within the application of an extended conflict resolution framework. So, given those system expectations, there is a moving target as to the threshold of when overusage of (i) above becomes GM force and annulment of "player agency"; eg "I deployed my fiat resource with sound strategic use and you're making me engage the resolution mechanics with some contrived Louie character that didn't clearly and presently exist in the shared imaginary space prior...again?..."

Again the (i) vs (ii) game turns into Calvinball.

 

[Wicht]

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.

A typical horse who has been trained to stop for a "whoa" typically listens to an authority figure. Said authority figure may or may not be the rider, depending.

 

[N'raac]

You won't get an argument from me on this. This is a good example of a bit of adept, and fair, GMing that inserts some dynamic conflict into the scenario and requires the Magic Jar-using-Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics. This specific, isolated use isn't GM force. However, 2 things:

1 - Engagement of the resolution mechanics is not an internal conceit inherent to these spells and their individual mechanics. The engagement with the resolution mechanics must occur externally by the GM in re-framing the scene by either (i) bringing fictional positioning pressure that was not overtly present (and therefore could be accounted for by the Wizard) within the fiction prior or (ii) leveraging a hole in the strategic planning of the Wizard. There is inherently a lot of contextual, strategic scene-framing and scene-reframing potency in a Wizard's deployment of spells like Magic Jar, Divination lines et al. As such, a well-played Batman Wizard will work hard to minimize or utterly remove the possibility of (ii) manifesting in play. If, due to sound strategic planning by the Wizard, a GM cannot bring (ii) to bear the GM then consistently (meaning any frequency beyond anomalous) brings about (i) in order to impose conflict and force the Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics, I submit that table problems will ensue.

I think this depends largely on the game expectations. Louie Lizard works because the Wizard had no way of determining who, if anyone, was in close proximity in the D&D model.

2 - Much of the problem with 1 above lies in the task resolution system expectations/conceits of 3.x. When you have a complex, conflict resolution system (such as a Skill Challenge or a "stress system"), engagement of the resolution mechanics is an expectation each step of the way. For instance, if the challenge requires the movement down a conflict/stress track (from d4 to win at d12) or requires 8 successes before 3 failures, the Wizard is then expecting to have complications imposed upon them within the framework of the complex conflict system. The same thing applies when the rules for "Mark XP" are when a wizard fails at a conflict or when a complication arises due to a micro-failure in the greater conflict. The Wizard might be achieving an automatic success (or movement from d4 stress to d6 in his effort to "stress out" the conflict before he himself is "stressed out") by casting the Magic Jar Ritual and then have to engage the resolution mechanics many more times to have "success conditions" for the challenge met. At that point, a complication such as Larry Lizardman's buddy Louie who has come to relieve him from guard duty would be inevitable, natural and expected. The Wizard would then engage the resolution mechanics for the Bluff vs (medium or hard) DC or use an Encounter power (such as Suggestion) to sub Arcana for Bluff and then you would have either a Failure Forward or a Success with Complications arising afterward. 3.x doesn't work off of that premise. Again, the expectation is binary task resolution resolved by causal logic (simulation of process) rather than genre logic within the application of an extended conflict resolution framework. So, given those system expectations, there is a moving target as to the threshold of when overusage of (i) above becomes GM force and annulment of "player agency"; eg "I deployed my fiat resource with sound strategic use and you're making me engage the resolution mechanics with some contrived Louie character that didn't clearly and presently exist in the shared imaginary space prior...again?..."

A big part of the difference is that the player and GM would have agreed beforehand on all stakes at the Lizard Village, with the difficulty or ease of resolution set accordingly. Nothing prevents the GM, with or without player input, deciding that getting intel on the dragon's lair is not a big deal and that it would be best for the game if we move along to the dragon's lair. Therefore, the wizard's plan goes off without a hitch, or the fighter is easily able to catch a lone lizardfolk in the swamp, or whatever excuse we want to move the game to the dragon's lair occurs.

The shared imaginary space you reference differs in its nature between game types. In a wargame or storyteller model, the GM knows how many lizardfolk are in the village, and assesses the likelihood that Larry can just wander away unnoticed. In a narrative game, the narrative rules are followed, whether that means Larry gets autocaptured or that the GM adds pressure with another lizardfolk interfering.

Genre logic suggests we cut screen to a captured Larry being interrogated, or even to the entrance of the dragon's lair, if the info gathering serves no purpose, or that we play it out, with complications and challenges, if it serves a purpose. This is true whether we are wargaming (why play out something with no challenge?), storytelling (get on with the real story) or indie'ing (not thematically appropriate/important, so move forward to something that is).

 

[Hussar]

I don't get this whole line. Of course a caster in double-digit levels can destroy defenseless commoners/kobolds/lizardmen/etc. So can a noncaster. A fighter of this level can kill hundreds if not thousands of low-level opponents with virtually no risk; it just takes longer. If we believe the Legend Lore spell, such a character is "legendary". They should be able to lay waste to a village. Nothing particularly aberrant going on here.

Problem is, no he can't. The non-caster gets mobbed, grappled and beaten to death. I've got a +16 grapple check (because I've got 8 people helping the grappler) and you have limited AOO's per round. As soon as you're grappled, you're pooched.

Never mind that the 1st level lizard folk shaman could get lucky with a charm spell.

 

[Hussar]

I prefer to think of it as "as long as you have a completely inept DM spellcasters probably aren't balanced".

And, we're right back to "There's nothing wrong with the mechanics, you guys are just doing it wrong".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Problem is, no he can't. The non-caster gets mobbed, grappled and beaten to death. I've got a +16 grapple check (because I've got 8 people helping the grappler) and you have limited AOO's per round. As soon as you're grappled, you're pooched.

Not really. For one thing, grappling is not nearly that easy, given the touch attack which a low-level character can very well miss. For another, breaking out of it is not that hard. And even a grappled fighter can still attack fairly effectively if he has a light weapon, and pinning is not that easy. This strategy also assumes that after watching a bunch of people get cleaved down, the mob doesn't turn and run, and that the fighter does not find a defensible position where eight people can't just surround him.

Never mind that the 1st level lizard folk shaman could get lucky with a charm spell.

I can imagine a fluky demise for the spellcaster too.

And, we're right back to "There's nothing wrong with the mechanics, you guys are just doing it wrong".

Well, yeah. To be fair, you're telling the rest of us that if our spellcasters aren't taking over our games, we're doing it wrong.

 

[Wicht]

Well, yeah. To be fair, you're telling the rest of us that if our spellcasters aren't taking over our games, we're doing it wrong.

Well, if that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[billd91]

Problem is, no he can't. The non-caster gets mobbed, grappled and beaten to death. I've got a +16 grapple check (because I've got 8 people helping the grappler) and you have limited AOO's per round. As soon as you're grappled, you're pooched.

Try actually playing it out and you'll see what an exaggeration that is.

 

[ImperatorK]

I'm still waiting on an answer, Ahnehnois.

 

[Hussar]

Try actually playing it out and you'll see what an exaggeration that is.

Umm, we posited a 100 or so lizard folk. A single, lone, medium sized fighter at 10th or so level. If the DM isn't winning this fight, the DM is lobbing some pretty easy softballs over the plate. "If the fighter has a light weapon", "If the fighter can choose the location of the fight" "If we stack the deck entirely in the fighter's favor" then the fighter will win.

Well, yeah. To be fair, you're telling the rest of us that if our spellcasters aren't taking over our games, we're doing it wrong.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page29#ixzz2gQksKtgX

Well, not really. We're saying that in our games, high level casters take over the game for a number of reasons, most of which are mechanical in nature. The basic response is that the GM should be stacking the deck (taking away caster abilities, remove spell books, deliberately choose opponents that target casters, etc) to bring casters in line with the non-casters.

Which, of course, simply proves the point. If there wasn't a disparity, then you wouldn't have to fix anything. You wouldn't have to target the casters. You wouldn't have to stack the deck and choose interpretations which specifically reduce the effectiveness of casters.

IOW, if there wasn't any power disparity, what are you trying to fix? Why are you (those who claim that there is no problem) continuously tweaking the rules?