"I know the spell to solve the problem!"

[kimble]

Bug.
There´s an episode of Dragon Ball Z Abridged where, while Goku and the others are fighting, they show all the other characters in Kame´s House. They are silent, waiting and doing nothing.
Then someone says something like:
'Hey, remember those times when we travelled around the world with Goku, having adventures?'
Everybody: 'Yeah! Yeah! Good times!'
And then they just keep waiting for Goku and the others to come back.

It´s something like that, when you have spellcasters that can do anything they want ("It´s magic!") and 'normal' characters that can´t ("It would be unreal if your warrior jumped over that tree. Now wait for me while I get back to the city <teleport>.")

 

[LostSoul]

Let's put some numbers on this. Let's very conservatively estimate that the group only encounters 4 locks per level. That 80 locks in 20 levels. If you're using knock scrolls to open them, you've just spent 12,000 gp worth of wealth. IOW, there are some pretty useful items you've passed up in order to buy those scrolls.

If you want to talk about just knock spells, then, sure, there's probably a point in the high teens where the costs become sufficiently trivial that it just doesn't matter.

But we're explicitly not talking just about knock. The knock spell is being proffered as just one example of a wide and pervasive range of spells which are supposedly knocking out broad swaths of character utility from the other classes.

Let's say there are just 10 such spells. Now we're talking about 120,000 gp. Hmm... That's starting to look like a significant chunk of change.

Two thoughts:

If you can cut out another PC with your scrolls, then you get a larger share of treasure and XP. 4 PCs over 20 levels = 760k each; 3 PCs over 20 levels = 1013k each. Unless you're spending 253k each you're coming out ahead.

The cost of a scroll of Knock is the cost of the scroll + the treasure you don't get because you spent a day scribing instead of adventuring - the treasure you get for casting it. Or 75 gp + 1 day - treasure gained.

 

[LurkAway]

If you can cut out another PC with your scrolls, then you get a larger share of treasure and XP. 4 PCs over 20 levels = 760k each; 3 PCs over 20 levels = 1013k each. Unless you're spending 253k each you're coming out ahead.

The cost of a scroll of Knock is the cost of the scroll + the treasure you don't get because you spent a day scribing instead of adventuring - the treasure you get for casting it. Or 75 gp + 1 day - treasure gained.

I don't want to assume any conclusions on your end, but I don't think characters usually think like that. If you think from the character's perspective, I think most heroes would appreciate the strength of numbers, rather than some sort of machiavellian cost-benefit analysis like let's kick out a party member and increase my share of the treasure, especially if you're roleplaying a heroic type, and even a selfish rogue is probably going to err on the side of caution and self-preservation.

The competitive mix-maxing levelling nature of metagame thinking can often be at odds with what a character would likely do.

Perhaps a lot of metagame roleplaying leads to more worries of this nature, and more immersive roleplaying leads to less concerns of this nature, as broghammerj illustrated?

 

[LostSoul]

I don't want to assume any conclusions on your end, but I don't think characters usually think like that. If you think from the character's perspective, I think most heroes would appreciate the strength of numbers, rather than some sort of machiavellian cost-benefit analysis like let's kick out a party member and increase my share of the treasure, especially if you're roleplaying a heroic type, and even a selfish rogue is probably going to err on the side of caution and self-preservation.

I think that characters - especially genius-level ones - would be likely to think like that, even if they don't choose to act that way. (Though the situation is a lot more complex than what I posted above.) Players, however, are less likely to kick a real person out of the group just so their imaginary characters can get a little more imaginary loot.

The competitive mix-maxing levelling nature of metagame thinking can often be at odds with what a character would likely do.

Perhaps a lot of metagame roleplaying leads to more worries of this nature, and more immersive roleplaying leads to less concerns of this nature, as broghammerj illustrated?

Yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with what your goals are for playing the game. (I think there are more ways to look at it than just metagame vs. immersive roleplaying, though.) For different goals, "I know the spell to solve the problem!" can be a feature, and for others a bug.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that characters - especially genius-level ones - would be likely to think like that, even if they don't choose to act that way.

It's not a Player Vs PC dichotomy, it's a question of PC ethics. There are definitely PCs who would want to cut out others, but most PCs have an alignment/ethical composition that means they don't think like that.

 

[kimble]

It's not a Player Vs PC dichotomy, it's a question of PC ethics. There are definitely PCs who would want to cut out others, most PCs have an alignment/ethical composition that means they don't think like that.

Or maybe they just care about their friends.
Let´s say I´m a high level wizard. I can fly, teleport, open doors, become invisible, rewrite reality, all that.
The guy by my side can open some doors, hide in the dark and some others mundane things, nothing that I couldn´t do by using spells.
I care about him, his not that bad and we travelled a lot when we were younger. The kind of thing that is dangerous to me, it´s the kind of thing that would kill him in seconds. If I don´t want that to happen, than I probably shouldn´t bring him along most of the time.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not a Player Vs PC dichotomy, it's a question of PC ethics. There are definitely PCs who would want to cut out others, but most PCs have an alignment/ethical composition that means they don't think like that.

They don't even consider the value that another member of the team adds to their party because it's unethical? I don't understand that at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They don't even consider the value that another member of the team adds to their party because it's unethical? I don't understand that at all.

What I'm saying is that there are sociopathic PCs who only value others as long as they contribute to that PCs happiness. Once they're no longer useful, they can be discarded. Steps in that direction may actively be taken.

Everybody else, OTOH, thinks like normal RW humans, and will base their decisions on moral/ethical considerations- is that guy my buddy? Is he my ally? Has he done things I really dislike?- all that RW stuff we use figuring out who we want to work or hang out with comes into play.

They, for the most part, will not reduce their interrelationships on the level of a pure CBA analysis; they won't be "metagamey."

 

[Elf Witch]

Sorry but this is a dodge.

The default rules assumption is easy access to spells via scroll. The core rules assume it (via balance for the monsters etc.). Dragon, Dungeon, and supporting modules were written with the assumption in mind.

You're argument is essentially the same as saying:

3e haste was not unablanced because you didn't have to use it; or

Rogues were not hosed in the Age of Worms campaign (a campaign that centered on undead) because no one was forcing you to play one.

Further,saying "I can change the default assumptions and therefore the rules are not to blame" is essentially saying "I can houserule/Rule O rule x so rule x is not a problem" which is The Oberoni Fallacy.

Playing in an Age of Worms campaign right now and the rogue is doing just fine. Because not every encounter involves undead and he still can hit the undead just not back stab them.

Plus there are a ton of locks and traps to be disabled through the game. So the rogue has plenty of chances to shine.

I don't understand this complaint of the game has undead so now the rogue gets hosed. If the rogue is doing other things why does he need to be able back stab in every combat?

Age of Worms is a perfect example of a path that gives all classes a chance to shine they just can't shine all the time.

Maybe I am reading to much into it but it seems to me that people feel that if they have a special skill that means they get to use it all the time and if they can't then they are being nerfed.

It is the same complaint I hear about wizards and other mages we are out of spells so we can only fire our crossbows and that damage is just weak. I came to play not hang around and fire cross bolts. Forgetting of course that you have already used your spells and had your time to shine.

 

[Mort]

Maybe I am reading to much into it but it seems to me that people feel that if they have a special skill that means they get to use it all the time and if they can't then they are being nerfed.

I'm more talking about PCs having a special skill - but other PCs having that same skill or its equivilant and then on top of that having many other things they can do. If magic allows for a wizard to have enough utility to marginalise a rogue and still do his schtick effectively - then IMO that's a bug.

I believe 3e lends itself too easily in this direction. There are certainly ways around it and it can be dealt with, but if A DM isn't looking for it magic can easily marginalize a rogue's role in the party.

It is the same complaint I hear about wizards and other mages we are out of spells so we can only fire our crossbows and that damage is just weak. I came to play not hang around and fire cross bolts. Forgetting of course that you have already used your spells and had your time to shine.

3e went quite far in making sure this was not a frequent occurrence - especially in later iterations (reserve feats etc.) Frankly I don't remember the last time a mage was out of resources in 3e before the fighter was too low on HPs to continue. Whereas I seem to remember it happening in 1e and 2e all the time (not that I remember the mages complaining much, a 1e or 2e mage was only out of resources after making a serious contribution to the adventure).