D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[Garthanos]

Happy to oblige. Silly arguments are my specialty.

Enworld has a surplus dude

 

[Maxperson]

Um... I'm pretty sure Stoneskin is a 2nd Edition spell. You are about to complain about magic boots, when your wizard is casting spells from another edition?

Stoneskin was in the 1e UA. I'm pretty sure Lanefan is one of those who used it, but I could be wrong. It's hard to keep track of who uses what, but he didn't say anything when I used it, so I think I'm correct.

Is the assumption that fighter is (literally) terminally stupid? If they have a choice in the matter, they're going to hold off becoming clearly hostile until they have a chance to act effectively. The fighter will set up for success if at all possible. Even a character with average intelligence knows that anything equivalent to, "draw sword, scream, and sprint the full length of the throne room to strike the wizard" is suicide. So... they wouldn't do that! Such an action should not be part of your consideration.

Why not? It's a white room discussion usually. If we're talking game play, the wizard is going to initiate as often as the fighter does, and it's going to be at range.

Discussion of face-offs that don't include context are... not fruitful.

I agree. Lanefan made a blanked fighter v. magic user statement, at least in the post that I saw. Other context may have come before it. I don't know.

 

[Maxperson]

Especially when it comes to 1e (AD&D) or 0E (OD&D). Too much variability in application of the rules.

But IMO, these would be the main factors:

1. What type of preparation is done? Is this on the home territory of the fighter? The wizard? Neutral territory? Does one, or both, know the fight is about to occur? How far apart do they start?

2. Magic items. The early editions were insanely magic-item dependent. So, imagine a high-level fighter, with:
A. Girdle of Storm Giant Strength (+6, +12)
B. Gauntlets of Ogre Power (+3, +6)
C. Hammer of Thunderbolts (+5, +5, double damage dice, stun on hit)

So to hit is .... +14 to hit, damage is (4-10)+23+stun. Assume 13th level, 2x round, then:
(8-20)+46+(stunx2). Minimum damage on two hits is 53. Second attack is additional +4 to hit (stun) (no dex modifier).

The first attack would succeed on a 4 or high, even assuming no other bonuses and a -10 AC. There is no save from the stunning.

And no casting of spells while stunned. It would be a quick and brutal end to M3RL1N the not-so-magnificent.

Or what if the fighter has some anti-magic equipment? You know, ring of spell turning? Artifact (e.g., Leuk-O's Machine). Holy Avenger (yeah, Brad, I remember.... HOW CAN I FORGET????)? Etc.

3. Are you playing with standard combat rule for the casting of spells, and spell length? If you are, then the MU will be very restricted in the spells that can be cast, even if they win initiative. See PHB 104.


But there are so many ways to game this out; sub in preparation for the MU, for example, or the ability to go in and out at range, or specialized magic items ... and the fighter is toast.


So the answer is ... it depends.

The gauntlets and belt wouldn't stack. One gives you an 18/00 strength, not +3, +6 and the other a 24 strength which is +6, +12. You can't have two different strength numbers simultaneously.

Other than that, I agree magic items make a large difference.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

Au contraire.

I picked those items for a reason.

Hmm. I don't think that ever came up in any of the games we played.

 

[pemerton]

Um... I'm pretty sure Stoneskin is a 2nd Edition spell. You are about to complain about magic boots, when your wizard is casting spells from another edition?

Stoneskin is a magic-user spell in Unearthed Arcana (and so perhaps in Dragon or a module before that?). But it's not as strong in that version as in 2nd ed AD&D. In the UA version, it only protects against a single attack or attack sequence.

EDIT: ninja'd multiple times on the UA reference.

And @lowkey13 is correct about the stacking potency of the gauntlets-girdle-hammer-Look-I'm-Thor combo. Though I've personally never seen it in play.

 

[pemerton]

Now in this hypothetical scenario where this player of mine made the offer of characterization for their level 1 Fighter that they are the greatest swordsman in the land... if I was to throw an opponent at them to allow them to show off this characterization... I'd probably go with one of the exceedingly low-CR NPCs, like the Guard. And as part of the story the PC would get to show off their skill. My guess would be that they'd be able to defeat this "swordfighter" opponent, thus expanding their resume and reputation. Now if they happened to lose... then that obviously is now true, and the player would need to change their representation in the story (or not, and thus maybe their character has evolved into a delusional or arrogant one).

This answers one question I'd had, namely, whether you're leaning more heavily on action resolution mechanics or "say 'yes'" for resolution. Thanks for that clarification.

assuming they won, and as this PC gained mechanical levels, other higher-powered NPCs would get introduced into the game to present challenges to the character. Like I might move on to use the 'Gladiator' NPC statblock at some point for a new challenger.

Now those of the "living world" concept of campaign design would probably ask "Where was this 'Gladiator' NPC back when the character was claiming to be the best swordsman back at level 1?"

<snip>

The answer of course being that until I needed that NPC to challenge the character in the story, he didn't exist.

<snip>

I pretend that the "power" a character has does not align to anything or necessarily "exist" within the fiction.

<snip>

to try and rationalize the combination of the two (mechanics and story) is a road towards madness.

Here is part of an email I sent my players some time in late 2008/early 2009, when they were making PCs for our about-to-commence 4e game:

Relationship Between Game Mechanics and Gameworld
Unlike 3E or Rolemaster, a lot of the 4e mechanics work best if they are not treated as a literal model of what is going on in the gameworld. So keep in mind that the main thing the mechanics tell you is what, mechanically, you can have your PC do. What your PC’s actions actually mean in the gameworld is up to you to decide (in collaboration with the GM and the other players at the table).

Some corollaries of this:

Character Levels
Levels for PCs, for NPCs and for monsters set the mechanical parameters for encounters. They don’t necessarily have any determinate meaning in the gameworld (eg in some encounters a given NPC might be implemented as an elite monster, and in other encounters – when the PCs are higher level – as a minion). As your PC gains levels, you certainly open up more character build space (more options for powers, more feats, etc). The only definite effect in the gameworld, however, is taking your paragon path and realising your epic destiny. How to handle the rest of it – is your PC becoming tougher, or more lucky, or not changing much at all in power level relative to the rest of the gameworld – is something that will have to come out in the course of play as the story of your PC unfolds.

PC Rebuilding
The rules for retraining, swapping in new powers, background feats etc, don’t have to be interpreted as literally meaning that your PC has forgotten how to do things or suddenly learned something new. Feel free to treat this as just emphasising a different aspect of your PC that was always there, but hadn’t yet come up in the course of play.

Skill Checks and Power Usage
When you make a skill check (especially in a skill challenge), use a feature or power, take the second wind action, etc, the onus is on you to explain how what you are attempting works in the gameworld. (Where a feature or power has flavour text you may use that flavour text or come up with your own.) Feel free to be dramatic.

Inadequate explanation which leaves everyone at the table scratching their heads as to what is going on in the gameworld may lead to a -2 penalty, or even automatic failure of the attempted action, depending on the circumstances.​

As I've already indicated in this thread, and as is implied by the contrast I drew with 3E, I think 4e is the version of D&D most suited for this sort of approach. I've never tried to run AD&D this way, and wouldn't. There's too much stuff, especially but not only on the spell memorisation side, that I feel pushes against it.

 

[Maxperson]

Stoneskin is a magic-user spell in Unearthed Arcana (and so perhaps in Dragon or a module before that?). But it's not as strong in that version as in 2nd ed AD&D. In the UA version, it only protects against a single attack or attack sequence.

EDIT: ninja'd multiple times on the UA reference.

And @lowkey13 is correct about the stacking potency of the gauntlets-girdle-hammer-Look-I'm-Thor combo. Though I've personally never seen it in play.

When you come in almost a day later, even a Ninja Turtle could get the jump on you.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Coroc]

Au contraire.

I picked those items for a reason.

At least in 2e (compare baldurs gate2) Hammer of thunderbolts (In Bg2 u needed a belt the gauntlets and a was it dwarven throwing hammer?), sorry i might intermix something but i htink the hammer of thunderbolts if combined with the belt and gauntlets did confer Str25 and make the hammer throwable (returning)
Did i get it about right @lowkey13 ?