Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4983920" data-attributes="member: 3424">The discussion in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267095-wizards-d-d-4th-edition-have-been-neutered-argument.html" target="_blank">the thread on neutered wizards</a> has wandered round to the issue of the "I win" button, why it was (effectively) removed in 4E, and whether or not it is a good thing.On my part, I can see why the "I win" button is such an attractive concept. Having just the right spell to overcome any problem is one of the key tropes of the wizard, a class that many role-players identify with closely, and it also underscores the limitless possibilities of mind and knowledge. However, in the context of a group game, the "I win" button has a couple of drawbacks:1. Overshadowing Other Characters: While the effects of this can be minimized through player co-ordination (the wizard simply does not select spells which duplicate the capabilities of the other characters), the temptation to have a "backup" or a "safety net" (just in case the other character fails) is always present. And when that happens, it's about the closest that a fellow PC can get to being that DMPC who steps in to save the day when the PCs fail. 2. Circumventing the Game's Challenges: Whether it's a fight that ends suddenly because the BBEG rolled a 1 on his saving throw against a death spell, or a utility spell that cuts short what should have been a multi-stage challenge, the "I win" button can sometimes deliver what seems to be a quick and easy victory to the party. It's great for the players (in fact, some types of players live for moments like these) but some DMs find it annoying, especially if they have put a lot of work into preparing the encounter.Previous editions worked round the above problems mainly by limiting the frequency of the "I win" button through a variety of means: random allocation of spells so that the wizard might not have all the spells he wants; spell preparation, which requires the wizard the guess what spells he will need; additional costs in terms of gold, XP, ability scores, age, etc.; or simple unreliability (e.g. random effects, saving throws, spell resistance, immunity, etc.) so that the spell does not always work, and so on. The problems still occured from time to time, but hopefully not often enough that anyone got too annoyed.I wonder whether it would be possible to re-introduce the "I win" button, but in a way that would avoid the two problems mentioned earlier. For example:1. "We Win": The idea here is that a spell might make the wizard good, but it makes another character better. It is not a new idea - even in 3E, there were some suggestions that knock should give a bonus to Open Lock checks, while invisibility should give a bonus to Hide checks. So, even though a wizard could cast these spells to open locks and sneak around if there was no rogue in the party, he would be better off if there was a rogue, and he used them to improve the rogue's ability instead. 2. The Narrative Win: Here, the "I win" button becomes a plot point, not a challenge. The wizard can, with a single spell, kill the BBEG in one round. However, before he can do that, he need to find the BBEG's true name. And he needs to find a rare component to power the spell. And he needs to fight through the BBEG's minions and henchmen before he can get close enough to kill him. And the party doesn't get any XP for killing the BBEG, except maybe XP for completing a quest. The lower the risk, the lower the reward, and in any case, they should have earned enough XP in the process of fulfilling all the conditions for casting the "I win" spell.What do you think? Would you want the "I win" button in your game? If so, which approach would you favor?</blockquote>

Verification