Once and for all- Is D&D magic overpowered?

[Willowhaunt]

Even in Lord of the Rings, in which the danger and evil is the most apparent of any fantasy setting I can think of, there were still those who turned against the light, or interpereted the good in a way counter to its real values. Those people were not above using what powe they had to make people turn to their ways, why should D&D be any different?

 

[I'm A Banana]

what happens in that one game where they don't

Then you're not playing D&D to the rules as written, and when you do that, just like when you try low magic or a gritty hit point system, it's not going to work very well.

Even the D&D novels (FR, etc.) seem to skirt around this situation, just as they ignore the fact that there are resurrection spells.

This is because every novel ever written for D&D blows. And this is part of the reason -- they don't take into account the realities of their world. Of course, I exaggerate, but it makes the point.

Just because you don't like the fact that a prepared wizard is a significant challenge to a prepared fighter doesn't mean that the system is broken. The test doesn't play by the rules. That's fine, but you can't expect the system to hold up when you purposefully subvert it's intended goals.

Those people were not above using what powe they had to make people turn to their ways, why should D&D be any different?

For every spell there is a counterspell. For every thrust there is a parry. Like a fighter's best challenge is another fighter, a spellcaster's best challenge is another spellcaster. They need each other to fight creatures of different types.

 

[Crothian]

Even in Lord of the Rings, in which the danger and evil is the most apparent of any fantasy setting I can think of, there were still those who turned against the light, or interpereted the good in a way counter to its real values. Those people were not above using what powe they had to make people turn to their ways, why should D&D be any different?

Then it depends on what you are calling PvP and that Middle Earth is a very different setting then traditional game setting like the REalms. Is humans verse Drow PvP? What about verse goblins and orcs?

But what it seems likle you might be saying is not PvP but class verse class. Most monsers can get class levels of some type these days.

But ya, magic is the most powerful force in D&D. It has always been that way so it is not a new problem.

 

[Willowhaunt]

Then you're not playing D&D to the rules as written, and when you do that, just like when you try low magic or a gritty hit point system, it's not going to work very well.

Cooperation isn't part of the rules, nor is it assumed. The FR alone has far too many examples of human and demihuman types not cooperating. Working together is just one style of play, among what should be a large amount of equally balanced choices.

As far as the FR novels sucking, quality is beside the point, as I see it. I don't think the authors, good or terrible as they might be, get to decide things like that when WotC is slapping their logo on the book. FR is a shared world, and somebody, early on, obviously made the decision that, in novel world, there are no resurrections and the spellcasting system is completely different...

As far as characters of the same class doing battle with each other...that will, of course, be as balanced as Chess, but again, it's only one kind of situation. It just seems wrong to me to assume that people in the world of D&D are somehow built differently so that they tend to agree more, especially when even default D&D has as many evil gods as it does good. All of the statements about cooperation being the name of the game make some pretty hefty assumptions about human nature that I'm finding hard to swallow. I love a cooperative game, but I don't feel that it's the only way to play, and I'm worried that D&D is forcing players to work by one somewhat unrealistic game style. Good mages might not charm their buddies into agreeing with them, but evil mages would, by nature, have no problem with that...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cooperation isn't part of the rules, nor is it assumed.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. You adventure in a party. Solo combat isn't part of the way the rules have been balanced -- a party of four is.

The FR alone has far too many examples of human and demihuman types not cooperating. Working together is just one style of play, among what should be a large amount of equally balanced choices.

Groups working against each other is different from not being a cooperative game. In D&D, you play a party that goes against challenges, not against each other. If you want to go against each other, D&D isn't going to help you.

Low magic isn't balanced with high magic, vs. play isn't balanced with cooperative play. This is even true in MMORPG's like World of Warcraft: classes that work really well in a party environment (like the WoW Hunter or WoW Warrior) suffer HUGELY when arrayed against other players. If you want to play AGAINST other people, a different game is needed, since D&D's tools for that are pretty unapologetically awful. They aren't designed to be one lone guy against one lone guy and be good. That's what the minis game is for, or what CCGs are for. Not D&D.

It just seems wrong to me to assume that people in the world of D&D are somehow built differently so that they tend to agree more, especially when even default D&D has as many evil gods as it does good.

This is because the Evil is the Bad Guys and the Good is the Heroes, and D&D is designed with the idea that PC's are the heroes. The PC's won't be fighting each other, they'll be working together against the bad guys who are also working together. PC's not working well together is a problem because the game is not meant to handle that kind of environment.

If they weren't, you'd have more than two classes with access to healing magic, broader selection in weapon skills, more diversity in powers within a single class....a different sort of balance than you have when you assume a party atmosphere. And there's no reason that D&D should cater to vs. play, as far as I can see. There are other things that do that just fine.

All of the statements about cooperation being the name of the game make some pretty hefty assumptions about human nature that I'm finding hard to swallow.

This isn't about human nature. It's about the game's rules. It's not competative play, one person against another struggling for dominace where they will oppose each other individually. It's a game of heroic adventure, where a party of dedicated heroes fight and overcome challenges. That's not an assumption about human nature, that's an assumption about how the game is played. If you want to play it a different way (such as competitive play) be prepared to find holes in it. The only way competitive play works is party-based competitive play (or Gestalt characters, which are pretty much one-person parties. ). Otherwise, you're just trying to make the game do something the game was never meant to do, and saying it doesn't live up to your expectations.

 

[Telas]

It's like deciding who the best player is in football. Put Bret Favre behind a crappy offensive line, and suddenly he's not so hot....

Telas

 

[Willowhaunt]

I think what we are disagreeing about right now is the projected purpose of the D&D game.

I see it as being the simulation of a reality in which magic and monsters exist. I don't really see it as a game as much as a sim where anything can and should have the opportunity to happen, a imaginary sandbox, as it were. I think pigeonholing the game as a teamwork excersice belittles the possibilities of the roleplaying genre- there are too many stories that cannot happen if partying is the only option...

(I'll have more to say once I've slept and am coherent again)

 

[tetsujin28]

There's no way to compete in a "stock" D&D game without magic of some kind. In the case of most PCs, this is in the form of magic items. In a game without magic items, the spell-casters grow completely out of control, and will run everything. A high-level fighter with no magic items is a putz compared to a wizard of equal level.

And D&D is definitely player vs. player: it's all the players against that false player, the DM!

 

[Solarious]

Personally? If your PCs are fighting amongst each other, you simply aren't throwing enough villians at them. Throw in assasination attempts when they start arguing enough to give the attackers an advantage, then watch them co-operate like crazy!

Granted, magic does obselete fighters and rogues to a certain extent as the game goes on.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've never really bought into the idea of 'High-level DnD = Must Have Tons of Magic To Compete', since I have played and run campaigns that didn't have a lot of magic items and we did perfectly fine. I've played in games that didn't have a primary offensive caster and the party did just fine.

I think many of the problems that people have with casters, especially the high level casters, is that they've bought into this idea and thus they and the party structure everything around the casters. 'Caster is out of spells - time to rest'. 'Out of healing potions - back to town'. Every caster has a limited number of spells per day and it's been my experiences that they either hoard them or blow them early - either way leaves plenty for the fighters and rogues to do. Sorcerers, not to limited that way but they are very limited in their range. Outside their narrow specialty, they become things to be protected.

Now, it's also been my experience that casters don't make a lot of scrolls, not even wizards. Rarely do we ever have that quiet interlude that must occur to do that work. Shoot, when out on an adventure usually it's a 50/50 bet for them to get that eight hours of 'only one interruption' sleep they must have. Do y'all gloss over the little things like that? If so, then don't be surprised if caster power expands.