D&D General Poll: As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

[Thomas Shey]

If we are really wanting balance and for each person to have a position on the team, I vote against components and vote for more mechanisms for spell interruption.

Not just concentration.

Well, my own preference would be (as is the case in other fantasy games I'm familiar with) to not make mages so powerful in the first place, but I know that's generally as popular with D&D right now as maggots in the bread.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, if you want to power down casters, you need to crunch spell levels. There's a lot of spells that don't really need to be high level, and some that probably should be higher level than there are, obviously, but the game should have a sliding scale that effortlessly lets you adjust the power level by saying "ok, no spells beyond level X" without taking away something actually vital (or putting it in the hands of NPC's- at some point, it's ok for players to come up with their own solutions).

I mean, either that, or we completely ditch the system, which tries to cram magic into single-use portions, with silver bullets for every possible occasion, but alternative magic systems never seem to be popular, and the last time WotC tried to toss out Vancian-esque magic, well, there's a reason why it's called Fifth Edition.

There exists a vocal group of players who are perfectly fine with magic being just as powerful as it is. Curiously, this group tends to overlap with the group who are perfectly fine with non-magical characters being just as powerful as they are. Often, they will claim there is no problem with this paradigm at all!

Which may be true, based on playstyles of their group, or houserules they have adopted.

Personally, I'd love to ditch concentration, spell disruption, counterspelling, spell slots, and components out the window, in favor of more balanced options for everyone...oh but right, lol, if we did that it "wouldn't feel like D&D".

One could extend this thread to it's ultimate conclusion by having another poll: "as a player I am always justified in playing a spellcaster, no matter what", lol.

 

[John R Davis]

Again should be 90%+ answer in one option.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There exists a vocal group of players who are perfectly fine with magic being just as powerful as it is. Curiously, this group tends to overlap with the group who are perfectly fine with non-magical characters being just as powerful as they are. Often, they will claim there is no problem with this paradigm at all!

I will note that in my experience PF2e did a pretty reasonable job of pushing up non-casters and pushing down casters so the decision between them is mostly a style thing. Admittedly, it'd still be a poor choice for sword and sorcery because the overall effect is still too high-fantasy, but it demonstrates its not impossible.

(That said, some of the biggest complaints about it come from PF1e spellcaster fans, so this perhaps supports your position).

 

[James Gasik]

I will note that in my experience PF2e did a pretty reasonable job of pushing up non-casters and pushing down casters so the decision between them is mostly a style thing. Admittedly, it'd still be a poor choice for sword and sorcery because the overall effect is still too high-fantasy, but it demonstrates its not impossible.

(That said, some of the biggest complaints about it come from PF1e spellcaster fans, so this perhaps supports your position).

Which is interesting, since PF1e had already watered down casters from 3.5, by being much more conservative with spells. Sure, they added at-will cantrips, but most of them, no one is really all that excited to cast. "I hit with my ray of frost for....2 cold damage", lol.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I can understand people wanting some balance (it’s not a big issue for our group but can see where the concern is).

However, I specifically did not like 4e and sold it all off because of its “balanced” magic system.

I suspect the focus of the group is so much of this—-we never want for fighters, paladins rangers. In fact, wizards—-straight wizards are rare.

Not sure if that is a function of us usually playing mid tier or if we are just into the role playing side. And that said—-we have super combat heavy games so we aren’t larpers. We’re fighting with minis on the board much of the time.

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is interesting, since PF1e had already watered down casters from 3.5, by being much more conservative with spells. Sure, they added at-will cantrips, but most of them, no one is really all that excited to cast. "I hit with my ray of frost for....2 cold damage", lol.

A lot of the additional changes were subtle, and a few were dramatic (the amount of ongoing complaints about the fact that take-out spells almost never will work on a target who is at or above your level is a repeated refrain), and the other part were simply things like the fact that a caster usually takes more time to get things done than a non-caster because of the action economy. In addition, you don't have things like damage spells advancing in damage capability without using a higher slot. The net effect is that a spellcaster can still do things few non-spellcasters can it tends to take a lot longer to get there on the whole, and in some cases by the time you do, the non-spellcasters is pretty close (a Stealth specialist can keep up pretty well with matching invisibility related spells as long as he's willing to invest in feats to do so, for example, and not necessarily sacrifice much of his core function doing it).

But like I said, none of this is non-controversial.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

I can only note that one of the reasons I left D&D for many years was because I thought fighters were dull as dishwater to play (I also thought that spellcasters had all the charm of a man with a bag full of a variety of hand grenades, but at least they had some meaningful mechanical options).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or, to paraphrase Grod's Law: "You cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use."

God I wish more people understood this.

I hope you don't mind me quoting this in the future. Because it is such an important idea and so few people understand it.

side question (maybe even something you can use if you can shorten it for your next poll)

You are talking (from what I can tell) about gaming the system (See peasant rail gun) but what about playing the DM...

"Jon is running this game and he hates trapped doors so no need to check for traps most times"
or
"GMforpowergamers loves surprise face heal turns... I bet this wizard that is hiring us will turn on us better prep for that"

This is...complicated. Perhaps it is worthy of its own poll, I dunno.

That is, I'm okay with the former but not the latter. E.g., if hypothetical-you know I as DM dislike traps and you tell me that's why you aren't looking for traps, okay, sure. It's not grubbing for advantage, just keeping things moving. Partly, that's because I can't see myself being secretive about not using traps. If I actually got upset, I could just put in a trap. Of course, I prefer talking like adults, but one small painful-but-not-deadly trap could work as a wake-up call.

The other is harder 'cause it's metagame in a way I don't like (not all metagame is bad, but some is.) Always showing paranoia and distrust without reason to so is off-putting. Yet other, similar thoughts may not bother me, e.g. "we know Ezekiel hates grimdark, so this situation has to have SOME kind of solution, we just need to keep looking and stay positive." Again, I'd prefer forthright, respectful discussion to deal with disruptive metagame thinking.

Maybe better to say why I find "DM loves face-heel turns, better prep for betrayal" off-putting, but "DM hates grimdark, there has to be a solution" is fine. The former looks openly irrational in-character, driven only by trying to outwit the DM. The latter is sensible for "real" people (tenacity/determination against hardship). It feels like playing along with the DM, leaning into the stuff the DM is doing. It's supporting, not disrupting, the intended theme and tone.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I can only note that one of the reasons I left D&D for many years was because I thought fighters were dull as dishwater to play (I also thought that spellcasters had all the charm of a man with a bag full of a variety of hand grenades, but at least they had some meaningful mechanical options).

Totally respect that.

From the tenor of the discussion however, it sounds like some folks think that is a near universal fact. I was just curious if it is really widespread or just a preference thing.

As far as that goes I usually take a “Gish sort” so just curiosity on my end.