Tropes that need to die

[Neonchameleon]

Conan would just take Harry Potter's wand away from him and spank him with it.

Without the wand the wizard in Harry Potter's world is helpless.

Wandless casting is explicitly taught in the later books. Take thirteen year old Harry Potter's wand away and he's helpless. Take eighteen year old Harry's wand and he's just impeded and probably about as powerful as thirteen year old Harry with a wand.

I am sick and tired of the squealing that spell casters are over powered. Of course they are overpowered, they use MAGIC! If you cut them off from the source they can't do diddly. Put a cleric on a plane where his god doesn't exist and he's just a second-rate fighter. I like for magic to be powerful because it's... magical! Otherwise it's just currency.

It is powerful. But powerful and overpowered are two different things. Multiply all spellcasting times in 3E by a factor of ten and magic will still be powerful. And so will mages. But weapon wielders will have much more of a place.

I'm also willing to bet many of those complaining the loudest about spell casters play or DM in a game where casters are not required to record what spells they currently have prepared. I've played in games where the DM didn't require this and the spell casters always seem to have just the right spell for the right job. Eliminating this requirement makes spell casters even MORE powerful.

Of course it does. But if there's any downtime at all it's easy to almost eliminate the limits here in 3e. Those obscure utility spells you generally don't prepare but when they are useful are really useful? Scrolls. Those that you want to cast three or more times per day? Wands.

Are spell casters actually more powerful? At least at medium and upper levels, yes. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying playing fighters and rogues as well. If the spell casters just hoard their spells for their own use and don't buff up the fighters and rogues that would make them more powerful.

A given. But the real question comes if the casters buff each other or don't buff at all rather than turning their spells over to the fighter for use. Is that what is best for the party? If the answer is yes, then buffing the fighters and rogues is not working as a team. It's holding a pity party for the poor meatshields and thieves.

The game assumes the the members of the party will cooperate.

Cooperation is not holding a pity party. It's working together to ensure the success as a group. Even from the earliest levels clerics make better meatshields than fighters - they come with almost as many hit points and the ability to heal themselves and other people. And can wear the same armour.

There are prices to be paid if the casters don't bolster the entire party.

Also prices to be paid if they do. Like a share of the loot. And arguably a less effective party overall.

If the casters in the party don't use some of their magic to boost the fighters and rogues they could end up in the depths of the dungeon by themselves. Then they better have some Raise Deads or Teleports to get them out of the mess they're in.

Good job they are the people who can do that then. Because the fighters certainly can't! And can't fly either. And can't even really tank without the mages supporting them.

And they better hang on to their spell books and their holy symbols!

Always. And have spares. Getting captured and chained up sucks. But the fighters aren't better off with their hands chained. At that point it's the bards and the rogues who are the useful guys. Also most high level wizards IME have a spare spellbook that's not kept with them...

 

[MoxieFu]

Neon can you do that again but only one sentence at a time?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Argh. This. This is why I have fallen so out of love with the "let's keep the fighters from being too fantastic now" approach. "You can play Beowulf, as long as you accept that it's you don't have astounding endurance, it's a magic pool, Grendel wasn't really notably strong, he had a magic glove, and that swimming in the ocean thing was something you made up to sound impressive."

In AD&D terms, I think I'd say something more like: "Sure, you can play a character with 18/00 Strength and 18 Constitution. After all, I was there when you rolled him up!"

I'd much rather see a game where you're allowed to be Beowulf-strong as presented

My point was that your "as presented" is really "as I interpreted was presented". That Grendel had a large glove is in the text; knowing its purpose requires a little Old Norse lore, but would certainly have been known to the original audience. Failing to know doesn't change what is presented; it only changes your understanding of what is presented.

If I failed to understand that Batman needed the Batmobile to race along Gotham's streets at 90 mph, that doesn't suddenly mean that Batman is presented as the Flash, or that you are not allowing me to play Batman as presented because you don't let me have super-speed.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, "graveyards exist to prevent undead from rising" is a vast oversimplification (perhaps even outright trivialization) of human burial rituals.

Or, perhaps, it is just focusing on part of human burial rituals because it is a relevant part to a discussion.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.

I'd like my fighters to be more knowledgeable about things like history and geography and the like.

In 3e they don't have many class skills and Knowledges is not one of his primary skills and I think it should be.

 

[Barastrondo]

In AD&D terms, I think I'd say something more like: "Sure, you can play a character with 18/00 Strength and 18 Constitution. After all, I was there when you rolled him up!"

It doesn't really address the point, though. I still wouldn't know (without the context of this thread) if that would mean a fighter would be allowed to regularly do fantastic things in said game, or if such fantastic things would be sharply regulated. What you can reasonably expect an 18 Constitution to get you is something that still varies from GM to GM, and what inspires them to sit down and run.

My point was that your "as presented" is really "as I interpreted was presented". That Grendel had a large glove is in the text; knowing its purpose requires a little Old Norse lore, but would certainly have been known to the original audience. Failing to know doesn't change what is presented; it only changes your understanding of what is presented.

But do you see how it comes across as a focus on limitation? Consistent arguments that Beowulf is not really that impressive, or if he is, that it's an implied conjurer's trick, don't give the impression that one would do well to select a fighter in such a setting. It's the spirit of the "let's not get too fantastic, here, you're still playing a human fighter" that I don't care for.

Still, yes, point taken. It's not unlike basing an interpretation of a pulp hero on one story instead of many: it's only over the course of many stories where you can see if a hero is generally not that much more competent than the people around him, or if he's regularly outstanding. We only have the one Beowulf.

 

[Barastrondo]

Here's one: the big dumb warrior who's only good for his fighting and physical skills.

I'd like my fighters to be more knowledgeable about things like history and geography and the like.

In 3e they don't have many class skills and Knowledges is not one of his primary skills and I think it should be.

Whoo, preach it brother.

 

[MoxieFu]

Wandless casting is explicitly taught in the later books. Take thirteen year old Harry Potter's wand away and he's helpless. Take eighteen year old Harry's wand and he's just impeded and probably about as powerful as thirteen year old Harry with a wand.



It is powerful. But powerful and overpowered are two different things. Multiply all spellcasting times in 3E by a factor of ten and magic will still be powerful. And so will mages. But weapon wielders will have much more of a place.



Of course it does. But if there's any downtime at all it's easy to almost eliminate the limits here in 3e. Those obscure utility spells you generally don't prepare but when they are useful are really useful? Scrolls. Those that you want to cast three or more times per day? Wands.



A given. But the real question comes if the casters buff each other or don't buff at all rather than turning their spells over to the fighter for use. Is that what is best for the party? If the answer is yes, then buffing the fighters and rogues is not working as a team. It's holding a pity party for the poor meatshields and thieves.



Cooperation is not holding a pity party. It's working together to ensure the success as a group. Even from the earliest levels clerics make better meatshields than fighters - they come with almost as many hit points and the ability to heal themselves and other people. And can wear the same armour.



Also prices to be paid if they do. Like a share of the loot. And arguably a less effective party overall.



Good job they are the people who can do that then. Because the fighters certainly can't! And can't fly either. And can't even really tank without the mages supporting them.



Always. And have spares. Getting captured and chained up sucks. But the fighters aren't better off with their hands chained. At that point it's the bards and the rogues who are the useful guys. Also most high level wizards IME have a spare spellbook that's not kept with them...

I am not going to get into a pedantic line-by-line argument where we strips sentences out of their contexts. I am not saying that A is always true and that B is never true. I am not standing on one extreme side of an argument and claiming all other arguments to be the opposite extreme.

What I am saying is that Yes, magic is powerful. But that's the way I LIKE it in my games. IMHO YMMV TT&LNI. But even if magic IS powerful, it does have limitations. It is up to the DM to enforce those limitations. If they don't, then characters using magic can run amuck.

If a DM wanted to, he could really screwover the spell casters. I've seen it happen and I'm glad I wasn't playing the wizard in that game. Characters shouldn't have to plan for contingencies upon contingencies upon contingencies. They should just exercise a reasonable amount of preparation. And everybody's interpretations of "reasonable" is not the same. But at the same time the players shouldn't assume that they will always have all the time and money and opportunity to do what they plan. And If a DM lets them do that, then he is asking for trouble.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It doesn't really address the point, though. I still wouldn't know (without the context of this thread) if that would mean a fighter would be allowed to regularly do fantastic things in said game, or if such fantastic things would be sharply regulated.

Hrm. "Regularly do fantastic things"? The epic poem Beowulf spans more than 50 years. How regularly does Beowulf do fantastic things within that poem? Even if we throw the context of the poem out the window because some might say "Beowulf is not really that impressive" -- as if the accomplishments of human beings cannot be!

Again, as this thread has shown, one doesn't need to take the leap into fantasy to uncover real human feats that others think fantastic. Beowulf doesn't need to out benchpress the Hulk to be impressive, nor need he be Aquaman. The emphasis of the poem -- what actually makes Beowulf impressive to the intended audience -- is that he does what he ought to do. And anyone can do what they ought, if they (like Beowulf) are willing to pay the price.

Then twelve cheiftains, all sons of princess, rode round the barrow lamenting their loss, speaking of their king, reciting an elegy, and acclaiming the hero. They praised his manhood and extolled his heroic deeds. It is right that men should pay homage to their king with words, and cherish him in their hearts, when he has taken leave of the body. So the Geats who had shared his hall mourned the death of their lord, and said that of all kings he was the gentlest and most gracious of men, the kindest to his people and the most desirous of renown.

It is sometimes said that S&S, and games like D&D, are about adolescent power fantasy. This may be true, especially if all one does is focus on the power. But this doesn't have to be the primary focus, as it was not the primary focus of Beowulf and is not the primary focus of the REH Conan stories.

Adolescent power fantasy is about "What can I do? What can I take? What do I get?"

Beowulf is no less desirous to do great deeds, or to win renown, but he is focused on "What is right for me to do? What can I give back? What is the honourable way to face my foes? What gifts do I bring my king?" IOW, one focuses on "What's in it for me?" while the other focuses on "What can I bring to the table?"

I far prefer "What can I bring to the table?"

YMMV.

As for "focus on the limitations", then if you say X is Y, and I say X is not-Y, sure, you can say "You are focusing on the limitations! Like how X is not-Y!" But the "focus" here is brought about by the original claim, not be the refutation of it. And the refutation exists only because the original claim is used to back other claims, which are equally -- or even more! -- questionable.

RC

 

[Harlekin]

Argh. This. This is why I have fallen so out of love with the "let's keep the fighters from being too fantastic now" approach. "You can play Beowulf, as long as you accept that it's you don't have astounding endurance, it's a magic pool, Grendel wasn't really notably strong, he had a magic glove, and that swimming in the ocean thing was something you made up to sound impressive."

All you have to do is to apply the same logic to Magic users: "Fireball" may just be a big Molotov cocktail, the "magic missile" was fired from a crossbow and Fly spells only work in special magic areas that yo will find once in your adventuring career. This is the type of wizard you would expect in a story with "realistic fighters", a Con Man that claims to have magic powers but is mostly bluff and bluster.