D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

No single game/product can handle all the commonly desired styles of play well - there are too many priorities that wind up in conflict.

Designers must make choices about what they want their games to do well, and what they are willing to sacrifice to get it.

It is not unlike cars - the engineering for carrying loads and towing large weights and the engineering for speed and maneuverability are fundamentally at odds, which is why you don't see hybrid engine Lamborghini sportscarminivanpickuptrucks.

Of course. I mean equality in how these games and varying playstyles and rulesets are discussed, not in what they are and how well they accomplish any specific goal any specific player wants from them.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I want my game to care about reasonable simulation more than PC vs PC balance.

Except of course when it comes to wizards running out of spells, then you want things to be like a video game, even when it realistically makes no sense why an archmage would suddenly forget how to do msot basic spells, othertwise the benefit of martials being able to attack each turn (which is THE ONLY benefit they have in this design scenario) vanishes.

Does "playing your character" mean the same thing to you as casting constant spells at all time? It doesn't to me.

Again, I don't believe running temporary out of magic equals no longer being able to play your character. Thst idea honestly mystifies me.

Listen, fighter fights, cleric prays, magic user USES MAGIC, othertwise they're not a magic user. If I have one game a week, likely after day of hard work and I want to forget hardships of my life and pretend to be a guy who controls magic, last thing I want is for some arbitrary reason to prevent me from using magic and tell me "no, you're joe schmoe, you don't matter, you're here to do menial tasks just like ones you do at your work, while other people get to have fun." This approach to design to me read as "we designed magic user wrong so he is no fun to play, because we cannot make people play fighter othertwise". Instead of, you know, making good Fighter.

From my perspective you were doing the same. The fact that the current game apparently leans more towards your preferences doesn't change that, or make those preferences more valid than mine. That's all I've ever had to say on the subject, but people keep telling me I'm demanding everyone play my way. I want equality and evenhandedness.

The answer for why people react this way is in here:

As both I and @Lanefan have said, to you, previously, we don't believe collaborative storytelling is the primary purpose of RPGs. If we can't at least agree to disagree on that we're not likely to get very far.

You simutaniously want D&D to cater to mindset of rpg as a glorified wargame, while ALSO being simulationist...and both of those kinds of design are so fundamentally opposite of rpgs as collaborative storytelling approach, it gives an impression there will be simply no room left for it in a game that caters to first two.

What I am saying is that an RPG can be form of collaborative storytelling, or a glorified wargame that challenges player and leaves character disposable, or the msot realistic simulation of the world. It can even be two of those at once. but a game that tries to be all 3 is a game that ends up being neither of them, just throwing half-baked plattitudes towards each without commitment.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

No single game/product can handle all the commonly desired styles of play well - there are too many priorities that wind up in conflict.

Designers must make choices about what they want their games to do well, and what they are willing to sacrifice to get it.

It is not unlike cars - the engineering for carrying loads and towing large weights and the engineering for speed and maneuverability are fundamentally at odds, which is why you don't see hybrid engine Lamborghini sportscarminivanpickuptrucks.

I think that D&D is fundamentally facing the same issue as Sonic the Hedgehog, when it comes to designign new installments - the franchise has been around so long and evolved so much and so many times, that it now has not one but multiple fanbases that have fundamentally incompatible idea of what it actually is. And both often make msitakes of trying to cater too too many of these groups at once, creating things that aren't comitting in any direction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except of course when it comes to wizards running out of spells, then you want things to be like a video game, even when it realistically makes no sense why an archmage would suddenly forget how to do msot basic spells, othertwise the benefit of martials being able to attack each turn (which is THE ONLY benefit they have in this design scenario) vanishes.



Listen, fighter fights, cleric prays, magic user USES MAGIC, othertwise they're not a magic user. If I have one game a week, likely after day of hard work and I want to forget hardships of my life and pretend to be a guy who controls magic, last thing I want is for some arbitrary reason to prevent me from using magic and tell me "no, you're joe schmoe, you don't matter, you're here to do menial tasks just like ones you do at your work, while other people get to have fun." This approach to design to me read as "we designed magic user wrong so he is no naughty word


The answer for why people react this way is in here:

You simutaniously want D&D to cater to mindset of rpg as a glorified wargame, while ALSO being simulationist...and both of those kinds of design are so fundamentally opposite of rpgs as collaborative storytelling approach, it gives an impression there will be simply no room left for it in a game that caters to first two.

What I am saying is that an RPG can be form of collaborative storytelling, or a glorified wargame that challenges player and leaves character disposable, or the msot realistic simulation of the world. It can even be two of those at once. but a game that tries to be all 3 is a game that ends up being neither of them, just throwing half-baked plattitudes towards each without commitment.

Well, we both clearly have a preference. Good thing there are different games, even different versions of D&D (in the general sense, rather than the IP sense), that cater to them. I just don't treat popularity or recentcy as important factors in my discourse.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

But what if players were forced to constantly use whatever they have lying around? Taking weapons from the enemy? What if their weapons broke a couple times per encounter? Now, GWM becomes a much more situational perk: yeah, it's busted strong when you wrench a greatsword from draugr's hands! (and also not waste it on bad targets). Not super useful otherwise.

While Conan is a great example of a weapon breaking for dramatic and story effect, the highlighted bit above immediately got me thinking about The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, in which weapons do, indeed, break, often a couple times per fight. The result is a video game mentality where you load up on dozens of weapons so you can make it through a fight or three, and constantly scrounging for more weapons. You lose the special impact of Conan's blade breaking. because no weapon is sacred (and in BotW, if you have a weapon you really like, you are pretty much not going to use it for that reason, otherwise it breaks).

The idea of weapons breaking in combat? Sound idea with dramatic potential. The idea of weapons breaking a couple times per encounter? Nightmarish cartoon video game logic scenarios that lead to player and GM frustration and negate the dramatic value of the action being a thing that is less common.

EDIT: Deset Gled made my point already!

 

[GrimCo]

Yes and no though. Let's not forget that a lot of spells last more than one round. If you cast a summoning, you got critters for the entire combat (or until they died). And, pre-5e, there was no such thing as concentration (for the most part), meaning that you could have two or three different spells going on for a while.

Some do, some don't. Concetration was skill and for maintaining some spells, you rolled it, mostly if you took damage. And it was painful cause DC=10+spell level+ damage received. But yeah, you could stack buffs.

Sure, you might only cast one spell per combat (or maybe two) but, if it's the right spell, it lasted most of the duration of the combat (even fireball, which only lasted an instant, tended to end a combat pretty quickly).

Yeah, but, you prepared each spell in it's own slot. Need fireball again? Too bad, you prepared it only in 1 of your slots, doesn't matter you still have available slots and have it in your spellbook. Also, while yes, there was no concentration and you can stack buffs, because of before mentioned system of preparing spells, you needed to try to guess what will happen that day and what ratio of utility, offensive and defensive spells will you prepare. Now, in 5e, sure, you have limited number of spells prepared, but if you need more utility, you burn slots on utility ones.

Now, it's pew pew pew all day long.

Pew pew is just part of it. Like i said in previous paragraph, you finally have rituals, you can take time to cast spells without slot use, you have some minor magic so you don't just run of magic stuff and you have some versatility. Wizard actually feels like wizard. Pew pew cantrips are just small part of it. But still, pew pew all day beats twiddling thumbs and playing third grade crossbowman any day.

I grew up on Lord of the Rings and Dragonlance. Continuous flashy magic is not what I associate with wizards.

LOTR didn't even have wizards ( Gandalf and company are Maiars), at least not spell casting ones. They were just wise celestials that used their innate abilities. Not familiar with Dragonlance so cannot comment on that.

I didn't feel like a wizard because of cantrips. I played a 5e wizard and cantrips made me feel like I had failed as a wizard and was reduced to using the magic "crossbow."

Damaging cantrips are secondary. But utility ones, like light, prestidigitation, message, mage hand, minor illusion, ghost sound, those are ones that make wizard feel like wizard. When you burn trough your big flashy spells, you still have that small, fun, spells that make you feel like you are wizard which can be used in creative way, not just for pew pew spamming. But pew pew is also part of it. As a wizard, you are never unarmed. You always have option to use your basic magic to defend yourself.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Well, we both clearly have a preference. Good thing there are different games, even different versions of D&D (in the general sense, rather than the IP sense), that cater to them. I just don't treat popularity or recentcy as important factors in my discourse.

Good thing none of points I raised were concerning popularity or recentcy, could you actualy adress them properly?

LOTR didn't even have wizards ( Gandalf and company are Maiars), at least not spell casting ones. They were just wise celestials that used their innate abilities. Not familiar with Dragonlance so cannot comment on that.

Dragonlance by all means had flashy magic, Raistlin once solved a problem by teleporting a whole ancient green dragon in front of Lord Soth and watch them duke it out, that's very flashy. The whole battle with Verminaard in finale of frist novel has him slinging spells as often as his mace, he literally hold personed Caramon (or maybe Riverwind, not sure naymore) as his opening move. Then there is Raistlin destroying the world in alternate future, Gods dealing with uppity priest by throwing a meteor on his city, time travel....magic in Dragonlance is by all means flashy.

 

[Remathilis]

I too want to cast spells. Big, flashy, reality bending spells that have a capacity to turn the tides and completely reshape the dire situation.

Not to sling a lot of weak spells all day long.

Meh. I don't want to play a glorified commoner who can cast "I win" X times per day.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Meh. I don't want to play a glorified commoner who can cast "I win" X times per day.

This is my issue with 5e design: All "Save or lose" spells should be eliminated or nerfed. In exchange all spells should do bigger thing on a failed save and lesser thing on a succesful one, so even if enemy saves, it never feels like you wated your turn. it's jsut that no spell should be able to solo an encounter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good thing none of points I raised were concerning popularity or recentcy, could you actualy adress them properly?

Dragonlance by all means had flashy magic, Raistlin once solved a problem by teleporting a whole ancient green dragon in front of Lord Soth and watch them duke it out, that's very flashy. The whole battle with Verminaard in finale of frist novel has him slinging spells as often as his mace, he literally hold personed Caramon (or maybe Riverwind, not sure naymore) as his opening move. Then there is Raistlin destroying the world in alternate future, Gods dealing with uppity priest by throwing a meteor on his city, time travel....magic in Dragonlance is by all means flashy.

I said continuous flashy magic. Dragonlance followed the rules of 1e (more or less). No always-on cantrips.