Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[GMMichael]

Sample scenario: my game provides two low-level spells that cause damage. Fire does physical damage while Stun does mental damage. Physical damage is by far the most prevalent, so most combatants (animals and monsters included) have physical protection that reduces damage. Mental protection is rare. While Stun takes twice as long to cast as Fire does, it does a smidge more damage and faces less resistance.

If you're a fighting wizard (as opposed to the scholarly kind) would you stick to a wizardly spell like Fire, or capitalize on the potential of Stun despite its more psionic flavoring?

 

[Umbran]

So, Stun is better.
But, for some reason, Fire is more common.

WHY is Fire more common, among folks who can see that Stun is superior? Is there an in-game narrative reason why wizards in this world make a clearly sub-optimal choice?

 

[Lanefan]

Assuming I have access to both spells, I'll cast whichever one has the better chance of "winning" in that moment.

Stun against a mindless zombie is pointless. Fire against something that's protected from fire is pointless. Thus in each case I'd cast the other one.

 

[MarkB]

If the Stun spell isn't thematic to the campaign, why is it there? If it's there and people in that campaign world choose to use it, why isn't it thematic?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sample scenario: my game provides two low-level spells that cause damage. Fire does physical damage while Stun does mental damage. Physical damage is by far the most prevalent, so most combatants (animals and monsters included) have physical protection that reduces damage. Mental protection is rare. While Stun takes twice as long to cast as Fire does, it does a smidge more damage and faces less resistance.

If you're a fighting wizard (as opposed to the scholarly kind) would you stick to a wizardly spell like Fire, or capitalize on the potential of Stun despite its more psionic flavoring?

If I can cast it using wizardly means, then it's wizardly enough for me. I would have no thematic concerns as a PC about Stun, only tactical concerns about which is more cost-effective.

As a player or a GM I might have thematic game-design concerns about whether Stun ought to be a low-level wizard spell though, just as I might have thematic concerns if an AD&D DM made Raise Dead a wizard spell. But the character is not a game designer. They're a gameworld inhabitant.

 

[CleverNickName]

If the Stun spell isn't thematic to the campaign, why is it there? If it's there and people in that campaign world choose to use it, why isn't it thematic?

Asking the real questions.

 

[Darth Solo]

Following the theme of a "Fighting/War Wizard" (one of my favorites), Physical.

I can't damage or destroy physical objects with Mental/Stun magic, and combat isn't always about targeting living targets. Having the ability to destroy an opponent's possessions could even have greater psychological impact than "zapping" their brain. The Physical spell gives me more options, and therefore, I have a better chance of "winning" in disparate situations.

 

[GMMichael]

So, Stun is better.

It's not that cut-and-dried, as @Darth Solo 's post points out. Further, the action-economy consideration is not insignificant: Stun takes longer to cast, and a lot can happen in just a few actions. But the question remains...

WHY is Fire more common, among folks who can see that Stun is superior? Is there an in-game narrative reason why wizards in this world make a clearly sub-optimal choice?

The in-game reason depends heavily on GM choices. There's no "spell list" that tells a player what his or her class automatically gets, except what players and GMs agree upon. Spells can be researched, taught, or inborn. Metagame: 2nd level spells don't give you a casting bonus, so characters with embarassing attributes are unlikely to be able to cast them. Thematically, Stun is very likely to be taught to psions, but not as an apprentice wizard spell.

As a player or a GM I might have thematic game-design concerns about whether Stun ought to be a low-level wizard spell though, just as I might have thematic concerns if an AD&D DM made Raise Dead a wizard spell. But the character is not a game designer. They're a gameworld inhabitant.

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

Wait, so this is about the player's decisions at chargen, not the character's decisions in the game? Or both? ("Spamming" is a gametime decision, not a chargen activity.)

I have enough powergamer in me that I find powerful and legal but unthematic options both tempting and stressful. (Warlock 2 dips in 5E, Broadsword-30 hyperspecialization in GURPS.) Historical evidence says I am likely to give in to temptation and rationalize a way to take the ability on the character, but I'll also feel shame about that choice, and I'll be happier if the tension is resolved either by adjusting the theme to fit the rules or the rules to fit the theme.

 

[Pedantic]

The Stun spell (as well as Fire) is included in a genre-free list. Players and GMs determine the house-list, subject to rule zero (and rule 001). So yes, a GM can say "welp, Stun's not an option." But the question is for the player: would you choose the harder path if it meant supporting the campaign's theme? Or given the sample: would you spam Stun if you found it got better results than Fire?

Yes, but also, I have questions about the cohesion of the setting. Is my character special in some way that makes it reasonable I have access to this spell and other people don't?

If I am supposed to be representative of wizards in setting, and the setting has wizards using Fire, why is this not reflected mechanically?

I just don't think it's on the player to make the proposed setting and system cohere. That's a design and/or worldbuilding question.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Following the theme of a "Fighting/War Wizard" (one of my favorites), Physical.

I can't damage or destroy physical objects with Mental/Stun magic, and combat isn't always about targeting living targets. Having the ability to destroy an opponent's possessions could even have greater psychological impact than "zapping" their brain. The Physical spell gives me more options, and therefore, I have a better chance of "winning" in disparate situations.

But the reverse is also true. Sometimes you don't want to risk damaging the items.

If someone is ransacking a church, fireball is destructive but synaptic static leaves the church and its various art and relics intact.

it also doesn't leave a 40ft burn ring, create an audible "whoomph" noise to panic animals or a flash of light that can be seen for miles at night where everyone knows "oooh, wizard cast a fireball there"

 

[MichaelSomething]

I need more information on your society's stance between fire and stun magic.

 

[kigmatzomat]

As a player, if it is in the system, it is thematic. If it wasn't thematic, the designer would have culled it.

After that it turns into character choice.

I have a 5e bard who uses both psychic spells and fireball because options. Sometimes I want a ball of destructive fire with a low spell-slot cost. Other times I want a blast of psychic damage that doesn't leave a mark, even if it does less damage per spell-slot.

In Earthdawn, sometimes you cast a fast, low-damage Dart spell repeatedly and others you spend the time to power up Razor Orb.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "campaign theme," but I will choose staying on character theme over optimizing 100% of the time (not that they are always or even often in conflict, but when they are).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I try to put myself in the mind of the PC. Some of my PCs have been one trick ponies, some have been Swiss Army knives.

If you’re asking which PC type I would design in such a setting- stunner or pyro- it would depend on what idea I had for a PC. It’s very possible I might not choose the “optimized” choice of very utilitarian fire powers, instead choosing to contribute in other ways until an opportunity to strut presents itself. I’ve done it before; I’ll do it again.

If you’re asking which my PC would use if they had both powers, it would be which one my PC thinks would be effective. Of course, if the PC is a nutcase, all bets are off.

 

[The Grinning Frog]

Isn't this as simple as player choice? It feels as if the question is assuming that all players will min/max their characters. When I design a character, I'd like them to be capable, but I'm not worried about them being top dogs. Being awesome is about how I roleplay them!

 

[Darth Solo]

Isn't this as simple as player choice? It feels as if the question is assuming that all players will min/max their characters. When I design a character, I'd like them to be capable, but I'm not worried about them being top dogs. Being awesome is about how I roleplay them!

This x100!

Wait, so this is about the player's decisions at chargen, not the character's decisions in the game? Or both? ("Spamming" is a gametime decision, not a chargen activity.)

I have enough powergamer in me that I find powerful and legal but unthematic options both tempting and stressful. (Warlock 2 dips in 5E, Broadsword-30 hyperspecialization in GURPS.) Historical evidence says I am likely to give in to temptation and rationalize a way to take the ability on the character, but I'll also feel shame about that choice, and I'll be happier if the tension is resolved either by adjusting the theme to fit the rules or the rules to fit the theme.

"Spamming" can very much be a CharGen thing if I'm creating a character very effective at combat. Depends on playstyle most probably.

But the reverse is also true. Sometimes you don't want to risk damaging the items.

If someone is ransacking a church, fireball is destructive but synaptic static leaves the church and its various art and relics intact.

it also doesn't leave a 40ft burn ring, create an audible "whoomph" noise to panic animals or a flash of light that can be seen for miles at night where everyone knows "oooh, wizard cast a fireball there"

I agree that you don't always want to burn the world, but the shock and awe of Physical spells can be very useful in certain situations.

 

[The Grinning Frog]

This x100!

"Spamming" can very much be a CharGen thing if I'm creating a character very effective at combat. Depends on playstyle most probably.

I agree that you don't always want to burn the world, but the shock and awe of Physical spells can be very useful in certain situations.

I just published a book of magic items and in the dialogue between the in-game author of the book and their companion this is said between them:

I’m quite fond of this one, although I’ll confess it isn’t my favourite of all the wands. There was an old druid who lived near where I grew up, and he’d tell me stories about how the master of his order would use a Staff of Autumn to defend the lands.

What sort of things can it do?

Oh, well, that’s what I like about it. It isn’t one of those items that only has one use. It’s about being creative with it. It’s often written off by those who think every staff should be able to launch fireballs or such like.

Yup, fireballs are overrated.

You know what, they are, aren’t they? I mean, they’re iconic, and you can make a room of lesser opponents cower before you with a good fireball. but it’s a bit… oh, I don’t know… bland?

I was thinking ‘obvious’, but we can go with bland. So what does the avatar of autumn call himself?

The King of Autumn…

For context, that's in an article on the King of Autumns staff.

My point being that I agree with you - sometimes the physical spell is the thing, sometimes you want to be more creative and subtle.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Spamming" can very much be a CharGen thing if I'm creating a character very effective at combat. Depends on playstyle most probably.

In this context there's an important difference between the player's metagame decision at chargen time to build or not build a character capable of spamming Stun, vs. the character's decision (as roleplayed by the player from the character's perspective) at game time to take advantage of their own ability to spam stun.

Thematics are not relevant to the latter. If you can do it and it's advantageous, do it.

Thematics could be important to the former.

 

[GMMichael]

Yes, but also, I have questions about the cohesion of the setting. Is my character special in some way that makes it reasonable I have access to this spell and other people don't?

Just being a wizard makes one special, if you ask me.

If I am supposed to be representative of wizards in setting, and the setting has wizards using Fire, why is this not reflected mechanically?

As in, "why are wizards allowed to use Stun?" The game doesn't use class-constraints. Wizards can use swords, too. The OP is about player choice. If you're playing Gandalf's second-cousin-twice-removed, and you find that you've been getting better results treating him like a psychic warrior, do you ditch your pointy hat and Fire spell? (Note this is about the example, not the broader question.)

As a player, if it is in the system, it is thematic. If it wasn't thematic, the designer would have culled it.

Have you heard of GURPS?

I have a 5e bard who uses both psychic spells and fireball because options. Sometimes I want a ball of destructive fire with a low spell-slot cost. Other times I want a blast of psychic damage that doesn't leave a mark, even if it does less damage per spell-slot.

I haven't played a 5e bard, and I'm somehow disappointed that they're allowed to cast fireball. If I played one, he would stick to the psychic damage spell, attributed to his lute-rendition of Pathetique.