# The Role of the Wizard, or "How Come Billy Gets to Create a Demiplane?"



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

I wrote three stupidly long posts on the Paizo forums some time back, so I thought I'd repaste them here with the recent interest in wizards.  I split it into three parts for easier reading.

Part one: The problem.

  I'm going to not talk about combat.  Instead, I'll hit something that bothers me far more - narrative power.

  See, casters have all the narrative power.  If you want to effect the  campaign or the setting itself, you need a spell caster to do so.  The  fighter is limited to...well, look at the name.  He's limited to things  he can fight.  More skill based classes have some bigger ups, but  ultimately also fall behind.

  To give an example, let's look at what players can do at level one.

  The fighter can hit things with a weapon.

  The wizard can put people to sleep, detect magic, charm others, use  minor telekinesis, summon fog, or animals, or invisible servants,  comprehend all languages, hypnotize, create a magical floating cargo  disk, move twice as fast, etc, etc.

  At level 3, the fighter can now hit things with a weapon and maybe do one combat trick moderately well.

  The wizard can magically lock items, detect surface thoughts, throw  out a powerful gust of wind, turn invisible, conjure illusions and  images with sound, alter his appearance, magically open any lock, repair  anything, conjure an extradimensional space to hide or sleep in.

  See where I'm going with this?

  Even when you count in skills, it doesn't quite work, because skills  start low and end high, while spells start at "Works," with the only  variation being "Not Works."

  Spellcasters have all the narrative power.  For every problem that  exists, there's a spell to fix it.  if you can think of a long,  overreaching campaign, then the wizard could theoretically do all of it _on his own_.

  "Cirno," you say, "the wizard can't do all of that, he's limited by  spell slots!"  Yes, that's true.  In fact, I would state that the level 3  wizard is the _best one_ (more on this later).  But the fact is,  spell casters eventually get enough spell slots to render the argument  moot.  Even beyond that, wizards have a hilariously large array of  spells that allow them to rest whenever they damn well please.  And,  quite frankly, the x/day limitation isn't a good one either - being able  to control the universe _only once per day_ isn't that bad of a deal, really.

  So, the problem seems somewhat clear.  Non-spell casters are limited  in what they can individually do.  This isn't a problem, mind you - it's  actually a _good thing_.  It has some heavily flaws I'll be  hitting later, but the big problem is simply that there's no holds on  what spellcasters can do in terms of narrative ability.

  Mind you, it's not just that spellcasters do lots of things, it's  that they actively take the roles of other classes with their spells.   Spells can let you go invisible and silent, or unlock and open trapped  doors and chests.  They can charm others.  Turn yourself into a bigger,  more powerful monster.  Heck, summoning spells alone give you an absurd  variety of abilities.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Part two: the Reasoning.

  The biggest reason for this problem is literally the existence of the wizard class.

  Let's go into our fantasy books and our mythology and pull up the  archtypes we see.  We have brave heroes, sly and clever swashbucklers,  daring thieves, powerful warriors, and wise old sages.

  Notice something missing?

  There is no wizard archtype.  The D&D wizard is a mix of two  archtypes - the wise old sage, which is fine, and the deus ex machina,  which is, well, somewhat obviously not.

  See, in books and mythology, there is no "does everything with magic"  character.  Remember how I mentioned the level 3 wizard is perhaps the  best?  That's because level 2 spells are typically the most powerful  ones mortal wizards know.  Turning invisible, opening and unlocking  things with a wave of their hand, changing shape - that's a big one.  It  also sets wizards as having a (relatively) small number of spell slots.

  There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina.   Merlin was a wise old sage.  What he does for Arthur is provide  information, learning, advice.  He doesn't jump around with the knights  and throw fireballs.  His biggest, most impressive power is to change  shape - not to mention one of the _only_ powers he uses.  Oh, and he's _the antichrist_.

  What about Gandalf?  Again, we don't actually see a lot of _magic_  from the old guy.  He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train  noises and casts Light a lot.  Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.

  The problem with the D&D is this:

  Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan  War and the Odyssey.  You tell your character that they'll be fighting  on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes  of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.

  Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"

  D&D is trying to be two games, but they're contradictory.  The  non-casters are playing a low magic game of strength, wit, and survival.   The casters are playing a high magic game of intense magical  shenanigans and powerful setting changing abilities.  Wizards have  narrative power because they're the deus ex machina - they're expected  to have a spell for every occasion.  In other words, if non-casters play  by the rules of the setting, casters get to _make_ the rules.

  Someone earlier mentioned that they were fine with the differences in  power because, after all, magic should be all powerful.  I will grant  you that on one condition - there is no class that utilizes it.

  In short, wizards appear in fiction quite often, but they fall under one of two catagories.

  1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic 
2) Deus ex machina

  The D&D wizard falls under the second.  Which is bad.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Part three: Solutions

  There's been a few attempts from the start to patch up the  discrepency.  Magic items were a big one.  The assumption goes: "Magic  is everything in the game that is strong, including the strongest  baddies.  We have classes that do not have magic.  Therefor, they should  have magic items."

  This was the birth of the Christmas Tree problem.

  See, I don't buy that it's a 3e-ism.  It's always been there.  I'm  literally playing a 2e game as I type this (thus the slowness, sorry  ), and I deny the idea that characters didn't need magic item.  Our  fighter needs magical weapons to even harm many baddies, for starters.   In fact, if you look through the books, as others have mentioned, most  magic items are either intended for fighters or, in fact, are only  usable by fighters.  The intent is somewhat clear - wizards have magic,  fighters have magic items.

  But, for me, this isn't enough.  It doesn't solve the problem, only  loopholes back into it - at the end of the day, your non-wizard needs  items a wizard made.

  First off, let's look at the good.

  The skill system isn't bad.  Personally I think the number of skills could be cut down _even more_,  but that's me.  The 2+int has to go, though.  That's horrible.  The  wizard being unskilled isn't so bad because he has spells, but the  fighter has nada to make up for it.  This is a relic of 2e, where  fighters were more or less only capable of, well, fighting, and the  paladins and rangers - who were simply _better_ in every way - got  extra bonuses to reward you for being lucky.  3.5 also had skill tricks,  which were really neat, and I wish more robust and numerous, because  they really did add some cool stuff.

  Outside of full casters, things generally work rather well.  The bard  is a great class that really fits the "wise old sage" archtype  fantastically well, if perhaps not quite so old.  Back in 3.5 we had the  beguiler, an awesomely fun class, that hit the magical trickster  archtype perfectly.  These are examples of magical classes that _don't_ overshadow everyone else.  In general, if it doesn't have level 9 spells, it's not that big of a game breaker (if one at all).

  I'm going to be stoned to death for this, but I loved Tome of Battle.   Consider the following: each ToB class had systems set up around a  non-physical attribute.  Warblades used intelligence, crusaders used  charisma, and swordsages used wisdom.  They all also had a robust skill  list.  But they did lack something - out of combat abilities.

  So, what can be done?

  First, a decision needs to be made, I think: Is D&D a low magic  game, a mid-magic game, or a high magic game?  This is a really  important decision, I think.  Currently, fighters are a low magic class,  and wizards are a high magic class.  Bards lie somewhere inbetween.   The mid-magic classes such as the bard can work with either of the two  moderately well, but high and low don't work well together narratively.

  Let's say you choose high magic.  Martial classes, then, need magic.   Tome of Battle is the seemingly obvious suggestion, but that leaves the  problem of narrative power.  So, step one is, add supernatural stunts  that aren't related to combat.  Think of them as more potent skill  tricks.  Perhaps make it literally a "stunt" ability that non-casters  get at varrying amounts, or maybe even a secondary "stunt" system.  I  admittingly don't know the details on this mechanical stuff.  The basic  idea is to give martial classes the ability to do supernatural things.   Let's face it, right now, the wizard is better at wire-fighting then the  monk is.  That's a shame.

  Let's say you choose low magic.  Kill the wizard.  The druid goes  too, and say goodbye to the cleric.  Maybe even the sorcerer!  "Cirno,"  you say, "there goes all the healing.  What now?"  Create an item, a  potion bandoleer, let's say, that allows characters to pull _and_  drink as a swift action.  Massacre the cost of potions and the time it  takes to make them.  Maybe even give the Survival skill the ability to  act as Craft: Alchemy (Can you tell I've been playing The Witcher  lately?).  So far, what we've done is remove the highly powerful  casters, left the mid-range magical ones such as bards, and given ALL  the classes a potential means of buffing and healing themselves inside  combat.

  One idea I've had for BOTH styles is the removal of all the magic  items.  Instead, let's grab the best thing to come from 4e - inherent  bonuses.  To put it another way, there is no +1 sword or +5 sword.   Instead, classes gain the +1 as they level.  Same with armor.  Now, you  can have flaming swords or vorpal swords or etc etc, but they'd be how I  think earlier editions semi-intended them to be - rare and powerful.   In fact, all magic items with inherent bonuses would fit under one of  two catagories: Rare/powerful, and _weird_.  After all, if you  don't have to worry about keeping up with the magic items, you're free  to give whatever bizarro magic gear your heart desires.

  However, people like new gear.  That goes without saying.  Inherent  bonuses works well with a high magic style game, but not so much with a  low magic style.  So what do we do?

  We learn some more from video games.  Monster Hunter, to be precise.

  The idea is, we don't just grab magical items lying around (though  certainly we can have that, as rare and powerful magic items works in a  low-magic style game).  Instead, we use monster bits to make weapons.   The rogue's magic dagger is fashioned from the tooth of a chimera.  The  fighter's axe blade is the sharpened scale of a sea serpent's tail.  And  of course, there's the classical magical animal skin armor.  In  essence, you can actually use this AS magical armor.  Combine this with  the now very cheap and numerous potions and you have the basics of a  semi-normal 3.5 game, just with loop arounds.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Reposting all that destroyed the actual paragraph structure.  Fixing that now.

Additionally, while the solutions are based in 3.x, it's important to note that the issue with *narrative* power is one that's been present in all editions until 4e.  It's not a 3e-only problem.  3e game wizards better *combat* power, but they've always reigned supreme narratively.

Edit: Ok, done editing.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2011)

Prof C said:
			
		

> being able to control the universe only once per day isn't that bad of a deal, really.




That's siggable.  I'll be back here with the popcorn.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Someone else where has asked me what I see the sort of "ideal party" for the low-magic style game.

  Bard, Factotum, Ranger, Warblade.

  The bard is your loremaster.  Monsters are _weird_, but he's the  guy who knows his way around them.  Ancient temples, dank dungeons,  long lost ruins, or even the strange behaviors of magical animals, the  bard knows how to apply his knowledge right where it matters.  The  ranger can take you to the chimera, but the bard knows where the soft  scales are, and where it's blind spot is.  Tag teams with the ranger to  make the items for the rest of the group.  Admittingly the whole  "perform" thing is a bit off :B

  The factotum is your jack of trades.  Certainly she knows her way  around locks and traps, but she's more then that.  Caught and arrested  and put naked in a cell?  She's your woman who finds a way out and  breaks the rest of you free.  Need to infiltrate a ballroom party?  She  and the bard grab their respective costumes and open the backdoor for  the others.  She's sneaky, she's wild, she's got more skills she knows  what to do with, she's your trickster

  The ranger is your wild lore professional.  The bard might be the one  to identify the monster's weak points, but the ranger is the one who  brings you to it.  She and the bard together know that if you mix the  blood of a wolf and fallenflower together you make a curative that can  heal any wound.  Or that you can cure the hide of a chimera to create a  suit of protective armor.  She's a marksman and sharpshooter as well,  tagging monsters with an arrow to give the warblade a weakness or blind  spot to attack.  And you'll never go hungry in the woods with her by  your side.

  The warblade is your tough guy, master at arms.  One warblade ability that I cannot freaking _believe_  Paizo passed up is the ability to change your weapon focus, which is  amazing.  He's not dumb, mind you - warblade champions intelligence  alongside physical stats.  He's a powerful guy, he can handle most  weapons after a bit of training, and he's got his mind in the game, too.   If the bard identifies monsters and strange, mystic lore, if the  factotum can snap a trap a mile away and has enough tricks to get  himself out of almost any jam, and if the ranger is a master of the  wilderness and wild lore, then the warblade is their front liner, the  man who's in it for the glory and love of battle.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 6, 2011)

Great points. Mage has all powerful casters, and its OK, because EVERYONE is an all powerful caster. Ars Magica has both magi and grogs, and magic are much better than grogs. but that's ok, because each player controls both. But 1st-3rd edition D&D eally felt like "Hey, I'll be the magi, you be the grog". Which I wasnt fine with. 4th edition is the first version I've played where the traditional heroes of fantasy get a fair shake past low level. 

Sure, the old schoolers will whine that magic isnt special anymore, but "special" is just their good old boys club slang for "better than anyone dumb enough not to roll up a caster". If you want magic to be special, get rid of PC wizards. Because when your character breaks the laws of reality more often than he changes his underwear, magic isnt special. 

Your option of upgrading the TOB classes works if you allow skill stunts to emulate demigod acts. The fighter can fly because he wrestles a tornado. The thief can come back to life after being killed because he bluffs Death that he was only playing dead (alternatively, he Melvins Death). The monk rolls concentration, peers into the akashic records, knows where the enemy is moving their troops to in 2 weeks, because the future is already written. 

Oh, and in before the caster supremacists try and deny that magic users werent just flat out better, both in combat, and more importantly, out of combat than non-casters.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!

Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.

Magic-users tend to kick the bucket a lot. That's what those tiny hit dice, poor AC, etc., are supposed to do. What m-us are best at doing, above all else, is potting their fellows. The most attractive targets of all are m-us a level (or several) higher, because those tend to have nice magical goodies to covet.

That's how it is in old D&D, anyhow.

Clerics are a lot hotter coming out of the gate. They're like combo fighter-mages, very flexible and resilient. In the Original rules, they even get for the first few levels after 1st the same hit dice and rolls to hit as fighters but sooner (fewer x.p.). Once they get spells (not until 2nd level, originally), they can heal fighters -- or they can heal _themselves_ and beat fighters at their own game.

Good luck getting a magic weapon, though. Swords are by far the most common, and access to them is one of the boons granted the thief class when it comes along.

In the long run of a campaign, the fighter catches up. A "name level" cleric has to choose sides, and then gets a lot of aid in setting up a stronghold, but after that is not so spectacular.

Even the magic-user comes from behind to end up (on average) with more hit points (and mostly better saves)!

Depending on situation, the cleric may even before that be playing mainly a supporting role. *This has a lot to do with the nature of clerical magic.*

Give the cleric sufficient "blast 'em" magic, and it can put the other classes into shadow.

If that happens, then you'll know it because you'll be up to your ears in clerics!

Sure, there were always people who wanted to play Hobbits despite their being so limited originally. To this day, I know of people who insist on playing magic-users in Basic/Expert even though Elves really are all that and more until the very highest level (which they are so much more likely to attain in the first place).

Most game players, though, can and will use the obviously superior strategy if there really is one.


----------



## kinem (Jan 7, 2011)

Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".

Casters are more powerful _and_ more complex at high level. Hitting things with a sword is fun and gives you more time to joke around or hit the munchies since you don't need to study the books so much. There is some supension of disbelief because magic is required to do things people otherwise can't do. I am OK with it.


----------



## Tilenas (Jan 7, 2011)

professorcirno said:


> <--all-->



+1.

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17505/dumbledore_chartdrop.jpghttp://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17505/dumbledore_chartdrop.jpg


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

I think its also worth noting that 3.5 had several books of "magic guys" that actually did play well with others. The binder, incarnates, and shadowmage all use magic without completely drowning out the non-casters narrative power.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 7, 2011)

kinem said:


> Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".




  That may be correct . . . for certain values of D&D. 

  The game has _not_ remained the same, _pace_ WotC's 4E announcement. It started with sword & sorcery simulation of mercenaries, thieves and ne'er-do-wells, took a detour into high fantasy and broader realms of fantasy literature (without really adjusting the mechanics to compensate), and then, once WotC took over, looped back into a self-referential feedback cycle of trying to emulate itself and its pastiches and knockoffs, to the point of becoming "the game where you fight monsters with magic" (to quote either a WotC design statement and/or _D&D for Dummies_). 4E seemed to be breaking out of that for a while, but Essentials *may* be sinking back into it.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!
> 
> Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.
> 
> ...




This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)

I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the game. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds. 

And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!
> 
> Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.
> 
> ...




This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)

I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the campaign as a whole. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds. 

And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.

That's what they excel at.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> I think its also worth noting that 3.5 had several books of "magic guys" that actually did play well with others. The binder, incarnates, and shadowmage all use magic without completely drowning out the non-casters narrative power.




I dunno about Binders, they can be pretty obscene.  On the other hand, binder is also probably *the* most complicated class in all of 3.x (and one I cannot run because trying to figure out and combine all the abilities is such a headache to me), so I suppose they sorta earn it .  If you're good with a Binder, then...well, hats off to you.  It's something I can't do.

I agree with the others though.  It's kinda funny - certainly there were artificers and archivists, but for the most part, the most super powerful narrative wrecking balls...were in the PHB.  People talk about power glut and "munchkins" using books outside of core, but in my experience, it's the opposite.

Nothing's scarier as a DM then a core druid and a core wizard in the party.  Good luck challenging them


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.
> 
> That's what they excel at.





That would be true (and acceptable) if they did not have so many plot shaping out of combat spells at their disposal. Its one thing to be a glass cannon, its another thing to be a glass cannon with deus ex machina abilities that you can resculpt after an 8 hour rest.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

kinem said:


> Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".
> 
> Casters are more powerful _and_ more complex at high level. Hitting things with a sword is fun and gives you more time to joke around or hit the munchies since you don't need to study the books so much. There is some supension of disbelief because magic is required to do things people otherwise can't do. I am OK with it.




I disagree with this.

The fact is, wizards can change their spells every day.  Fighters can't.  If anything, *fighters* are the most new player unfriendly.  If you pick bad feats, your done.  You're screwed.  You can't contribute.  If you pick bad spells, then the next day, you just change your spells.  Easy as that.  And it's a lot harder to really crunch all the math involved in trying to trip or grapple monsters and be good at it then to just read Color Spray and go "Wow it knocks people unconscious, I'm trying that."

Even beyond that, it comes back to narrative power.  Saying "Ok I cast fly" or "Ok I cast knock" or any number of "Spell Solutions" isn't complicated.  it's the non-caster who has to rely on his skills or, more likely, his wits and out of game smarts to jury rig solutions, that plays a more complicated game.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.
> 
> That's what they excel at.




There are two editions where this is true, and they are perhaps ironically both the oldest edition and the newest edition.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I dunno about Binders, they can be pretty obscene. On the other hand, binder is also probably *the* most complicated class in all of 3.x (and one I cannot run because trying to figure out and combine all the abilities is such a headache to me), so I suppose they sorta earn it . If you're good with a Binder, then...well, hats off to you. It's something I can't do.




There are a few pacts that probably grant too much, but usually its due to them granting spells, which brings us back to the core issue (high level spells). Being able to breath fire or make a 30' teleport every 4 rounds isnt game breaking (particularly when you're forced to resort to whacking someone with a stick with cleric BAB  for the other 3). Binders still one of the most flavorful classes of any edition I think. 

I found truenamers to be much more of a headache (and potentially more broken due to how easy it was to get skill boosts).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Haha, yeah.  Truenamers are a headache because they're broken, and I don't mean they're overpowered, I mean they literally do not function. 

Binders though, staring at all those different binds and each of their powers and trying to think on how to combine them...just overwhelms me.  I think Binder is the most complicated class and Artificer is the most complex, personally.  The first requires a lot of pattern spotting and combo building, the second makes you become Batman where you have to be prepared for whatever is going to come up long in advance.

And, funny enough, I think the classes that require the most advance planning are...melee ones .  Especially the non-ToB melee ones.  Wizards can change spells, fighters can't change feats.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D



No, actually it did not stop being that way after I got past OD&D.

Your claim is not in the same galaxy as even nearly for E. Gary Gygax, who wrote what was the next thing past OD&D for most people: Advanced D&D.

Ever heard of the Circle of Eight?



> I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D.



I've rarely seen anyone play a monk or bard in more than 30 years of playing D&D. So what?


----------



## Votan (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Great points. Mage has all powerful casters, and its OK, because EVERYONE is an all powerful caster. Ars Magica has both magi and grogs, and magic are much better than grogs. but that's ok, because each player controls both. But 1st-3rd edition D&D eally felt like "Hey, I'll be the magi, you be the grog". Which I wasnt fine with. 4th edition is the first version I've played where the traditional heroes of fantasy get a fair shake past low level.




I find, if one goes back to the oldest editions, that wizards are less of an issue.  It's a lot harder to build up hit points and AC.  They have a lot fewer spells.  The spells that they do have are less potent (notice the lack of a teleport without error) and many problem spells don't exist yet.  Spell preparation times can take days at high levels (15 minutes per spell level per spell).  One hit can immediately interrupt a spell (no defensive casting or spell preparation).  

Assuming reasonable numbers, it's not unlikely for a 10th level 1E Magic User to have 25 hit points.  With a 16 con (unlikely) that is 45 HP (and AC is always low).  There is no way to extend spells or to cast multiple spells in a round.  Magic item crafting is insanely difficult and permanent magic items drain constitution (making it quite rare that a player will be able to create any important number of magic items).  

Plus the fighter is leading a small army . . .

It's not a perfect system but it is a lot closer.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Those 3e cats screwed up a lot, I agree.

Picking up hit points by the thousand at "Wands R Us" ? LOL! Why not just answer "y" to DO YOU WANT UNLIMITED LIVES?

Going Beyond the Fields We Know: It's not just an adventure, it's a job! Actually, it's mostly a job, eh? All the cool stuff is back home at the shopping mall.

Yeah, I could go on and on in that vein. What _were_ they thinking?

A _fireball_ gets capped at 10d6 (35 or 17.5 damage), but a wizard gets up to 19d4+4 (avg. 56.5) hit points? 

Getting *tougher* like that from 11th on is *just the opposite* of how the game used to work! (20d6 _fireball_ for 70 or 35 damage, versus an average of 36.5 hit points and a maximum of 75)

Why?

Why was there in 3e a big giveaway to spell-casters (but especially wizards) at nearly every turn? What purpose was this supposed to serve?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

I'd like to point out that the point I was making was one based on *narrative* power, not _combat_ power.

3e gave wizards more power combat, but wizards *always* reigned supreme in narrative power up until 4e.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'll hit something that bothers me far more - narrative power.




IME, narrative power arises from a meaningful interaction with the game world, regardless of class.

Magical power has a mechanical "system" to represent it. Religious and cultural significance, political power, the ability to psychologically move NPCs - these don't. 

Manipulation of the game world is not the exclusive province of magic-users through their class abilities. It arises through players recognizing the potential impact of their characters upon their environment, and then striving to effect the change they want to happen.

Does the GM need to extend opportunities to non-magic-users more thoughtfully in order to make this happen? Probably. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Votan said:


> I find, if one goes back to the oldest editions, that wizards are less of an issue.  It's a lot harder to build up hit points and AC.  They have a lot fewer spells.  The spells that they do have are less potent (notice the lack of a teleport without error) and many problem spells don't exist yet.  Spell preparation times can take days at high levels (15 minutes per spell level per spell).  One hit can immediately interrupt a spell (no defensive casting or spell preparation).




Ehhhh, yes and no. We played a TON of 2nd edition, and immediately everyone realized how broken multilclassing was, so naturally, every mage was a fighter mage hybrid. Lose 1 level to gain fighter BAB, better HP, saves etc? Sign me up! it was rare for campaigns to extend beyond the double digit MC limit anyways, so no real loss. 




> Plus the fighter is leading a small army . . .




Dude, we played D&D, not axis and allies. If we wanted to play a wargame, we played one without the headache of leveling up the general. The whole "fighters leading an army thing" died in the 70's with that style of play.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Those 3e cats screwed up a lot, I agree.
> 
> Picking up hit points by the thousand at "Wands R Us" ? LOL! Why not just answer "y" to DO YOU WANT UNLIMITED LIVES?




I told my 3.5 game I'd run again when they reached a compromise beyond poking each other with sticks for a few minutes after each fight. Agreed on wands of healing.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> No, actually it did not stop being that way after I got past OD&D.
> 
> Your claim is not in the same galaxy as even nearly for E. Gary Gygax, who wrote what was the next thing past OD&D for most people: Advanced D&D.
> 
> Ever heard of the Circle of Eight?




Do you really think the average group had a character stable for each player? Not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious. Its to divergent to my experience i cant even fathom it being common. Perhaps I'm the odd man out.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> No, actually it did not stop being that way after I got past OD&D.
> 
> Your claim is not in the same galaxy as even nearly for E. Gary Gygax, who wrote what was the next thing past OD&D for most people: Advanced D&D.
> 
> Ever heard of the Circle of Eight?




Do you really think the average group had a character stable for each player? Not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious. Its so divergent to my experience i cant even fathom it being common. Perhaps I'm the odd man out.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Sepulchrave II said:


> IME, narrative power arises from a meaningful interaction with the game world, regardless of class.
> 
> Magical power has a mechanical "system" to represent it. Religious and cultural significance, political power, the ability to psychologically move NPCs - these don't.
> 
> ...




See, you're admitting it's a problem.

The wizard - or, more properly, the spellcaster - already has narrative power.  The GM needs to give non-casters specific opportunities or set ups to try and give it to them.

Except even then, the wizard is flying around invisible and teleporting and creating a demiplane and drastically altering the world, while the fighter is waiting for the GM to throw him a bone.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)
> 
> I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the campaign as a whole. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds.
> 
> _And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem_.




OKAY-we've all greed that yes the game has the gritty mundane warrior and the high flying magician.

But see-here's the question. 
What is D&D really _supposed_ to be like? Remember, everyone wants to be cool, and everyone wants to be useful at least some time or another _both_ inside and outside of combat. 

1. Is it meant to play more gritty with magic taking a back seat, at where magic can do some minor tricks and curiosities, taking long casting times and lengthy rituals such that the magician while mysterious and kind of "cool" -usually cant do much in a fight and outside of it there are few problems he is ever _required _or at least _handy_ in solving?

2. Is it meant to play more like a high fantasy game with magic everywhere and used in just about everything? Wizards live in their big high towers and cities are ruled by divine priest kings. These guys can do just about anything, magic and faith are power. They usually cant be bothered to do many 'menial' things even though there magic could easily solve many problems, and so they may send soldiers or knights to take care of hacking and slashing some monsters or thieves to delve into somewhere to nab some goody for him for he will pay a large sum of gold. PCs might roll up both magic and mundane characters, the latter working or lead by the former?

Right now I have a wealthy CE Eldritch Disciple who has a small sanctuary to his deity, but is investigating a temple currently fought over by both Demons & Devils, started by a dabbler who invited both cults into his estate and is looking into finding a way to make it his own after the Devils were ousted. He's done some homework and made some deals, sent some spies, and gathered a lot of info about the place. On the side he's also got a vendetta against another Evil deity, whose cultists offed some of his friends, and currently have his Succubus consort and his half-fiend spawn in slavery. He and his 'comrades' (party) have ransacked two of the deities temples-although they are mostly CG or CN and dont always get along with him.

_In the same game,_ I also have a 9nth lvl LN Warforged Monk that doesnt know what to do with himself and has taken up the mercenary life, and a fresh LE aussie Duergar Rogue from 'down undadark' whose just looking to make some gold in the same campaign. The former doesnt know my ED is evil, and has an open mind, in addition his life was saved by my ED from a 10th lvl Swordsage/Shadowlord when he was just lvl 3 in a bar fight; he would definitely help him out if he asked. The latter doesnt have any compunctions about working for anybody if the money's right. 

The more I lvl up, the less interested I am in run of the mill dungeon crawling, and the more intrigued I am in spending my GP in other ways than gear. The other players feel similarly. There's more 'typical' adventure work out there for lower level characters too, so the higher lvl PCs do more looking into conspiracies or personal interests. Someone actually hiring them on to do anything happens much less often. 


(IIRC Robilar who became a Lord at Name Level had a buttload of soldiers/retainers he sent into The Tomb of Horrors, most of them which died.)

I cant say either of my other characters a throways though, even though I love my ED-I still care about the other ones too.

3. Is it meant to play as a mixture where magic users and mundanes can go on a journey side by side, each managing to help the other in some way and NEITHER one able to go it alone without the other, each having their strengths and weaknesses?

I certainly think SOMETHING like this is possible, although as I said a while back in another thread, they will never be 100%. My monk cant make demi-planes, and I never expect him to- nor do I (the mun/player) envy the 17th level wizard who can, although my character may be (as expected) be astounded by it.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Professor Cirno said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that the point I was making was one based on *narrative* power, not _combat_ power.



I'd like to point out that the point I was making was one based on the difference between *reaping the rewards of skilled play of an especially challenging strategy (risk:reward)* and having a cake walk handed to you on a silver platter to eat with the silver spoon you get just for picking Monte Cook's pet piece.

Put WotC in charge of ice hockey, and ten years from now people will be complaining that the game is dominated by the Zamboni.


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

I call BS on your new "narrative control" buzzword, Cirno.

A railroad stays a railroad, wizard or no.  And the "narrative control" is no different to a fighter breaking locked doors or chests with an axe, burning down the tavern or setting up an ambush and leading monsters into it through trickery, rather than walking up to them as the DM planned.

And you do realise that you're actively harming 4E's cause by attacking classic D&D, here?  People _know_ that wizards aren't gods and can't create demiplanes except by fiat, because they've, err..._played_ D&D, so you're not fooling anybody with your hyperbole except for preaching to the 4E choir.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> See, casters have all the narrative power.  If you want to effect the   campaign or the setting itself, you need a spell caster to do so.  The   fighter is limited to...well, look at the name.  He's limited to things   he can fight.




Problem #1: Assuming that combat isn't narrative power. For example, if you believe that John McClane wields no influence over the narrative of _Die Hard_ then you've obviously seen a very different movie I have.

Problem #2: Assuming that people will play a fighter if they don't want to wield their narrative power through combat. Such people would obviously be addlepated. I mean... well, look at the name.



> The [level one] wizard can put people to sleep, detect magic, charm others, use  minor telekinesis, summon fog, or animals, or invisible servants,  comprehend all languages, hypnotize, create a magical floating cargo  disk, move twice as fast, etc, etc.



Problem #3: The perennial problem of assuming that the wizard always has the perfect set of spells prepared.



> Spellcasters have all the narrative power.  For every problem that  exists, there's a spell to fix it.  if you can think of a long,  overreaching campaign, then the wizard could theoretically do all of it _on his own_.



Problem #4: Assuming that the spellcasters always have infinite time and/or that the campaign world will conveniently space out its problems into nova-sized chunks.



> D&D is trying to be two games, but they're contradictory.



Problem #5: Assuming that D&D is a game of low-magic. It isn't. Never has been.

And so forth. It's masturbatory faux theory mixed with dysfunctional gameplay. It's the guy who always brings his queen out on the second move and then complains that Chess is a lousy game.


----------



## korjik (Jan 7, 2011)

The main fallacy in this whole thread is that narrative power come from the end of a spell. It comes from the player and what the player can do.

The last campaign I played and finished had the fighter:
Crown a King (without getting paid first!!!)
Create a country
Wrestled a were-tiger in half form
Saved a (different) kingdom
Killed an Evil God
Destroyed his Evil Empire
Saved the Girl

The Wizard, on the other hand:
Killed things
Took their stuff
Unsuccessfully tried to keep the fighter from doing things before we got paid for doing said things

Yeah, along the way I got back to the capitol first and was the one to start the counter attack cause I teleported directly there. They had to use the mirror-gates that I made. 

But it was the fighter who went toe-to-toe with demons and dragons and gods while I covered his back and wasted the henchminions.

We remember the Fighter fighting the shadowdancer for a bunch of rounds but only needing to hit him once as much as the rogue taking on a pit fiend with nothing but a rapier, literally as much as the wiz disintigrating the beholder cause he blew a hole in the wizards house.

Making a demi-plane is not controlling the narrative if it isnt part of the narrative. All it is is a special effect then.


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> (IIRC Robilar who became a Lord at Name Level had a buttload of soldiers/retainers he sent into The Tomb of Horrors, most of them which died.)



I also don't think it's a coincidence that Sir Robilar, a mostly solo character (save for unlucky henchmen) is a fighter.  Despite Cirno's Monday morning quarterbacking on the uberness of mages, fighters are my "go to" class for solo character games like Neverwinter Nights, because they're best able to look after themselves at any level (with the cleric a close second place, and sometimes superior if healing potions aren't abundant).  Another hole in the boat of an argument already half sunk, IMO.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> I call BS on your new "narrative control" buzzword, Cirno.
> 
> A railroad stays a railroad, wizard or no.  And the "narrative control" is no different to a fighter breaking locked doors or chests with an axe, burning down the tavern or setting up an ambush and leading monsters into it through trickery, rather than walking up to them as the DM planned.
> 
> And you do realise that you're actively harming 4E's cause by attacking classic D&D, here?  People _know_ that wizards aren't gods and can't create demiplanes except by fiat, because they've, err..._played_ D&D, so you're not fooling anybody with your hyperbole except for preaching to the 4E choir.




Yes, I, who have openly stated I enjoy Pathfinder and 3e on multipe occasions, *clearly only love 4e and hate everything else!*

Cut the edition warring garbage out.

The railroad doesn't stay a railroad when the wizard can fly, teleport, or just completely disintegrate the rails.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

korjik said:


> The main fallacy in this whole thread is that narrative power come from the end of a spell. It comes from the player and what the player can do.
> 
> *snip*




My problem is this: nothing stated here were things wizards cannot do.

On the other hand, fighters cannot do any of the things wizards can.



> I also don't think it's a coincidence that Sir Robilar, a mostly solo  character (save for unlucky henchmen) is a fighter.  Despite Cirno's  Monday morning quarterbacking on the uberness of mages, fighters are my  "go to" class for solo character games like Neverwinter Nights, because  they're best able to look after themselves at any level (with the cleric  a close second place, and sometimes superior if healing potions aren't  abundant).  Another hole in the boat of an argument already half sunk,  IMO.




I also don't think that's coincidence, as the vast majority of Sir Robilar's narrative power was the GM just making things up.

Also, can you post without being insulting?  I'm just wondering.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Problem #1: Assuming that combat isn't narrative power. For example, if you believe that John McClane wields no influence over the narrative of _Die Hard_ then you've obviously seen a very different movie I have.




Because I actually feel D&D should be more then just a series of combat encounters.  Do you disagree?



> Problem #2: Assuming that people will play a fighter if they don't want to wield their narrative power through combat. Such people would obviously be addlepated. I mean... well, look at the name.




Yes, who on earth would pick the most classic archtype of a mythological or fictional hero if they wanted to be a mythological or fictional hero?



> Problem #3: The perennial problem of assuming that the wizard always has the perfect set of spells prepared.




Because I'm assuming for smart wizard tactics, and smart wizards _leave spell slots open_.  They also have a large number of spells that let them hole up and rest without fear of being attacked.



> Problem #4: Assuming that the spellcasters always have infinite time and/or that the campaign world will conveniently space out its problems into nova-sized chunks.




Not sure what you're getting at here.  The only one that's been talking about novaing has been you.



> Problem #5: Assuming that D&D is a game of low-magic. It isn't. Never has been.




Oh, but it has been...if you aren't playing a caster.



> And so forth. It's masturbatory faux theory mixed with dysfunctional gameplay. It's the guy who always brings his queen out on the second move and then complains that Chess is a lousy game.




Hey look more insults aimed at me.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

It's telling, I think, how many people here have utterly ignored my main topic and have absolutely refused to comment on the existence or non-existence of the wizard archtype.

They have, naturally, chosen to attack me personally instead.

What a wonderful thread~


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> Cut the edition warring garbage out.



That's rich, coming from the guy who started this thread with an essay driven by "why 4E is bettah than old bad editions because I like my magic nerfed."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> That's rich, coming from the guy who started this thread with an essay driven by "why 4E is bettah than old bad editions because I like my magic nerfed."




The only person that's mentioned 4e at any point in time in this thread is you.

4e is fun, but has flaws.  Just like 3e.  Just like Pathfinder.


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> The only person that's mentioned 4e at any point in time in this thread is you.



Oh I see, so it's just a _coincidence_ that this is a carbon copy of the argument you use for edition warring on other threads, right down to the dodgy Poseidon bon mot?

Roger that.  Nothing to see here.  These aren't the droids I'm looking for.  Carry on.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> Oh I see, so it's just a _coincidence_ that this is a carbon copy of the argument you use for edition warring on other threads, right down to the dodgy Poseidon bon mot?
> 
> Roger that.  Nothing to see here.  These aren't the droids I'm looking for.  Carry on.




This is the last post I will give you.

The only one here that seems _obsessed_ with 4e is you.

I'm in a 4e game...and a 3.5 game, and a 2e game.  Each edition has it's good and it's bad.

This thread was not intended to serve as edition warring, but to examine the existance of the wizard as it existed in _all_ editions before 4e and the usage of narrative archtypes such as the deus ex machina, as well as examine the problems that exist and how to fix them.  Solutions include both an appeal to high-magic style games and low-magic style games.

So far, almost _no_ comments have gone onto this topic, much to my great dismay.

If I hated all pre-4e editions, why would I talk about solutions, much less devote a full mini-essay to it?  Why wouldn't I just go "lol play 4e" instead?  The fact is, I enjoy both games, and see flaws in both games, and would like to _fix_ those flaws.


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's telling, I think, how many people here have utterly ignored my main topic and have absolutely refused to comment on the existence or non-existence of the wizard archtype.
> 
> They have, naturally, chosen to attack me personally instead.
> 
> What a wonderful thread~



If you feel that they've been attacking you, shouldn't you report their posts? Aside from that, I do share your opinion about the narrative-changing powers of spellcasters. I do suspect that it ultimately boils down to Gary Gygax himself, who did play a lot of powerful magic users himself, with Mordenkainen being the most prominent example, who did have such stuff like an impenetrable luxurious mansion that has a 1st-class service, a magical sword that can attack on its own, a super-dispel spell that can dispel everything, and other stuff... basically, he's the very first Dungeon-Master-Player-Character... created by the first GM, Gary Gygax himself... who also made his DMPC the most important guy amongst the greyhawkian justice league... and the reason Robilar, the dumb fighter, was even worth mentioning is that Rob Kuntz had solo-sessions with Gary Gygax and could level up his character fast enough to overshadow the other "regular" players... 

Practically, it just confirms everything on a sort of behaviour that today would be seen as badwrongandnotfun.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 7, 2011)

Hey ProfessorCrino!  What if I played a level 15 wizard and wanted to build my own super cool keep?  How would I go about doing so?  Could I do it faster then my buddy the level 15 fighter? Could I use magic to do it faster and better then the Fighter could?  If so, could you list all the spells I could use?


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> Hey ProfessorCrino!  What if I played a level 15 wizard and wanted to build my own super cool keep?  How would I go about doing so?  Could I do it faster then my buddy the level 15 fighter? Could I use magic to do it faster and better then the Fighter could?  If so, could you list all the spells I could use?



I'd say you bind an efreet and use your superior intelligence to formulate a wish that the efree couldn't pervert. Or you summon/bind earth elementals who build that stuff... And you summon walls of iron that will be a lot sturdier than the walls that Mister McFighter can have with his second-rate keep... who'd need the help of Marty Magick'Userinsky anyway, sooner or later...


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> If you feel that they've been attacking you, shouldn't you report their posts? Aside from that, I do share your opinion about the narrative-changing powers of spellcasters. I do suspect that it ultimately boils down to Gary Gygax himself, who did play a lot of powerful magic users himself, with Mordenkainen being the most prominent example, who did have such stuff like an impenetrable luxurious mansion that has a 1st-class service, a magical sword that can attack on its own, a super-dispel spell that can dispel everything, and other stuff... basically, he's the very first Dungeon-Master-Player-Character... created by the first GM, Gary Gygax himself... who also made his DMPC the most important guy amongst the greyhawkian justice league... and the reason Robilar, the dumb fighter, was even worth mentioning is that Rob Kuntz had solo-sessions with Gary Gygax and could level up his character fast enough to overshadow the other "regular" players...



...which would be a good argument if not for the existence and ridiculously overpowered antics of Gord the Rogue, which proves that Mary Sues aren't always wizards, nor do they need to be to go round slaying gods.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The only person that's mentioned 4e at any point in time in this thread is you.
> 
> 4e is fun, but has flaws.  Just like 3e.  Just like Pathfinder.



Are you... sure about that?

 Just sayin'.

I think you make an interesting argument, by the way. I even agree with *some* parts of it. I just couldn't resist.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> Hey ProfessorCrino!  What if I played a level 15 wizard and wanted to build my own super cool keep?  How would I go about doing so?  Could I do it faster then my buddy the level 15 fighter? Could I use magic to do it faster and better then the Fighter could?  If so, could you list all the spells I could use?




Sticking to core:

Well, you could just cast Magnificent Mansion if you don't mind it being impermanent.

Failing that you can Planar Bind an outsider and have them create it.  Move Earth sets up the terrain perfectly to fit how you desire.  Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone gives you...well, walls. Fabricate is, naturally, a big one - memorize a bunch of Fabricates and add some metamagics to make it wider and bigger, and you'll be doing the work of a lot of workers by yourself.

Or, if you really want, take the Craft Wonderous Item feat and make yourself a Lyre of Building.  Or heck, have extra fun - make a Lyre of Building, then bind an outsider and make it play it nonstop!   That's probably the easiest way to go about things.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Are you... sure about that?
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> I think you make an interesting argument, by the way. I even agree with *some* parts of it. I just couldn't resist.




Fair enough 

I stand steadfast that the thread isn't edition warring, though.  I was more inspired by recent threads to go with this thread.

If 4e flaws come up later, I'll be more then happy to launch into a discussion of it's flaws and how I've thought about houseruling it, too 

I don't think any game is perfect.  That's not neccisarily saying much, admittingly, but it's in examining the imperfections that we can make houserules and, hopefully, a better game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

*APPENDIX TAU: INSPIRATIONAL READING*
Carter, W. Alton. THE ABASHED NARRATIVIST OF MUSKRATIA; MANKINI IN THE CITY OF THE NARRATIVE MONGERS; MANKINI AGAINST THE GODS


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> it's in examining the imperfections that we can make houserules and, hopefully, a better game.



Agreed.

The very first thing I house ruled (or even looked at house ruling) once I got over the excitement of "new edition of D&D, that actually looks promising!" - this was 3e, a game that I was initially *extremely* sceptical about - was, yep, magic. Most especially, full casters.

And then, well, I went a little crazy with applying house rules. 

But anyway. I'll have to give all this some more thought before launching into making and/or refuting, or possibly just discussing(!), any points.


----------



## Ltheb Silverfrond (Jan 7, 2011)

The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.

My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 7, 2011)

Ltheb Silverfrond said:


> The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.
> 
> My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)



Well, for example, you'd just make magic much less powerful. There is no invisibility spell, or if there is one it's a very short duration and very limited; but there's a spell that gives you and your group a bonus to move silently and hide, and let's you turn completely invisible for a minute or two if you stand completely still.

Something like that.

A rogue's hide check could probably accomplish the same thing, but the wizard pulls ahead just slightly for that short period of time. The rest of the time the rogue is the supreme hider.

Basically, having more short bursts of goodness, though not quite as short as 4E (1 round!) versus non-magic users doing what they do constantly.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 7, 2011)

I think a number of people here are missing the forest for the trees.

Cirno's argument is players of casters, and especially Wizards, hold a degree of control over the story by way of magic that players of non-casters can never match.

To use a "story" example; consider a murder mystery.  With magic, the player of a caster simply uses some form of divination to figure out the answer.  Hell, a divine caster can even just raise the victim from the dead!  That's a degree of narrative control that the player of a non-caster just doesn't have, and never will, save for DM fiat._  That _is Cirno's point.

Yes, there are ways to equalize the playing field, most of which generally end up (IMO) unsatisfying.  Anti-magic is the big one, but more often than not anti-magic feels like a narrative cheat.  That's because it is; it's basically a way of railroading by removing narrative tools.  Why shouldn't players be able to use the tools they've been given?

Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem.  That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype).  Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals.  If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player.  Is that an edition war thing?  No.  It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem. That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype). Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals. If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player. Is that an edition war thing? No. It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.



It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes.  Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?No thank you, that's not part of the fantasy worlds I want, nor part of D&D's universe as I accept it as legimately being. And if 4E cannot create the worlds I want, nor offer believable archetypes, then there's little point to the game as a fantasy construction kit, because it's turned itself into an anachronism.


----------



## Orius (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with the D&D is this:
> 
> Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan  War and the Odyssey.  You tell your character that they'll be fighting  on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes  of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.
> 
> Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"




So wizards are basically gods?  

No wonder I like playing them!




> In short, wizards appear in fiction quite often, but they fall under one of two catagories.
> 
> 1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic
> 2) Deus ex machina
> ...




The real problem is that as you said, the wizard isn't really based on any classical archtype.  The origin of the D&D wizard is Chainmail, there they were basically human equivalents of catapults and ballistae with their fireballs and lightning bolts.  This is what the wizard was based on in the orginal rules, with a spell list filling out other levels.  When that spell list got developed, that's when they got all the _deus ex machina_ powers, and the open-ended nature of magic in the compounded the problem as new spells got added into the game.  Not that it was seen or intended as imbalanced in the first place:



Ariosto said:


> Magic-users tend to kick the bucket a lot. That's what those tiny hit dice, poor AC, etc., are supposed to do. What m-us are best at doing, above all else, is potting their fellows. The most attractive targets of all are m-us a level (or several) higher, because those tend to have nice magical goodies to covet.
> 
> That's how it is in old D&D, anyhow.




That's the balancing feature.  You roll for those hp at first level, and the old M-U has a better chance of rolling crappy with that 1d4.  And your Con bonus caps at +2, only the warriors are allowed more.  AC caps at -10 too, but good luck getting that far down as a mage.  While everyone else can buy some armor, even leather for the thief, the mage has to rely on _bracers of defense_, and the DM isn't likely to stick a pair with a nice low AC in, unless he's inexperienced or has a good reason for it.

Sure, your spells are incredibly powerful but you don't have a hell of a lot, and pre-3e isn't assuming 13 encounters/level.  You might get a lot of encounters, and few DMs in the old day would have condoned the 15-minute workday.  Using your spells is resource management, and the fighter is there to kill stuff that isn't worth wasting valuable magic on.   

It really is in many ways 3e that threw some of these balances out of whack.  That is if you considered the system balanced the way it was with mages growing more and more powerful while everyone else except maybe divine casters fall behind.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

Orius said:


> Using your spells is resource management, and the fighter is there to kill stuff that isn't worth wasting valuable magic on.




@rounser 

This state is probably as good as any game will ever get combining gritty swordsman with high fantasy magcian. Its honestly the best that anyone could hope for if they were of Cirno's mind-ALBEIT he was not talking about combat. But rather all the things they can do out of combat. Nonetheless, I dont know that 4E's "ritual solution" is necessarily the best. ALTHOUGH I do disagree with rounser who said rituals-_at least in concept_- kill the archetype by giving everyone magic. 



rounser said:


> It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?No thank you, that's not part of the fantasy worlds I want, nor part of D&D's universe as I accept it as legimately being.




In a highly magical world I could support _some_ sort ceremonies or rituals that a mundane priest might perform, a kind of pseudo magic rite/prayer that requires many people and some knowledge of religion. A cleric wields more divine power than any mortal, but common worshippers should still be able to see the power of the divine other than in the cleric.

This is contrasted with arcane power which is secret knowledge in which you must be trained and invest immense time to study. Thats very different from the power of _faith _which anyone and indeed many thousands of worshippers have.




LightPhoenix said:


> To use a "story" example; consider a murder mystery. With magic, the player of a caster simply uses some form of divination to figure out the answer. Hell, a divine caster can even just raise the victim from the dead!




The Dungeon *Master *ultimately has more control than anybody. The caster ONLY has more narrative control than any other player IF and only if the Dungeon Master allows them to have it. The Dungeon Master is in control over the results of divinations what they reveal or dont, in fact truthfully, whether they succeed or fail for many of them have a % chance-and though Cirno calls cheating/fiat/fudge as evidence of the rules being flawed, I believe it has always been an acceptable part of the game. 

Complete Champion IIRC talks about how _Dungeon Masters_ should use players divinations, there's a chapter on it. Furthermore you can only raise someone from the dead IF they want to return. IMC most of the time raising a random person (basically any non NPC) is fruitless, because overwhelmingly, most people are more content with the afterlife than the material world so it fails except in the case of willing PCs. PCs/Adventurers are abberant, they not "usual" people. A Cleric no matter how powerful CANNOT just go around bringing back any dead NPC they feel like with True Ressurection-if an NPC comes back, its because the Dungeon Master has _allowed_ this to happen. And if the Dungeon Master did not want it to happen, then it would not, by no means are they/should they be expected to just say "yes" or "it works" in all cases just because they PCs attempt something. 



> That's a degree of narrative control that the player of a non-caster just doesn't have, and never will, save for DM fiat._ That _is Cirno's point.




Rather thats a degree of _potential_ narrative control, or AKA "Making-Things-Potentially-Happeness" that casters have IF they are allowed it, yes. And IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously of course, you may or may not have a serious problem with this.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

Orius said:


> The real problem is that as you said, the wizard isn't really based on any classical archtype. The origin of the D&D wizard is Chainmail, there they were basically human equivalents of catapults and ballistae with their fireballs and lightning bolts. This is what the wizard was based on in the orginal rules, with a spell list filling out other levels. When that spell list got developed, that's when they got all the _deus ex machina_ powers, and the open-ended nature of magic in the compounded the problem as new spells got added into the game. Not that it was seen or intended as imbalanced in the first place:




Actually it's arguable that the wizard *is* based on classical archetypes. Merlin, and Koschei, and Circe, and a lot of others. The problem is that the wizard is based on all of them without being limited to being like just one, or in what is for the wizard the worst case switching which one they want to be like from day to day. Meanwhile most other classes get to pick one archetype and stick to it forever.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

[MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION]
Dig your avatar.

As far as "solutions" of giving martial classes more magic-that is one thing I brought up in the other thread. Still as far as supernatural "martial stunts"-I dont know what you would give them that would actually bring them up to par with what wizards or cleric do. THE BEST THING I could offer is-Look at a Jedi/Sith.

They have some monumental powers, and are essentially Magical Warriors. They can influence (and in the case of the Sith _totally_ _Control_) entire battles of THOUSANDS or even several hundred-thousand individuals with Battle Meditation/Coordination and even wipe out ENTIRE ARMADAS of ships as Darth Sidious did with conjured Force Storms....but only at the highest levels.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_meditation
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_lightning#Force_Storm
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Telekinesis

And dont forget Telekinesis, Vader was able to Force Choke a guy by seeing him on a view screen-while he was on ANOTHER space ship. Actually, you might even say that Wizards basically are like Jedi/Sith accomplished in the highest arts of The Force (AKA Magic). 

Mass mind control? 
Elemental Evocation? 
Manipulation of things at vast distances? 
Precognition/Divination? ("I sense a disturbance...")
Take away the lightsabers and they basically become Wizards. As a matter of fact, not all of them focused on being talented Lightsaber Duelists, some of them focused entirely on mastering Force Powers.

In fact, D&D wizards might have more in common with Star Wars most powerful Force Sensitives than you think. I can definitely tell you an elite Force Sensitive has more "narrative control" over his life than any random fool with a blaster pistol-not that those characters cant be Heroes.

Of course, if the martial classes become like Jedi/Sith, then mundane fighters become an NPC class. But the real question is-if Martial Classes become this magical how are they different from just "wizards who can use swords"? How differentiate between the two of them? And as far as "balance" doesnt this tip things in the favor of the Magical Warriors if only because if they either run out of magic, or an enemy is immune, or their magic negated they can fall back on swordsmanship?



Bluenose said:


> Actually it's arguable that the wizard *is* based on classical archetypes. Merlin, and Koschei, and Circe, and a lot of others. The problem is that the wizard is based on all of them without being limited to being like just one, or in what is for the wizard the worst case switching which one they want to be like from day to day. Meanwhile most other classes get to pick one archetype and stick to it forever.




And so it begs the question-not wizards in general, but the "D&D" wizard. Is this how they are _supposed_ to be? 
"Balanced" or not, is this what the original creators of the game _intended_? (regardless of what individuals may actually want) 

The question is, what makes Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons? If thats the way D&D Wizards (or casters in general) *are *and you change them, then are they still D&D Wizards/Casters? Is the game STILL D&D if the D&D Wizards/Casters and how they compare to other classes changes? 

Hypothetically then, if this is how they intended to play then making any changes to them makes the game into a different game, or at least a drastically different style. Certainly you are free to houserule as you please to shape any edition to your liking-but it may be easier for you to play a different edition or simply play a different game than trying to make these changes on your own. 

What I find odd, is that AFAIK I have never seen someone raise this issue as Cirno has. At least in recent memory, why does it come up now anyway? I'm just curious as all.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> And so it begs the question-not wizards in general, but the "D&D" wizard. Is this how they are _supposed_ to be?
> "Balanced" or not, is this what the original creators of the game _intended_? (regardless of what individuals may actually want)



That is a valid question, of course. Equally valid might be something along the lines of, "Did the creators manage to get it right, to match the mechanics to the idea?" and/or, "Is the 3e version that is front and centre in the OP(s) 'worse' than earlier ones, in terms of the alleged aspects?"




> The question is, what makes Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons? If thats the way D&D Wizards (or casters in general) *are *and you change them, then are they still D&D Wizards/Casters? Is the game STILL D&D if the D&D Wizards/Casters and how they compare to other classes changes?



Once more, quite valid. And again, you could equally ask, "Has house ruling not been a _fundamental_ and _vital_ part of D&D, right from the very start?"

To which I would have to reply, "Of course it has." Because, well, _it has_.




> What I find odd, is that AFAIK I have never seen someone raise this issue as Cirno has. At least in recent memory, why does it come up now?



Wow. 

Seriously?! 

I think this must be the first time I've encountered a player of D&D who hasn't come across this issue, even if just in discussions/arguments. 

No, really.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

Good questions.



Sorrowdusk said:


> And so it begs the question-not wizards in general, but the "D&D" wizard. Is this how they are _supposed_ to be?
> "Balanced" or not, is this what the original creators of the game _intended_? (regardless of what individuals may actually want)




The 1st edition PHB gave the Magic-User 19 1st level spells, and the Illusionist added a few more unique ones. Less were available at higher levels. Then you had a strict limit on how many you could ever learn from a particular level, and it wasn't trivial to raise that limit. Some of the most useful and versatile ones didn't even exist. I'd suggest the evidence is that MUs weren't expected to have a magical solution for nearly any problems.



> The question is, what makes Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons? If thats the way D&D Wizards (or casters in general) *are *and you change them, then are they still D&D Wizards/Casters? Is the game STILL D&D if the D&D Wizards/Casters and how they compare to other classes changes?




Other classes have had to change (Bards, most notably, every edition). Why shouldn't wizards?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2011)

Ltheb Silverfrond said:


> The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.



Yes! This, to me, is the crux of the issue.



LightPhoenix said:


> Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem.  That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype).  Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals.  If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player.  Is that an edition war thing?  No.  It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.



Apart from this approach, which may be unpalatable to some, Martial Power 2 introduces the concept of martial practices, which are effectively rituals given martial flavor and would hence enable martial characters to accomplish tasks in a manner that is narratively non-magical. 

In my view, however, the best way to deal with this issue may require a fundamental change in how we organize information in an RPG. Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the traditional approach of ability lists - page after page of spells, class abilities, skills and powers - the game might have lists of common or typical non-combat challenges, and what abilities could be used to overcome them. For example, getting past a locked door might list the _knock_ spell/ritual, the Pick Locks/Thievery skill, breaking down the door (Strength check), etc. Finding out facts could list various divination rituals and a skill challenge involving appropriate knowledge and information-gathering skills. This would provide the DM with the mechanical support to give non-spellcasting characters narrative control. 

That said, I am fairly sure that there will still be goals and objectives that cannot plausibly be attained by purely non-magical means. DMs should be advised to minimize the use of such challenges in a more scripted campaign.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

FireLance said:


> That said, I am fairly sure that there will still be goals and objectives that cannot plausibly be attained by purely non-magical means. DMs should be advised to minimize the use of such challenges in a more scripted campaign.




More than that; there should be problems that can't be solved by magical means. Again, they should be limited, but it seems to me one problem is the idea that there should be a magical solution for everything.


----------



## Alexander123 (Jan 7, 2011)

IMO, magic in D&D is meant to be more like Harry Potter. Magic users are supposed to be elites who potentially have the power to rule all muggle-borns who would be considered non-magic users in D&D terms. They are superior, hence the conflict between Harry Potter and Voldemort. Now it might be possible to have some interesting role-playing with non-magic users but in terms of power magic users are supposed to be more powerful than non magic users and this doesn't bother me. I have had some of the most fun playing an all caster party.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Wow.
> 
> Seriously?!
> 
> ...




Its not that I've never heard people bring up that casters can be powerful or that there are plenty of ways to break spells/rules with combos like Chaos Shuffle or any number of builds/combos...(noncasters included)

CoDzilla, Cheater of Mystara, Pun-Pun, Wish and the Word, Nasty Gentleman, Item Dupes, Explosive Rune collecting, Invulnerability builds (Hannibal Lector the Illithid Savant, Twice Betrayer of Shar, etc), Tleilaxu’s Mind Switch tactica, Component Free Wishing, Spell Level Jacking, Mercantile Leaders, Transformation Field limitless spell outputs, Attack of the Clones, Psionic Time-Copies, H.I.V.E., Ice Sculpture God, Emaciated Spawn Reincarntation, Nanobots, Hyper-Evolved Undead, the Teflemmar multipouncer, Economy Commander, Hulking Moon Hurler, Odytoboman’s Infinite Stuff, Free Templates (e.g. Effigy, Lycanthropy, Tauric, etc abuse), Tainted Spellcasting, The Synchronicity Shuffle, Omniscificers, Lord of Procrastination’s Dirty Tricks, The Perpetual Damage Machine, Psly’s Dirty Damage Combo, Unfettered Heroism Wand Surge abuse, Festering Strength, The Beast, Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy, Dragonwrought Kobold Oldies, Bestow Power Fission, Consumptive Field, Diplomancers....just to name _too many. _

But Cirno, it feels _different_ him and this thread.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

Alexander123 said:


> I have had some of the most fun playing an all caster party.



Well, yes.

As for elites and "muggles" (ugh), I'd say the game one might be looking for there is Ars Magica. At least, that is the game where that scenario is "done right". If you happen to find their take on it agreeable. 

D&D promises (or, to some, _appears_ to promise) something else entirely. So, the question would be, "Did they get it right?"




Sorrowdusk said:


> Cirno, it feels _different_ him and this thread.



How so? Not disagreeing, necessarily. Just curious.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

Alexander123 said:


> IMO, magic in D&D is meant to be more like Harry Potter. Magic users are supposed to be elites who potentially have the power to rule all muggle-borns who would be considered non-magic users in D&D terms. They are superior, hence the conflict between Harry Potter and Voldemort. Now it might be possible to have some interesting role-playing with non-magic users but in terms of power magic users are supposed to be more powerful than non magic users and this doesn't bother me. I have had some of the most fun playing an all caster party.




To be honest. Just living in a world where there are magic users and you are not...that could be scary as fck. See...people sometimes go CRAZY. Sometimes people get all depressed or sad-aloney. Read Elder Evils and see how ONE little Elven Wizard (18th level) thought NOBODY cared about them. They went off the deep end. Except, a Wizard going crazy is very different. Any guy could go on a spree with a gun/Xbow or commit a small act of terrorism. 

This elven Wizard cast Apocalypse From The Sky.

10+ mile radius nukage centered on self, as they savor sweet oblivion, as well as taking all those "fools" with them as sacrifices so their new god can awaken to destroy all the world.

Plus? The spell requires an artifact of a good deity as a spell component, and guess what? The wiz hired the PCs to get it for them in the first place in that Scenario/adventure. Nice job Heroes. 

Yeah.

Scary as fck. I'd rather deal with a rogue who became Ted Bundy. Plus, wizards CREATE magical beasts, "Things that should not be". A wizard invented the Chuul, who lived long after he failed to take over the world. Add to magical beasts, undead, and constructs. OH! And even if a Wizard is sane, if you're a believer that power corrupts...

I mean, who could resist the temptation to Scry on random people and use the Messege spell through it just to mindscrew "OOooOOooOH I'M GHOOooOOST!" or "I'm a Demon. And I _already_ ate your SOUL. " PLUS-think of all the subtle ways of Gaslighting someone you dont like with magic. Total mindscrew.

On a side note, I like the "Magic is BAD" angle of Cthulhu. Its something man CAN DO-but was *never* meant to/should never do. The idea that warping reality, also warps your mind...slowly making you insane..._thats cool._

Thats one of the things that balances magic in Call of Cthulhu, sanity is a very limited resource thats not easily recoverable. Just acquiring spells saps sanity, and the more Mythos Knowledge you have, the lower the cap on how much sanity you're even allowed.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

RE: Harry Potter (and nothing else because, quite frankly, I'm really digging the discussion going on and don't want to jump down into it ;p)

I have admittingly never read the books.  I've only seen the first two movies, in fact, and only barely the second one which I don't remember that well.  But the first one I found interesting because of something to point out:

Most of the problems are not solved by magic.

The final series of conflicts are really somewhat of a classic hero's tale, in a lot of aspects.  They need to sneak in, there's a dangerous guardian they need to get past by some means (not neccisarily through combat!), a horrible trap that requires a measure of knowledge to get past (the plant), a riddle that requires wit and cunning (the chessboard), a test of the person's physical ability (the flying part), and of course, the final test of love, or friendship, or heart, or courage, or what have you.

And for the most part, none of that is solved through casting a spell, save for sneaking past a rather large dog.

I mentioned the two archtypes wizards tend to take, but I missed one that's pretty important, and I think it's seen at least a bit in Ron in the final series of conflicts: the Trickster.  The Trickster does indeed tend to be magical, though mroe aligned with the bard, or the illusionist, or beguiler (to use a 3e-ism) then that of the wizard.  See, Ron doesn't have brute magical strength.  But he gets by with cunning.  The chess battle was his moment to shine, and it wasn't through just magicking up the place, but by using tactics and (I know I've used this word a million times now) cunning.

So looking at it, we have the wise sage (not so old) in Hermoine, the cunning hero in Ron, and naturally the courageous protagonist in Harry.

Now as I said, I've not read the books, nor do I really know about anything that happens after book 1, so for all I know starting in book 2 it's just _all magic all the time_


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Oh yes, real quick, RE: Jedi.

You want power glut?  In the first three movies Jedi could sense things and lift stuff - typically relatively _small_ things, as Yoda lifting the X-Wing was a big deal.  Vader had his force choke, and the Emperor had his lightning.  And the force choke and lightning were sort of signature moves, not something everyone and their dad had.  Of course, the good guys - even those who were mostly bad but were just redeemed - came back as ghosts to serve as mentors and guides to others.  As far as I know Luke's flying wasn't linked to the force at all - Obi Wan telling him to trust his instincts weren't about Space Magic, it was him entering a psuedo-zen state and to let his natural ability take over.

Flash forward a bit and now you have jedi who single handedly rip through entire stormtrooper battalions, pulling down massive starships, and everyone and their dad farts out force lightning 

It's interesting, because jedi were originally just sorta Space Monks.  Their powers were vague and mostly undefined, and they were...well, like Han calls them, they were a kooky ancient religion.  Now they seem to be some sort of Space Superman with amazing powers nobody else can reach.


----------



## Votan (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The railroad doesn't stay a railroad when the wizard can fly, teleport, or just completely disintegrate the rails.




I still think most of this was due to an attempt to remove the weaknesses of various spells; which then led to this loss.  In 1E, Fly is a 3rd level spell with no higher level alternatives.  If it is dispelled the magic user falls.  Teleport has a risk of instant death, even under the safest of circumstances.  

A 9th level magic user has precisely 13 spells (many fewer than would happen in later editions).  4 first, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th and 1 5th.  This is about the time that the magic user can actually start using spells with gusto (before that they need to be carefully hoarded).  A caster who uses a lot of spells is terribly vulnerable to surprise.  

Rope trick lasts 20 min per level (and extension 2 is a 5th level spell that makes it last 30 minutes per level).  Spending 8 hours in the rope trick space is an option for Archmagi alone (and remember the time to memorize spells plus the longer rest time before memorizing high level spells).  

That is the same level a Fighter gets a small army of soldier (who, themselves, exert narrative power).  

But these are removed with time while, the magic users gets a lot more spells and many of them become a lot better.  The hazards of casting magic are reduced (fly ends in feather fall in 3E, for example) -- in 1E dispel magic is a very effective trick against a flying magic user.  There are no improved invisibility spells so a flying and invisible 9th level magic user needed a bunch of spells memorized in order to pull the trick off; I rarely saw it.  

Finally, I think the idea that scrolls are commonly bought and traded gives the magic user the ability to pick a lot of utility spells without major impact on the game.

So I am unconvinced that this was a consistent issue with the older versions of the game (although it could have been depending on how individual groups actually played the game).  

I a lot of ways, 4E was merely the radical reversal of a trend of slow power creep.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?No thank you, that's not part of the fantasy worlds I want, nor part of D&D's universe as I accept it as legimately being. And if 4E cannot create the worlds I want, nor offer believable archetypes, then there's little point to the game as a fantasy construction kit, because it's turned itself into an anachronism.




You're arguing against a strawman here. Anyone can cast rituals - with the Ritual Casting feat. i.e. training in the more ceremonial forms of magic. Not everyone takes Ritual Casting - there's an opportunity cost and rituals cost components. But it's quite possible in 4e to be a fighter who can cast spells out of combat. Or a fighter who can't. (As a rule, most NPCs can't).

The ability to cast plot-altering magic is linked to your character class but not bound to it. All (pre-essentials) Wizards are ritual casters. So are Invokers, Clerics, and Bards (and a handful of others). If fighters or rogues want to be they need to spend the feat. Also rituals cost cash resources to cast as well as obtain meaning many don't use them.



Bluenose said:


> More than that; there should be problems that can't be solved by magical means. Again, they should be limited, but it seems to me one problem is the idea that there should be a magical solution for everything.




Unless you're using the Bigger Hammer approach (anti-magic fields), there's very little that smart magical support can't _help_ with.



Alexander123 said:


> IMO, magic in D&D is meant to be more like Harry Potter. Magic users are supposed to be elites who potentially have the power to rule all muggle-borns who would be considered non-magic users in D&D terms.




D&D never actually says taht on the tin. Which is a near-crippling problem in some ways. The classes are meant to be roughly balanced.



Ltheb Silverfrond said:


> My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)




Drawbacks are the obvious one to limit this. 4e makes its narrative magic (rituals) cost cash to cast meaning it's used a whole lot less than in 3e.



MichaelSomething said:


> Hey ProfessorCrino! What if I played a level 15 wizard and wanted to build my own super cool keep? How would I go about doing so? Could I do it faster then my buddy the level 15 fighter? Could I use magic to do it faster and better then the Fighter could? If so, could you list all the spells I could use?




I think this has been answered. Other than brute strength (hire four more guys if that's a worry - unskilled labour is cheap) and ability to chop down trees fast (rather than wear high heels) there is nothing that the fighter brings to the table by virtue of being a fighter. (Or by being level 15 unless followers come as standard or you're playing 4e). Which means that if the wizard just had one spell with the ability to clean lichen off rocks fast (prestadigitatation) he'd be better than the fighter. As things stand, IIRC by 9th level he can create most of the basic materials for the keep from thin air (Wall of Stone), and then sculpt them (Fabricate, Sculpt Stone). If he's willing to spend XP, he can then throw in Permanency for certain magical effects (only cantrips at ninth level - by fifteenth he can ptu in his own doors, his private sanctum, symbols, etc.). All this in addition to everything the fighter can do while being many levels lower.

Oh, the bard's singing in my 3e games is normally Perform (Oratory) instead and on one occasion has been Perform (dance) - he looked so spectacularly good and flashy in combat that his allies were all encouraged (swashbuckler). Also if playing low magic, remember that in a pinch 3.X bards can heal.

Edit: Yes, I agree that the removal of drawbacks went a long way to unleashing and unbalancing the wizard.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> More than that; there should be problems that can't be solved by magical means. Again, they should be limited, but it seems to me one problem is the idea that there should be a magical solution for everything.



The unfortunate asymmetry is, a magic-using PC can still solve problems through non-magical means. (See the Harry Potter examples cited upthread.) However, the reverse is not true, barring magic items or somehow leveraging on a magic-using ally or servant.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Anyone can cast rituals - with the Ritual Casting feat. i.e. training in the more ceremonial forms of magic. Not everyone takes Ritual Casting - there's an opportunity cost and rituals cost components. But it's quite possible in 4e to be a fighter who can cast spells out of combat. Or a fighter who can't. (As a rule, most NPCs can't).
> 
> The ability to cast plot-altering magic is linked to your character class but not bound to it. All (pre-essentials) Wizards are ritual casters. So are Invokers, Clerics, and Bards (and a handful of others). If fighters or rogues want to be they need to spend the feat. Also rituals cost cash resources to cast as well as obtain meaning many don't use them.



True, of course. At least, my memory of reading the first round of 4e core books would indicate so. 

But... it strikes me as a kludge. And a particularly glaring, ugly one, at that.* All ritual casting, for anyone at all, at the cost of *one* feat?

Better a (long!) chain of feats, or whatever else, IMO. If you're going to set it up outside of class ability land in the first place.


* The presence of a lot of these, among other things, led me to promptly turn around and move in the other direction from the latest edition. 

Hm. So, 4.5 ("Essentials", if you prefer) changed some of this? How so?




> Drawbacks are the obvious one to limit this. 4e makes its narrative magic (rituals) cost cash to cast meaning it's used a whole lot less than in 3e.



Yes, that's another way to go. Personally, _both_ would be better still. A purchasing price _and_ a usage price. Something other than money in the latter case, preferably. But that part is very much a matter of taste, not better vs. worse design, _per se_. Or not necessarily, at least.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

To be fair, ritual magic also generally requires skill.

You have some easy or binary rituals that don't take your skill in nature, arcane, or religion into account, but most do, which somewhat helps ensure that the sort of "ritual caster" classes, who generally have the stats and skills you want, tend to be better at it.

Rituals are a fantastic idea, I think, for _any_ edition, even if you do limit them even more.  Really big magic should, I think, be something that's done with a big circle of magic etched into the ground and a drawn out ritual and process.


----------



## rounser (Jan 7, 2011)

> You're arguing against a strawman here. Anyone can cast rituals - with the Ritual Casting feat. i.e. training in the more ceremonial forms of magic. Not everyone takes Ritual Casting - there's an opportunity cost and rituals cost components. But it's quite possible in 4e to be a fighter who can cast spells out of combat. Or a fighter who can't. (As a rule, most NPCs can't).



Which still makes no sense in terms of archetype.  Why have classes at all if you're going to pull stunts like this?  I'm sorry, but if this is supposed to be D&D then IMO this design decision is thematically completely out to lunch, and worthy of chucking out the whole game over.  It's just that wrong for the D&D universe IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> /snip
> 
> Rather thats a degree of _potential_ narrative control, or AKA "Making-Things-Potentially-Happeness" that casters have IF they are allowed it, yes. And IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously of course, you may or may not have a serious problem with this.




Yes and no.  Presuming that the DM is playing by the rules, the caster classes really can control the narrative to a degree that non-caster classes can't.  Even something as simple as stat-buffs can have a very large impact.  You can go from being a social leper to the life of the party with a spell or two in any edition.

The fighter is stuck being whatever he started out as at 1st level.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh yes, real quick, RE: Jedi.
> 
> You want power glut?  In the first three movies Jedi could sense things and lift stuff - typically relatively _small_ things, as Yoda lifting the X-Wing was a big deal.  Vader had his force choke, and the Emperor had his lightning.  And the force choke and lightning were sort of signature moves, not something everyone and their dad had.  Of course, the good guys - even those who were mostly bad but were just redeemed - came back as ghosts to serve as mentors and guides to others.  As far as I know Luke's flying wasn't linked to the force at all - Obi Wan telling him to trust his instincts weren't about Space Magic, it was him entering a psuedo-zen state and to let his natural ability take over.
> 
> ...




This happens in pretty much anything though.  The sequels always have to be bigger, badder, bolder.  It's just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> True, of course. At least, my memory of reading the first round of 4e core books would indicate so.
> 
> But... it strikes me as a kludge. And a particularly glaring, ugly one, at that.* All ritual casting, for anyone at all, at the cost of *one* feat?
> 
> Better a (long!) chain of feats, or whatever else, IMO. If you're going to set it up outside of class ability land in the first place.




Well, in theory. Assuming you have training in Arcana/Religion/Nature/Heal. And have spent money to learn the ritual, and have your ritual book available, and have the necessary components to perform the ritual (money, mostly because it's easy to keep track of). If all those things are true, you can have a character who can attempt any ritual, provided they can make a skill check. 



> * The presence of a lot of these, among other things, led me to promptly turn around and move in the other direction from the latest edition.
> 
> Hm. So, 4.5 ("Essentials", if you prefer) changed some of this? How so?




No mention of rituals in Essentials at all, as far as I've seen.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> True, of course. At least, my memory of reading the first round of 4e core books would indicate so.
> 
> But... it strikes me as a kludge. And a particularly glaring, ugly one, at that.* All ritual casting, for anyone at all, at the cost of *one* feat?
> 
> Better a (long!) chain of feats, or whatever else, IMO. If you're going to set it up outside of class ability land in the first place.




I'd possibly agree with you if Ritual Caster was a feat considered mandatory.  If two non-ritualists out of every three took the ritual casting feat you'd probably be right for PCs.  But this doesn't happen.  Between four D&D groups and over the course of two years an seven campaigns I've only ever seen one PC take a feat to become a Ritual Caster - and (a) that PC was mine and (b) it was a multiclass feat that provided more benefits than just ritual casting.

This is, I think, due to the other balancing mechanism.  The cash-cost for rituals.  People don't like spending cash so are more than happy to leave the dirty job up to those with the class feature to cast rituals (of which every group I've been in has had one).  So for all it appears to be a kludge, it also appears to be working as intended - opening up formerly barely playable character concepts (The Grey Mouser springs to mind) while not being so strong everyone grabs it.



> Hm. So, 4.5 ("Essentials", if you prefer) changed some of this? How so?




None of the classes have rituals.  Instead they get extra class features.  For instance Clerics get Raise Dead at level 8 (and Druids get Reincarnate).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> Which still makes no sense in terms of archetype. Why have classes at all if you're going to pull stunts like this? I'm sorry, but if this is supposed to be D&D then IMO this design decision is thematically completely out to lunch, and worthy of chucking out the whole game over. It's just that wrong for the D&D universe IMO.




Because in combat approach and out of combat skills are different.  Rituals are long spells that take finesse and attention to detail.  And it's entirely possible to be able to draw magic circles and highly complex shapes and incantations - but not be able to pull a bolt of magic in a few seconds to hurt someone in combat.  And it's equally plausible to channel raw magic fast and hard but not have the necessary finesse or even patience for complex rituals (sorcerors spring to mind).  Most people who can do one can do both, but the presence of some exceptions doesn't break the universe in the slightest.

If you want a fairly archetypal martial character with ritual casting, try The Grey Mouser.  The ability to play him doesn't weaken the D&D universe - in fact he'd be perfectly at home there (and the dual classed wizard/rogue he'd have to be in older editions would fit far worse).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 7, 2011)

*Choices, choices.*

Choices, choices.

What has been entirely ignored in this thread is the idea of opportunity cost, as well as cost in general.

In 3e, for good or for ill, a good solid percentage of a character is his money, and money spent on magic items that he chooses to obtain.

The Wizard must, apart from a measly 2 spells per level (comparable to the sorceror) BUY his spells. These are very expensive. If a wizards wants narrative control over raw combat power, he must make choices, gaining one while losing another.

But so it is with the fighter. Another plus on that magic sword, or a helm of telepathy? Better armor, or a Cloak of the Mountebank? 



I suspect that others may bring up that a wizard "can do this without losing anything, while a fighter loses much."

I don't mean that to be a strawman, I'm just trying to think this through and consider objections. 

Thing is though, there are two answer to this. The first is, how can a wizard not lose anything? Spells cost money, money that could be spent on magic items (including more hp, better saves, or simply other spells). A wizard could load up on invisibility and detect traps and such, and not be able to cast fireball. He'd be a pretty thiefy wizard, but not much of a fighter at all. I suspect that many of the people who complain about wizards _make the mistake of waiving the cost of their spells_. 

The other side is, why does the fighter "lose" when he spends money on non combat items? Is he losing because he's spending money on something that is not his primary role? That seems to pigeonhole the fighter by choice, not by design. OF COURSE a fighter cannot have narrative control if his ONLY role is to fight. 


I think a large chunk of this isn't what classes CAN do, but what they CHOOSE to do (not even getting into the opportunity cost of feats and skills). If a wizard is "allowed" to spend money on non combat, and a fighter is "not allowed", then OF COURSE the fighter can only fight.


*D&D is high magic, and that, very importantly, includes magic items. *


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the schoolin' on "4.0" and "4.5", guys. 

So skills are necessary for some. Huh. But then, you can just get "trained in" for any skills you like, right? Or am I way off again...  In some ways, they remind me of 3e (UA) Incantations. Not altogether a terrible thing.

And it's always good to read some anecdotals - and I actually mean that! It's very real currency, in these kinds of discussions, I believe. More so than many theory-based contributions, IMO. If the usage cost approach works for you and yours, Neonchameleon, then great!  And no doubt, it's worked just fine for plenty of others too. Kludges _can_ (more or less) work OK, as any number of IT folks could tell you (... assuming you're not one, natch ).

Yeah, I'm still convinced it was a kludge.  "Was", because it appears Essentials has moved... _back_, perhaps? Back to pre-"4.0" I mean, in a way.

If so, veeery innarestin'.  Must admit, I've been totally oblivious to the details of the most recent uh... revision. 'Til now. Was only aware that it existed, basically.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Choices, choices.




Costs, really.

A full spellbook with literally every spell in the game in it costs dramatically less then the belt of strength, necklace of natural armor, ring of protection, fully loaded armor, fully loaded shield, item of flight, side ranged weapon and ammo, etc, etc, that the fighter wants/needs depending on how high level you are.

The wizard, in the end, simply has more open spending money.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> Which still makes no sense in terms of archetype.  Why have classes at all if you're going to pull stunts like this?




Probably it's literary inspiration. The Gray Mouser works better as a rogue with Ritual Casting and some knowledge of the arcane than he does as an AD&D multiclass, for instance; he doesn't use spells with the in-combat regularity of a D&D wizard, but he's capable of rituals a la Lords of Quarmall. It's been a while since I've read some Brust, but I think there were people who used magic only in a ritual capacity there as well, and that universe is so thematically tied to D&D that it involves raising the dead as part of the economy.



> I'm sorry, but if this is supposed to be D&D then IMO this design decision is thematically completely out to lunch, and worthy of chucking out the whole game over.  It's just that wrong for the D&D universe IMO.




Is there really "the" D&D universe, though? It's been more my experience that long-term DMs frequently make their own campaign worlds more and more distinct, dabbling with themes like weird fantasy and fantasy pulp and the like. It's hard for me to picture one single D&D universe that includes Horror checks, psionic thri-kreen and pistol-wielding hippo-men but recoils from a Gray Mouser-like rogue performing a ritual, especially granted the shadow Leiber throws over the game.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 7, 2011)

FireLance said:


> The unfortunate asymmetry is, a magic-using PC can still solve problems through non-magical means. (See the Harry Potter examples cited upthread.) However, the reverse is not true, barring magic items or somehow leveraging on a magic-using ally or servant.




Why is that asymmetry unfortunate? If I feel like playing a fighter, why would I want to be able to solve a problem through magical means? I want to be able to solve problems through means that make sense for the character I'm playing. And by choosing to play a fighter, I'm choosing to not do it via spellcasting.

I think a lot of this is a solution searching for a problem. Ultimately, what matters is that the DM is giving both of us a chance to have fun with our characters, to affect the campaign. If the wizard chooses to solve problems non-magically, then we're interacting in the same method. If the wizard chooses to solve problems magically, he's operating in an environment I didn't particularly want to operate in by choosing to play a fighter, so why should that bother me?

This is why I think the 4e solution of allowing anybody to take ritual magic feats, while interesting on some levels, doesn't really solve the problem. If I want to play a fighter, why exactly do I want to blow a two or more feats learning how to use rituals when I can get feats that better support my primary jobs? 

It strikes me that the type of player most concerned with character balance, looking at D&D as a balanced, even competitive game, wouldn't spend the resources dividing his character's efforts between game-play aspects of fighting and narrative aspects of rituals. And the type of player most interested in narrative aspects of characters and the game are probably less concerned with absolute character balance in the first place as long as they get freedom to inform the narrative.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2011)

You want to give a fighter the same type of narrative control as a wizard...then use Incantations, (these are actually skill challenges that allow anyone to cast magic.) from Unearthed Arcana. It's not easy for non-casters (which I don't think it should be) and it's not everyone's cup of tea, but the rules for it most certainly exsist in 3.5.

On another note...How is this any different from the fact that a Rogue in 4e starts with twice as many skills as a Fighter? Or that a Wizard starts with both more skills and free rituals? That's all under the type of narrative control you are speaking to... isn't it? So what exactly was "fixed"?

NOTE: bild91, I can't give you xp until I spread some around but your post above contains much truth.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> In 3e, for good or for ill, a good solid percentage of a character is his money, and money spent on magic items that he chooses to obtain.
> 
> The Wizard must, apart from a measly 2 spells per level (comparable to the sorceror) BUY his spells. These are very expensive. If a wizards wants narrative control over raw combat power, he must make choices, gaining one while losing another.
> 
> But so it is with the fighter. Another plus on that magic sword, or a helm of telepathy? Better armor, or a Cloak of the Mountebank?




Run the numbers.  A vanilla +1 sword costs over 2000 gp - this is not a cost the wizard needs to worry about.  Writing spell books costs 10 gp per spell level, I think.  Adding in the cost of a scroll to learn from (25gp * spell level * (spell level*2-1), a 1st level spell costs 35gp, a second level spell costs 170gp, a 3rd level spell costs 405gp, and a 4th level spell costs 740gp.  So for that +2 sword, a 7th level wizard could buy 1 4th level spell (for a total of 3), 2 3rd level spells (for a total of 6), 2 2nd level spells (for a further 6), and 3 1st level spells (for a total of 7).  Much cheaper if he learned from a spellbook, of course.  And that's quite a lot of versatility there...



Aus_Snow said:


> Ah, interesting. Thanks for the schoolin' on "4.0" and "4.5", guys.
> 
> So skills are necessary for some. Huh. But then, you can just get "trained in" for any skills you like, right? Or am I way off again...




You start off being able to pick your skills from a restricted list (e.g. Fighters don't have easy access to Arcana and Wizards can't pick Athletics).  You can also buy training in _any_ skill for a feat.



> And it's always good to read some anecdotals - and I actually mean that! It's very real currency, in these kinds of discussions, I believe. More so than many theory-based contributions, IMO. If the usage cost approach works for you and yours, Neonchameleon, then great!  And no doubt, it's worked just fine for plenty of others too.




If anything, rituals are seen as useless - threads show up on Rpg.net to ask whether anyone actually uses them.  (The normal answer is not often when the rituals first become available - too expensive - but once you've levelled up half a dozen times after they become available the exponential nature of treasure means that people use them a lot more.)



> Kludges _can_ (more or less) work OK, as any number of IT folks could tell you (... assuming you're not one, natch ).




I dabble.  (Statistics/Healthcare Analytics/more VBA than I want - and if I ever hear the phrase "Excel Database" again...)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 7, 2011)

I agree that wizards are petty powerful but I don't agree that they have the total narrative power that is being claimed.

You are making it sound like wizards can't fail. Most spells have saving throws and to hit so it is very possible to have a spell not do anything or not even hit.  

If a wizard runs out of spells they are just a class with a poor BAB and low AC and lower hit points. Non magical PCs have the same level of power at the end of the day as they did at the start.

Throw a wizard in a null magic area they are screwed not so for non magical PCs.

A wizard no matter how powerful cannot usually survive going toe to toe with a fighter or monk or say a troll with rend.

A rogue can ruin a wizards day by flanking and backstabbing while being able to resit damage from the spells.

As for being able to do what other classes do with spells even that is limited. They have to know the spell and have slots open to cast it. A rogue can disarm traps and pick locks all day and night long. 

I have played every ed from 1 to 3.5 and I have never felt that the MU had total control over the narrative. Maybe because I was lucky enough to have excellent  DMs who knew how to run a game where every class shined.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> My problem is this: nothing stated here were things wizards cannot do.
> 
> On the other hand, fighters cannot do any of the things wizards can.




This brings up an interesting point. What measure do we use to define what a wizard is? In a good deal of fiction a wizard is a person of power in command of forces that ordinary men can barely understand much less control. 

The question for the gamer becomes, do I want to include wizards as playable characters in my campaign? 

The sharp contrast between those who can manipulate magical forces and those who cannot has been a cornerstone of D&D for a long time. That a fighter cannot do what a wizard can is a feature rather than a bug else why have the two separated? 



LightPhoenix said:


> I think a number of people here are missing the forest for the trees.
> 
> Cirno's argument is players of casters, and especially Wizards, hold a degree of control over the story by way of magic that players of non-casters can never match.
> 
> ...




I would say that one problem was solved and others were created. Equalizing everything across the board means that the concept of "the wizard" is removed from the game. Depending upon the wishes of the players this may or may not be a desirable outcome. The feel of play shifts from one of fantasy adventurers to a supers or special ops team.
The wizard is now just the one who happens to have a pointy hat. 

If strict equality and narrative control powers were actually required for players to enjoy a campaign then no one could ever have fun playing the DC heroes. Superman in the same party as Batman? How could that ever result in a good time?



Hussar said:


> Yes and no. Presuming that the DM is playing by the rules, the caster classes really can control the narrative to a degree that non-caster classes can't. Even something as simple as stat-buffs can have a very large impact. You can go from being a social leper to the life of the party with a spell or two in any edition.
> 
> The fighter is stuck being whatever he started out as at 1st level.




Why can't the fighter grow in power and influence as levels are gained? A fighter can attract a small army and use it to effect the campaign world. A Lord with a keep and a force of men can exert considerable social influence which is something that the 1st level fighter does not do. 

The power of a wizard comes in more flashy convenient parcels in the form of spells. It is easy to let the flash blind you to what a powerful fighter can do.


----------



## Perram (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Run the numbers. A vanilla +1 sword costs over 2000 gp - this is not a cost the wizard needs to worry about. Writing spell books costs 10 gp per spell level, I think. Adding in the cost of a scroll to learn from (25gp * spell level * (spell level*2-1), a 1st level spell costs 35gp, a second level spell costs 170gp, a 3rd level spell costs 405gp, and a 4th level spell costs 740gp. So for that +2 sword, a 7th level wizard could buy 1 4th level spell (for a total of 3), 2 3rd level spells (for a total of 6), 2 2nd level spells (for a further 6), and 3 1st level spells (for a total of 7). Much cheaper if he learned from a spellbook, of course. And that's quite a lot of versatility there...




Well, not quite.  Spells cost 100 gold per spell level to scribe, in adition to obtaining the source spell in 3.x.  Pathfinder reduced it to this chart where lower level spells are quite a bit cheaper, but high level spells approach their old costs:

Spell LevelWriting Cost05 gp110 gp240 gp390 gp4160 gp5250 gp6360 gp7490 gp8640 gp9810 gp05 gp110 gp240 gp390 gp4160 gp5250 gp6360 gp7490 gp8640 gp9810 gp
0 - 5gp
1 - 10gp
2 - 40gp
3 - 90gp
4 - 160gp
5 - 250gp
6 - 360gp
7 - 490gp
8 - 640gp
9 - 810gp


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I agree that wizards are petty powerful but I don't agree that they have the total narrative power that is being claimed.
> 
> You are making it sound like wizards can't fail. Most spells have saving throws and to hit so it is very possible to have a spell not do anything or not even hit.
> 
> ...




What saving throw does the wall have against being flown over? It has a DC to avoid being climbed, but obstacles being bypassed is narrative *control*, trying to do something with a chance of failure is narrative.

If a fighter runs out of hit points they're dead. Their power at the end of the day is entirely dependent on someone healing them - magically.

If you're in a null-magic area, any class dependent on magical gear is pretty much screwed, not just the ones who cast spells.

A wizard has rather a lot of ways to avoid having to go toe-to-toe with the enemies - the fighter and monk don't. Who do you think is more likely to end up in melee?

Blur. 20% miss chance due to concealment, you can't sneak attack a target with concealment, now the rogue can make a will save or be my bitch.

If the wizard has the spell in their book, they can cast it tomorrow. If the rogue fails the check, a lot of GMs won't allow them to try again.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 7, 2011)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Why is that asymmetry unfortunate?




I like the asymmetry too; it creates an internal dynamism to the game which then calls for continual readjustment. I would argue that this can drive a campaign forwards with tremendous power.

Game balance - in terms of allowing players to share the limelight equally - is a process moderated by the DM. Mechanical equivalence (or ensuring the equal mechanical effectiveness for PCs) is one aspect of balancing the game.

A good DM can balance the various kinds of balance, so to speak: but knowledge of an individual player's likes, dislikes and psychology plays the largest part.

For me, I guess what I'm groping for is the idea that in order to have a _Really Good Time_, some degree of trust and mutual understanding needs to arise between the players and the DM. And that by the time this has happened, ideas such as mechanical equivalence in one dimension have become largely irrelevant.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Costs, really.
> 
> A full spellbook with literally every spell in the game in it costs dramatically less then the belt of strength, necklace of natural armor, ring of protection, fully loaded armor, fully loaded shield, item of flight, side ranged weapon and ammo, etc, etc, that the fighter wants/needs depending on how high level you are.
> 
> The wizard, in the end, simply has more open spending money.




The Breakdown (source is Arcane Spells :: d20srd.org):

Let's assume that the wizard goes the cheaper (non scroll) route and copies from other wizards. (Note, again, this is the cheapest route--scrolls are more and research is MUCH more).

Copying from another wiz's spellbook has a fee of "spell's level x 50 gold."

"A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages." 

"Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page."


So, given that, the cost in gold for spells, by level, is:
0 - 125 (counting copying at 25 for 1/2 spell lvl)
1 - 150
2 - 300
3 - 450
4 - 600
5 - 750
6 - 900
7 - 1,050
8 - 1,200
9 - 1,350


Also, let us not forget time and effort."The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level." If a wizard fails their Spellcraft roll, the day is wasted and they need to try again the next day. So, for each and every spell, a wizard has to find 24 hours or more, depending on spellcraft.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's telling, I think, how many people here have utterly ignored my main topic and have absolutely refused to comment on the existence or non-existence of the wizard archtype.
> 
> They have, naturally, chosen to attack me personally instead.
> 
> What a wonderful thread~




Its what happens when you dare to suggest that the nerd class shouldnt dominate the jock class.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 7, 2011)

For fun, I decided to see how much every spell in the game would actually cost. 

I'm using SRD spells only here. Also, I'm assuming buying them all for easier math (no free spells).

19 0 lvl spells = 2,375
39 1st lvl spells = 5,850
50 2nd lvl spells = 15,000
42 3rd lvl spells = 18,900
41 4th lvl spells = 24,600
43 5th lvl spells = 32,250
43 6th lvl spells = 38,700
35 7th lvl spells = 36,750
35 8th lvl spells = 42,000
24 9th lvl spells = 32,400

Grand total for "every spell in the game" (at the cheapest, non scroll, non research cost) is: *248,825 gold.*


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The sharp contrast between those who can manipulate magical forces and those who cannot has been a cornerstone of D&D for a long time. That a fighter cannot do what a wizard can is a feature rather than a bug else why have the two separated?




I agree, though really you need to also answer the question "what can a fighter do that a wizard cannot?" If there's a good and satisfying answer for both of these, we don't really have much of a problem. 



> I would say that one problem was solved and others were created. Equalizing everything across the board means that the concept of "the wizard" is removed from the game. Depending upon the wishes of the players this may or may not be a desirable outcome. The feel of play shifts from one of fantasy adventurers to a supers or special ops team.
> The wizard is now just the one who happens to have a pointy hat.




Equal power doesn't really remove the concept of "the wizard" from the game, particularly if you equalize power but keep mechanics sufficiently differentiated. Though I admit it probably depends on how you're defining "the wizard" in the first place: if the weak-as-kitten-to-living-god dynamic is part of what it means to be "the wizard," then yeah, that's gone. 



> If strict equality and narrative control powers were actually required for players to enjoy a campaign then no one could ever have fun playing the DC heroes. Superman in the same party as Batman? How could that ever result in a good time?




That's a pretty good example. What can Batman do that Superman can't? To some extent they answered this by leveling the playing field a bit: the Silver Age Superman who's super-intelligent enough to build his own robots fades away to be replaced by a clever, but not quite genius-level man. Batman, conversely, gets elevated in the number of things he's mastered and the kinds of resources he can call on. So Batman can do things that no other JLA character can, and with decent writing, so can everyone else have their own shtick: it's why they remain relevant.



> Why can't the fighter grow in power and influence as levels are gained? A fighter can attract a small army and use it to effect the campaign world. A Lord with a keep and a force of men can exert considerable social influence which is something that the 1st level fighter does not do.




Right. But if this is a big differentiation, you do have to have something in place that prevents the wizard from claiming a keep and raising an army (of loyal men, or ensorcelled troops, or living dead, or whatever). Since many people like the thought of necromancers with hordes of undead with which they can challenge the world, it makes sense that wizards can do that, but then if they can, what does the high-level fighter do that the high-level wizard cannot? There should, at least in my opinion, be a good answer for this.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ltheb Silverfrond said:


> The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.
> 
> My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)




You have *Magic* be outside the control of the players. You have magic (small m) be controlled by the player spell caters. You limit the power of spells available to be used as tools. You refluff skill checks to be magical spells. When my 4th edition mage rolls a diplomacy, he's dropping words of suggestion, unnoticed by mortal minds, in addition to honeyed words. 

Some difference is expected, and ok, but the gulf of power difference is what I and others have a problem with.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 7, 2011)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I like the asymmetry too; it creates an internal dynamism to the game which then calls for continual readjustment. I would argue that this can drive a campaign forwards with tremendous power.



Mechanical imbalance creates work a particular kind, and you happen to *like* that kind of work? Um. Fair enough!  It takes all types, I suppose. Though there is a very direct way to make that work "front-loaded" - see below.*

Still doesn't mean the game can't be balanced _without_ sacrificing any "internal dynamism". And, I feel compelled to say, just because 4e failed in this regard (IMO, etc.) doesn't mean anything much at all.

Mechanical balance has historically been _striven_ for - creators have even at times said as much, in corebooks (e.g., the AD&D 1e PHB) - but not always achieved. Or not as well as could be, perhaps. Again: IMO, etc.




> A good DM can balance the various kinds of balance, so to speak: but knowledge of an individual player's likes, dislikes and psychology plays the largest part.



Perhaps, and perhaps not. I would say that system matters quite a bit, regardless of the group in question. *And* that group matters _a lot_, regardless of the system in question. 

* Oh, and one of the most time-honoured ways for DMs to achieve better game balance is to *house rule*. Those creating games in the first place, including the very first RPGs, do / have done it. Just for starters. With unbalanced systems left and right, apart from anything else, it's no wonder!




> For me, I guess what I'm groping for is the idea that in order to have a _Really Good Time_, some degree of trust and mutual understanding needs to arise between the players and the DM. And that by the time this has happened, ideas such as mechanical equivalence in one dimension have become largely irrelevant.



Or in other words, may as well use any game, or none at all, for all the rules matter.

Sure.

It's a popular method of attempting to invalidate concerns or points regarding system balance - or anything to do with system, at times - but stating that it's all about the fun, the people, etc., etc... really isn't saying anything that any player or DM isn't automatically, _instinctively_ aware of. Yes, some go out of their way to fight against that, for whatever reasons, but they would be in a (tiny) minority, I imagine.

Or, in other words, _you can have both_. False dichotomy, and all that.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm mostly in agreement, though I think non-casters did have more narrative power prior to 3rd Edition - the assumption that characters would eventually attain a level of power (such as a lord with a stronghold), and would have followers and influence, gave them a certain amount of narrative control. 

Regardless of edition, most such influence comes from three things: 

-Player ingenuity;
-Character skills;
-Magic items. 

Spellcasters basically get to add a 4th category (spells), which also tends to be more potent than the second category, and more available/renewable than the third category. The first category is hard to define, as it often comes down to how much the DM is willing to work with the player to let them accomplish what they are aiming for. It also tends to be connected to the other categories - a creative character with the right skills and magic items can do interesting things, but a creative character with the right skills, magic items, and spells, can probably accomplish even more. 

Limitations on the spells, in the past, came from the cost of them - both in terms of in-character time and money, potential limitation on spell components, and even direct costs from spells that could age the caster or go wrong in other ways. It also had the underlying cost of playing a theoretically frailer character than most others, and the dangers that entailed - though by higher levels (especially in 3rd Edition), the right spells could mitigate or even completely remove that weakness. Other hidden costs include the actions it takes to cast the spells - another area where I think this could be mitigated in 3rd Edition, either from casting lots of spells in rapid succession (via quickened spells, haste, familiars, contingencies, etc) or by extending durations of spells in various ways. 

Many of these limitations, meanwhile, are ones not heavily enforced, or are wildly erratic between campaigns - some games will have tons of downtown for spell research. Others, none at all. The vast majority of DMs won't bother with micro-managing spell components other than the ones that are rarest or most expensive. 

I'm not really sure what my conclusion is, here. I think many games can run with a wizard who contributes to the party without overwhelming other PC's efforts. I think that a wizard's capability certainly can become an issue for the DM and other players by later levels, especially the more system mastery the caster's player has. I think that solutions exist, whether consisting of in-game limitations (an urgent plot and stingy DM keeping the wizard from learning too many spells) or a system restriction on power level (such as with 4E.) And I think there certainly are some players who like or even indulge in wizards that can overwhelm the rest of the party, and that style of play can fit some campaigns if everyone is happy with it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 7, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> What saving throw does the wall have against being flown over? It has a DC to avoid being climbed, but obstacles being bypassed is narrative *control*, trying to do something with a chance of failure is narrative.
> 
> If a fighter runs out of hit points they're dead. Their power at the end of the day is entirely dependent on someone healing them - magically.
> 
> ...




In a null area even the bad guys are in the same boat but the non casters still have their armor and weapons they may not have their magical bonuses but they still work. And usually they have higher hit points to survive longer.

It depends on location in a small enclosed area they may not have a choice of avoiding melee which requires casting defensively or taking an AOO. In melee non magical casters don't provoke AOO using their chosen weapons.

Sure you can cast blur if the rouge is already on you though you need to cast defensibly oh wait the wizard failed the check good bye spell. Or wait I don't have the spell or it is not memorized  guess who becomes whose bitch then.

Some encounters are time sensitive you cannot wait until the next day or even 15 minutes. So the rogue and the wizard can't open the door well now it is up to the burly fighter to break it down.

It all comes down to the DM knowing how to challenge all the classes and make the game fun for everyone.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

rounser said:


> It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?




In D&D, magic is technology. Its codified, simple, and rarely fails. When your wizard casts magic missile, it always hits, and barring weird circumstances, doesnt backfires.

Outside of a few spells, D&D magic isnt Cthulhu magic, where it erodes your sanity and is dangerous to use. Its not Deadlands, where a bad hand can hurt you, or Rolemaster where a flubbed roll can turn you inside out. Its routine and mundane. Your character casts spells more often than he takes a leak.  

Given that, complaining about anyone being able to learn simple magic makes about as much sense as complaining that anyone can spend skill points to drive a car in a modern RPG. 

Verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief, realism are just strawmen thrown out to distract from the core issue. The good old boys club doesnt want my fighter as useful as their mage. 

Because its never about wanting their fighter to be weaker than my mage... after all, its much easier to make a chaqracter weaker or less effective if desired.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Bluenose said:
			
		

> Other classes have had to change (Bards, most notably, every edition). Why shouldn't wizards?



The bard is not a class; it's the munchkin's notion of powers of _all_ the classes in one package.

That's so basically lacking in class in a classy system that of course it keeps getting revised.

When "wizard" was a title one _earned_, the game worked. All the "new and improved" has simply *made the mess you all are complaining about*!

Well, it's also made 4e. That is what it is, but it ain't what D&D was.

*Why not broaden your horizons? Come play RuneQuest sometime. I reckon that would be better for the hobby than the pursuit of killing and burying the game that started it.*


----------



## renau1g (Jan 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> In a null area even the bad guys are in the same boat but the non casters still have their armor and weapons they may not have their magical bonuses but they still work. And usually they have higher hit points to survive longer.
> 
> It depends on location in a small enclosed area they may not have a choice of avoiding melee which requires casting defensively or taking an AOO. In melee non magical casters don't provoke AOO using their chosen weapons.
> 
> ...




Null area = DM being forced to have an element to screw over the MU's. They could alternatively just have Ao (or insert god of choice) come from the sky and snuff out the PC. Either way.

Even in a small area, the wizard has lots of ways to avoid going toe-to-toe, various elements of teleportation, Benign Transposition, etc. 

Can't you just 5 ft step and break his flanking? 

Sure the fighter can break it down, the wizard can just go around or through it or summon something to break it down or disintegrate it. So many options


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I agree that wizards are petty powerful but I don't agree that they have the total narrative power that is being claimed.
> 
> You are making it sound like wizards can't fail. Most spells have saving throws and to hit so it is very possible to have a spell not do anything or not even hit.




Swords have attack rolls. Moreover, some of the most powerful spells DONT hvae saves, or even effect the enemy. 



> If a wizard runs out of spells they are just a class with a poor BAB and low AC and lower hit points. Non magical PCs have the same level of power at the end of the day as they did at the start.




And if the wizard and cleric run out of spells, the group rests. I'm always puzzled by this whole idea that no one ever rememorized spells in 1st/2nd edition. Nope, rope trick wasnt invented for a reason. No one ever spiked a door with a piton, posted guards, and healed up. Fighters had infinite hit points, so never needed heals that ran out (and mid to high 3rd edition combat does require active healing to keep a fighter vertical).



> Throw a wizard in a null magic area they are screwed not so for non magical PCs.




And throw a fighter in a no fighter zone and they are also screwed. When you have to resort to kryptonite, you've reached a problem.



> A wizard no matter how powerful cannot usually survive going toe to toe with a fighter or monk or say a troll with rend.




Hell, fighters cant either without a pocket cleric. We ran a game up to 20, and in the teens, the fighters were stuck with what we termed "full attack mexican standoff", where no one wanted to charge the dragon or demon, due to only gettng a single attack while the creature got a full attack on its turn. 




> As for being able to do what other classes do with spells even that is limited. They have to know the spell and have slots open to cast it.




Wands and scrolls are cheap in 3rd edition



> A rogue can disarm traps and pick locks all day and night long.




I dunno, I might apply a -2 or so after the first 14 hours of lock picking.




> I have played every ed from 1 to 3.5 and I have never felt that the MU had total control over the narrative. Maybe because I was lucky enough to have excellent DMs who knew how to run a game where every class shined.




Based on your comments, I'd guess the casters of your game focused on damage spells, which greatly limits the issue. However from 1st through third, the caster classes rose in power relative to others, with an ever expending spell list to get. 

Also, if its only a good DM that lets a game work, or players limiting themselves, then its a systemic issue. A good driver could theoretically race in a car with a the steering wheel on the ceiling, but its not necessarily good design.


----------



## Griego (Jan 7, 2011)

Could somebody give xp to the OP for me, please? I am being told I have to spread xp around a bit before I can give any more to him. Thanks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> I agree, though really you need to also answer the question "what can a fighter do that a wizard cannot?" If there's a good and satisfying answer for both of these, we don't really have much of a problem.




From a purely combative standpoint, a fighter can fight better than a wizard (thus the name) for a longer period of time. A wizard can pile up on combat magic and be quite an effective combatant for a time but doing so would mean giving up the versatility of all the utility magic in the meantime. 

If we are talking about a 3.X wizard with access to cheap and plentiful wands,scrolls, and such this doesn't hold up. We effectively stop employing the balancing tools that provide drawbacks to wizards.

In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles. 




Barastrondo said:


> Equal power doesn't really remove the concept of "the wizard" from the game, particularly if you equalize power but keep mechanics sufficiently differentiated. Though I admit it probably depends on how you're defining "the wizard" in the first place: if the weak-as-kitten-to-living-god dynamic is part of what it means to be "the wizard," then yeah, that's gone.




Every class in the older editions had the zero to hero thing going so that isn't it. The definition of wizard I was using was someone capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot. If everyone can do the same things using different methods then the wizard is gone because every adventurer is thier own style of wizard. 





Barastrondo said:


> Right. But if this is a big differentiation, you do have to have something in place that prevents the wizard from claiming a keep and raising an army (of loyal men, or ensorcelled troops, or living dead, or whatever). Since many people like the thought of necromancers with hordes of undead with which they can challenge the world, it makes sense that wizards can do that, but then if they can, what does the high-level fighter do that the high-level wizard cannot? There should, at least in my opinion, be a good answer for this.




Why do we need to keep a wizard from trying to imitate a fighter? In a well run campaign a wizard spending the time required to train with troops and administer holdings won't have the time to do spell research, craft magic items and do general wizarding stuff. They certainly can if they want to do so but I think seeing other wizards researching custom spells and get cool new magic while they are off playing Lord of the keep should be enough of a deterrent. 

There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles.
> 
> There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.



Mordenkainen had an entire army bigger, more powerful and better trained than Robilar. Also, Mordenkainen ensures some kind of balance with other superpowerful arch-wizards, whereas Robilar... did what Gary Gygax allowed Rob Kurtz to do... Mordenkainen had also better political connections going so far that gods had to obey his rules lest they get a kick in their divine butts...


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Null area = DM being forced to have an element to screw over the MU's. They could alternatively just have Ao (or insert god of choice) come from the sky and snuff out the PC. Either way.
> 
> Even in a small area, the wizard has lots of ways to avoid going toe-to-toe, various elements of teleportation, Benign Transposition, etc.
> 
> ...




No it is not the DM being forced to screw the MU it the DM providing a challenging encounter to the party and giving some variety to the game world. In Eberron going into the mournlands is hard one everyone there is no magical healing and magic acts screwy.

Going into null magic areas requires different tactics to survive and I as a player have always enjoyed challenges that require my wits.

The rest of it depends on if the wizard has the spells prepared that is the whole point. 

If you don't like wizards don't allow them if you want a lower magic game play that. Or play a game like E6 which stops a lot of higher level spells that some people don't like.

I have never played in a game where I felt that the wizard was better than everyone else and we were nothing but minions. I have seen plenty of wizards die while the rest of the party lived. When I am playing a non magical type I don't begrudge the wizards their powers because those powers because they benefit the entire party in succeeding with their goals.

When I play a wizard I know I need the rest of the party to help me stay alive.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Why can't the fighter grow in power and influence as levels are gained? A fighter can attract a small army and use it to effect the campaign world. A Lord with a keep and a force of men can exert considerable social influence which is something that the 1st level fighter does not do.




I'm sure his/her 2 skill points and wide range of class skills really help the fighter in doing this well. And that it's something a wizard/cleric/expert gaining levels and attracting followers by taking the Leadership feat would be less capable of.

Of course, using 3e in this example is shooting fish in a barrel. In earlier editions, the fighter was in a better position. But then, the 1e/2e MU had less spells and those spells often had more drawbacks.



MrMyth said:


> I'm mostly in agreement, though I think non-casters did have more narrative power prior to 3rd Edition - the assumption that characters would eventually attain a level of power (such as a lord with a stronghold), and would have followers and influence, gave them a certain amount of narrative control.




 See my point above. I'm convinced that 3rd edition altered a lot more about the game than some people like to admit.



Ariosto said:


> The bard is not a class; it's the munchkin's notion of powers of _all_ the classes in one package.
> 
> That's so basically lacking in class in a classy system that of course it keeps getting revised.
> 
> ...




I think I'd argue that if the Bard is a class that does everything other classes do; it does it badly. 

I do play Runequest. In fact the RPG book I'm currently reading is Pavis Rises. It almost has the opposite of narrative control for players, in that everything is a bit of a gamble rather than the sure thing of D&D-style magic. Which isn't a bad thing, of course.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2011)

DandD said:


> Mordenkainen had an entire army bigger, more powerful and better trained than Robilar. Also, Mordenkainen ensures some kind of balance with other superpowerful arch-wizards, whereas Robilar... did what Gary Gygax allowed Rob Kurtz to do... Mordenkainen had also better political connections going so far that gods had to obey his rules lest they get a kick in their divine butts...




Mordenkainen was also Gary's personal little Mary Sue. Assuming the player of a wizard in a typical D&D campaign will not be playing the " I wrote this game so I can do whatever I want" card everything should work out just fine. 

Oh, and I think you were referring to Rob Kuntz.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The bard is not a class; it's the munchkin's notion of powers of _all_ the classes in one package.




No.  The Bard is the Jack of All Trades _and master of none_.  At least pre-4e.  There is nothng wrong with an improviser who can fill in in a classy system.  It becomes a serious worry under two conditions.  1: Some of those he is filling in for are much more powerful than others.  2: He can match people on their primary role.  Regrettably things in 3.X were lopsided enough that the Bard's power level was "Weakest of the primary casters".



ExploderWizard said:


> In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles.




Why?  Why do people not want people who can _rewrite reality_ on their side and consider them _much_ more valuble than someone who can swing a sword really well.  In terms of strategic resources, the wizard has them - and you can hire a couple of dozen thugs.  Where does the fighting man get his connections from?  Thin air?  There is more incentive for wizards to cooperate with people (and trade spells) than there is for fighters - trading spells and you both win.  Where do these notions come from?



> The definition of wizard I was using was someone capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot. If everyone can do the same things using different methods then the wizard is gone because every adventurer is thier own style of wizard.




So a wizard is a cleric is a druid?  Right.  That works.  But everyone should be able to do _some_ things others can't.  And that's the root of the problem.



> Why do we need to keep a wizard from trying to imitate a fighter? In a well run campaign a wizard spending the time required to train with troops and administer holdings won't have the time to do spell research, craft magic items and do general wizarding stuff. They certainly can if they want to do so but I think seeing other wizards researching custom spells and get cool new magic while they are off playing Lord of the keep should be enough of a deterrent.
> 
> There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.




So.  Your point isn't that wizards can't do what fighters do.  It's that they only leave it to the fighters because _they have better things to do_.  Fighters are given keeps as consolation prizes while wizards get spells - wizards could have keeps too if they actually wanted them but normally can't be bothered.  Yes, that sounds about right.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

> in 1E dispel magic is a very effective trick against a flying magic user.



So is shooting poisoned arrows (magic ones, if the m-u has _protection from normal missiles_). Three poison saves = 78.4% chance of killing level 21+ wizard.

(vs. 27.1% for a level 17+ fighter)

Ten magic arrows average 45 points of damage, while a 29th-level wizard (when topped up) averages 45.5 hit points barring a high constitution. Ten _poisoned_ arrows = 99.4% kill chance.

(vs. only 65.1% for the fighter, and the arrows have to get past armor first)

Or, just get a couple of 13th-level wizards to cast _lightning bolts_. Even if Super Maggie makes both saves, that's an average of 45.5 points.

Meanwhile, a 29th-level fighter averages about 110 h.p. without a constitution bonus. Even _without_ a save, that's typically about 20 to spare after 26 dice of shock treatment.

Then, let's say the m-us have (one way or another) effective AC -2. I think that's unlikely, but let's go for it. Their actual _type_ is still 10, against which a long sword gets +2. A long bow gets +3, if our fighter prefers to plunk (maybe more fun vs. _mirror image_).

Let's go with a _sword +2_. With two attacks per round, that's one per mage. Assume +1 to hit and damage for strength 17. That's average 7.5 points per round, because the fighter hits AC -2 on _any_ roll of the dice. (Needs 6+, has +5 in bonuses).

If the m-us are fresh as daisies, it takes on average 4 rounds to cut 'em both down. Our fighter has, let us say, only AC 0 (plate & shield, +1 each) and his opponents are armed with _daggers +1_ (and no strength bonus). Versus type 2, they take a -5 penalty. Final AC row: -4. The chance to hit is 5%, so our fighter takes on average .05x2x4x3.5= 1.4 more points of damage.

Yeah, _almost_ a point for each pointy hat.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> From a purely combative standpoint, a fighter can fight better than a wizard (thus the name) for a longer period of time. A wizard can pile up on combat magic and be quite an effective combatant for a time but doing so would mean giving up the versatility of all the utility magic in the meantime.
> 
> If we are talking about a 3.X wizard with access to cheap and plentiful wands,scrolls, and such this doesn't hold up. We effectively stop employing the balancing tools that provide drawbacks to wizards.




Absolutely. But fighting better than a wizard for a longer period of time is something that proves to have a pretty narrow window of advantage: it requires there to be enough combat that the difference is clear, which puts the burden on the GM rather than on the mechanics. It also doesn't hurt to give the fighter more to do out of combat, because even though he may not catch up with a wizard utility-wise, there's really no excuse for the "least skills/skill points of any class" characterization they tend to get. The more a fighter is reliant on combat to "get his own back," the more a GM must think about balancing combat to non-combat time.



> In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles.




This is also reliant on the DM to enforce, and to some extent on the players to play along (for instance, not having wizards going around trying to use magic to make similar connections by removing curses and charming princes). Now, I think that's fine, because I enjoy the give-and-take that comes from that dynamic of interacting with the players, but I faintly suspect that the lack of interest in enforcing this is what both led the wizards to their 3.X incarnation and also caused some backlash.  



> Every class in the older editions had the zero to hero thing going so that isn't it. The definition of wizard I was using was someone capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot. If everyone can do the same things using different methods then the wizard is gone because every adventurer is thier own style of wizard.




Hm. I tend to like fighters who are capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot, but it's a different point of focus. It rests on the "ordinary" (player characters are theoretically out of the ordinary) rather than the "non-magic using".  



> Why do we need to keep a wizard from trying to imitate a fighter? In a well run campaign a wizard spending the time required to train with troops and administer holdings won't have the time to do spell research, craft magic items and do general wizarding stuff. They certainly can if they want to do so but I think seeing other wizards researching custom spells and get cool new magic while they are off playing Lord of the keep should be enough of a deterrent.
> 
> There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.




I quite agree with you. I think, however, that without player buy-in you're going to see players who want their wizards to effectively become as the sorcerer-kings of Athas: to have the power, and also to have the armies of minions. Or who feel that if Gandalf can rally Eomer and lead the big charge of Helm's Deep, so can they. The many sources of inspiration for wizards that are out there often conflict with the social regulation that earlier versions of D&D assume.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Swords have attack rolls. Moreover, some of the most powerful spells DONT hvae saves, or even effect the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I was just casually glancing through the players handbook and a lot of spells have saving throws and a fair amount have to hit. At higher levels wizards cast one spell around fighters get to try an hit several times. 

In the games I play in we don't get to rest when the spell casters are out of spells. I know some people play that way I never had a DM that would let you get away with that. We usually had time sensitive missions and if we tried it things got tougher because the bad guys had time to regroup. 

Throwing in a -2 is a house rule there is nothing stopping you from house ruling limits on spellcasters. 

If you don't like high magic then 3.5 is not the right system for you. It is my game of choice and as a player and DM I have never had an issue with dealing with magic in game. I have never seen the issues brought up here crop up in my games.

While I find this topic interesting I have to bow out for now. I am recovering from a broken back and I just reached maxim sitting up time. Time for pain pills and maybe a nap.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't have time for the lengthy reply that the OP's effort deserves.

I don't disagree all that much with the OP's conclusions, but I do disagree with his premises.  I recognize that for many D&D games of any edition spellcasters are problems, and I understand why 3e in particular exacerbated the problem to the point that it made alot of people ask the sort of questions the OP is making.  

However, I don't have time just now to talk about that.  I do want to take the thread in a somewhat different direction than I think it is going.

How many NPC spellcasters do your PCs kill over the course of a typical campaign?

_How much narrative authority did they have?_


----------



## chaochou (Jan 7, 2011)

Back in the day the GM had a lot of control over the limits of the magic user.

When we played you rolled your starting spells as per the DMG - no automatic Sleep and Magic Missile. You could easily end up with something like Read Magic, Enlarge and Comprehend Languages. And after that, spell availability was down to the GM. It's all there in the DMG. It also tended to get handily forgotten by players assuming they could pick their optimal spell set from the lists.

What got eroded, IMO, was the willingness of DMs to stand up to M-U powergaming. I found the best way round that was to play at levels 3-8.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Why? Why do people not want people who can _rewrite reality_ on their side and consider them _much_ more valuble than someone who can swing a sword really well. In terms of strategic resources, the wizard has them - and you can hire a couple of dozen thugs. Where does the fighting man get his connections from? Thin air? There is more incentive for wizards to cooperate with people (and trade spells) than there is for fighters - trading spells and you both win. Where do these notions come from?




It is a question of trust. Wizards can be mysterious and bend normal folks to thier own purposes. Wizards can certainly be very valuable allies. If you know that someone can rewrite reality when it pleases them in manner you do not understand in such a way that you would never even realize that it had happened how much could you really trust them? 

The fighting man gains his connections through his actions. A fighter could choose to give up those connections by taking his soldiers and fighting other nobles instead of befriending them. A couple dozen hired thugs are not equal to a company of sworn loyal men who show up to serve you after hearing how badass you are. 



Neonchameleon said:


> So a wizard is a cleric is a druid? Right. That works. But everyone should be able to do _some_ things others can't. And that's the root of the problem.




And so it has always been. A wizard can't fight like fighter any more than a fighter can cast spells. 




Neonchameleon said:


> So. Your point isn't that wizards can't do what fighters do. It's that they only leave it to the fighters because _they have better things to do_. Fighters are given keeps as consolation prizes while wizards get spells - wizards could have keeps too if they actually wanted them but normally can't be bothered. Yes, that sounds about right.




My point is that being a wizard allows you to do certain things well and that being a fighter allows you to do different things well. Engaging in activities outside the scope of your class is somewhat counter-productive. It is part of using a class based system. If you don't want any real differences between the classes beyond cosmetic ones then don't use classes.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> How many NPC spellcasters do your PCs kill over the course of a typical campaign?
> 
> _How much narrative authority did they have?_




Exactly as much as the GM chose to give them.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> formerly barely playable character concepts (The Grey Mouser springs to mind)



Huh? It's perfectly doable to have that type in old TSR-D&D. I don't see why it shouldn't be at least as much so in 3e.

Do the same thing Mouse did: start as an m-u, then switch to thieving.

How is that "barely playable"?

Even _without_ the m-u background, a thief gets to use scrolls (e.g., what Mouser and Fafhrd had in Quarmall) come 10th level.

Heck, the thief can even screw it up and get a reverse effect -- as in "The Lords of Quarmall"!


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Mordenkainen was also Gary's personal little Mary Sue. Assuming the player of a wizard in a typical D&D campaign will not be playing the " I wrote this game so I can do whatever I want" card everything should work out just fine.
> 
> Oh, and I think you were referring to Rob Kuntz.



Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood. 

It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Huh? It's perfectly doable to have that type in old TSR-D&D. I don't see why it shouldn't be at least as much so in 3e.
> 
> Do the same thing Mouse did: start as an m-u, then switch to thieving.
> 
> ...




There's also the incantation rules from UA... people tend to disregard the multitude of options out there for 3.5, when it's one of the greatest strengths of the game... just saying.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

DandD said:


> Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood.
> 
> It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.





WHAT is the Spirit of The Game?

_



			"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, *IF* it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do."
		
Click to expand...


_ 
-1E DMG, page 230; As someone said, Houseruling has always been apart of the game. (As has been bending the rules on the DMs part, call it 'cheating', call it 'fiat'.) 



Heh, Mordenkainen - The Original "Wizard That Did It". 

And if thats how it played back then, and thats how it plays now (though lesser in 4E) could that just be the nature of the game? Or is it just a flaw in the whole? ALBEIT-yes, he was a DMPC. Does that mean then that all Wizards were meant to be DMPC's or NPCs? Save an all-caster party?

Man, I wish The Master was with us now, so we could ask his opinion. Quietly as its kept, I'd be surprised if it didnt show up at least once in the Ask Gary Archives/Threads but theres like 11 of those and they're filled to capacity.

Another note, again, at Name Level the classes took on new responsibilities. Fighters became Lords and had Freeholds, Wizards got towers, Monks and Clerics got Temples and Monaestaeries. Many PCs became rulers or important defenders on the borderlands of civilization. So yeah, even a fighter could feel important. Now fighters and other classes dont get that any more, but wizards can still make demiplanes.

Name Level-most important part is the 2nd half after all the tables.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/20090206

OH!

And original discussion.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...thfinderRPG/general/isPathfinderCasterEdition


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I was just casually glancing through the players handbook and a lot of spells have saving throws and a fair amount have to hit. At higher levels wizards cast one spell around fighters get to try an hit several times.




It depends on the edition really. Third edition implemented the (IMO) horrible design of requiring a full attack by a fighter to be a full round action. So the fighter couldnt move and get multiple attacks without something like the pounce ability. Those later attacks have a low chance of hitting anyways... compare it to scorching rays, which lets the wizard lob multiple as well.

But combat is one thing, and while not balanced, the discrepency is less noticable than out of combat. As the OP indicates... look at the stuff you can do with relatively low level spells. Illusions, mind reading, mind bending, invisibility, passing through walls, speaking with the dead, tracking, etc. Casters have the equivalent of a vast array of superpowers they can change each day. 




> In the games I play in we don't get to rest when the spell casters are out of spells. I know some people play that way I never had a DM that would let you get away with that. We usually had time sensitive missions and if we tried it things got tougher because the bad guys had time to regroup.




How do you not die then? In 3rd edition the damage output of monsters is obscene. And while everyone can poke each other with cheap, disposable 750gp heal sticks afterwards, you will need to expend solid resources to keep people alive. If the fighters arent being pressed for in combat healing, I would argue the battles are too easy. in earlier editions, potions didnt rain from the sky, so again, your fighter will last as long as your cleric. The casters again limit the adventuring day in some form or another. 





> Throwing in a -2 is a house rule there is nothing stopping you from house ruling limits on spellcasters.




It was a joke. 



> If you don't like high magic then 3.5 is not the right system for you. It is my game of choice and as a player and DM I have never had an issue with dealing with magic in game. I have never seen the issues brought up here crop up in my games.




Its quite a common issue brought up in other games. just because its not in your game, doesnt mean its not an issue with the system (or other systems) as a whole.  

You are right, 3.5 isnt the right system for me, at least to DM.  I'd certainly play it though. Part of the issue is, as the OP indicates, you have such a wide power disparity between the various classes it feels like they are from different games entirely. Or like a DC superheroes game where you can play members of the Justice League, and there are rules for playing Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Z Teamers like Aqualad and Gleek. There are your street level heroes (fighters, rogues, rangers, incarnates etc), mid levels (bard, TOB classes), the guys you call when Darkseid shows up (cleric, druid, wizard). Unless the DM is constantly trotting out kryptonite/ant magic field, Superman/Wizard  McAwesomepants is going to have to be conscientous of the Monk/Gleek whose main ability is to summon a bucket. It might be worthwhile for the rules to note the power bracket, and suggest that its more balanced from a narrative (and combat) perspective if parties stay within the same power bracket. 



> While I find this topic interesting I have to bow out for now. I am recovering from a broken back and I just reached maxim sitting up time. Time for pain pills and maybe a nap.




Feel better!


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This happens in pretty much anything though. The sequels always have to be bigger, badder, bolder. It's just the nature of the beast.




That's true, Ep. 1-3 are definitely badder.


----------



## Corathon (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina. Merlin was a wise old sage. What he does for Arthur is provide information, learning, advice. He doesn't jump around with the knights and throw fireballs. His biggest, most impressive power is to change shape - not to mention one of the only powers he uses. Oh, and he's the antichrist.




 Huh? I don't think that I've encountered that trope before.




ProfessorCirno said:


> What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.




 Well, more likely just an ordinarry angel. The Valar would be like archangels, I suppose. But I take your point; he wasn't just a man.

However, if you go back and read Hobbit & LotR again, I think you'll see that he does do more magic things that you may have noticed at first. E.g., when Gandalf is opposing a Ringwaith outside of Minas Tirith, and the sun seems to shine more brightly , and people's morale improves - I suppose that to be Gandalf doing magic.



ProfessorCirno said:


> There's been a few attempts from the start to patch up the  discrepency.  Magic items were a big one.  The assumption goes: "Magic  is everything in the game that is strong, including the strongest  baddies.  We have classes that do not have magic.  Therefor, they should  have magic items."
> 
> This was the birth of the Christmas Tree problem.
> 
> See, I don't buy that it's a 3e-ism.  It's always been there.  I'm  literally playing a 2e game as I type this (thus the slowness, sorry  ), and I deny the idea that characters didn't need magic item.  Our  fighter needs magical weapons to even harm many baddies, for starters.   In fact, if you look through the books, as others have mentioned, most  magic items are either intended for fighters or, in fact, are only  usable by fighters.  The intent is somewhat clear - wizards have magic,  fighters have magic items.




I can't really speak to the 3E version of this, but I can to the 1E version. I have to disagree that magic items are a neccesity for the 1E fighter.  Its true that a lot of creatures in 1E needed some degree of magic weapons to hit, but most (not all) could also be hit by some nonmagical material. All demons (including princes) could be hit by cold iron. All devils (on down to Asmodeus) could be hit with silver, as could all lycanthropes. Most undead could also be hit with silver. So a magic weapon isn't necessarily essential to a fighter in 1E. 

In terms of items only usable by fighters - there aren't that many. Magic swords are an example, and a few oddities. There are probably more items only an MU can use (e.g. many of the wands). Since AC and hit bonuses aren't open-ended, a fighter doesn't need magic armor to survive a fight against tough opponents. A non-magical AC of 0(=3E AC 20) is possible with non-magical armor. If the fighter has a high Dexterity, thats AC -4 (AC 24). Even the highest line on the DMG attack matrix for monsters needs an 11 to hit that.

Likewise, the best AC possible is -10(AC 30). The most skilled fighter hits that with a 14. Add in weapon specialization and STR bonuses, and he could only need an 8.

All that said, a high level 1E fighter still wants magic items and likely will have them! He's just not helpless without them, except vs. a few opponents (e.g. a lich). 

As for "changing the world" outside of combat, a 1E magic user is much less capable of that. For example, he can't create his own demiplane - ever. He will likely know very few spells at start, and will be lucky to know the _sleep_ spell. Versitlity is limited by the spells that you know. Some spells will not be understandable, others will be unavailable.

And many classes can found a stronghold when they reach name level. The one that's best at it - the fighter. Isn't founding a barony - perhaps, eventually, a kingdom - "changing the wordl"?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

You made the problem for yourselves, I suspect.

If you take a WW2 game, and you arbitrarily rule than one can have _only_ infantry _or_ armor _or_ artillery _or_ an air force _or_ battleships _or_ submarines _or_ aircraft carriers ... then you deserve what you get.

That is simply not how the game was designed, so you simply cannot blame the designers.

Now, the 3e designers can take the blame for a lot of things, including a *huge* give-away to the magicians. Sure as shooting, they -- not Arneson and Gygax -- are responsible for what they wreaked upon a touchstone game.

Are they really responsible for this, though?

How about this seeming entitlement to a 20+-level character? I'm not seeing it in 3e, although according to 4e you should be able to keep up with the leader board _without even playing_.

For that matter, how bad is this, really? I have yet to hear of a game in which everybody plays wizards. Games in which darned near everybody has a spell-casting and magic-item-making class in the portfiolio, sure.

It's not much of a 3e campaign, it seems, if everybody doesn't have at least two classes, or there's no character with at least four (one more than allowed any multi-class demi-humans in AD&D).

So, if this ever really were a problem, then I reckon the players would solve it chop-chop.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Corathon said:
			
		

> Likewise, the best AC possible is -10(AC 30).



That's not 1E. That's a Second-Edition-ism, necessitated (?) by dropping repeating 20s from the combat matrices.



			
				1E DMG said:
			
		

> To determine a "to hit" number not on the charts...




The charts include AC -10.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 7, 2011)

DandD said:


> Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood.
> 
> It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.



This "account" is so factually untrue and biased it is kind of mind-boggling to read, honestly.

The fundamental difference between the fighter and the magic user is that one class has some abilities that are strictly scripted by the rules to limit their scope precisely, aka Spells, whereas the fighter has access to abilities that are not strictly scripted by the rules, aka acquiring retinues, retainers, servants, favors, titles, influence, managing mercenary forces thereof, and most important of all, the actual tactics employed in the game with all the resources you gather thereof, including of course your own character, equipment and abilities. The determining factor in the balance between two characters in the AD&D game is the brains of their players. Really it is. The rules are not the game; the game is not the rules.

You just cannot compare the fighter and magic users in the First Ed paradigm without touching on these topics. If you run AD&D with a complete disregard for these elements of the game, then you are, in effect, "unbalancing" the game by cheer ignorance, by behind a lame, ignorant, incompetent DM or player, and not a good, resourceful, imaginative, strategically thinking one. That's it. And these things are actually discussed in the First Ed DMG, so that's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my arse, really. 

And this is the type of contrast you can see in practice in the way you have Gary running a character like Mordenkainen versus Rob playing Robilar. And don't get me started on the different paradigm of the game and how players actually ran several characters at the same time and so on. 

So this whole pseudo-theory is just based on a series of fundamental misunderstandings and misconceptions about what the actual game it refers to was actually about. And really it's fine to not know and wonder how all the pieces of the game fit together. It's what makes you ponder issues, dig deeper, and ultimately become a better DM. But please, don't assume you know when you obviously do not. 

That's not how the game was played at all. Really. It wasn't.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> It depends on the edition really. Third edition implemented the (IMO) horrible design of requiring a full attack by a fighter to be a full round action. So the fighter couldnt move and get multiple attacks without something like the pounce ability. Those later attacks have a low chance of hitting anyways... compare it to scorching rays, which lets the wizard lob multiple as well.




Fighters not being able to move very far while taking their multiple attacks? Been there since 1e.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:
			
		

> Let's assume that the wizard goes the cheaper (non scroll) route and copies from other wizards. (Note, again, this is the cheapest route--scrolls are more and research is MUCH more).
> 
> Copying from another wiz's spellbook has a fee of "spell's level x 50 gold."




The difference from the old game is like night and day.



			
				1st DMG said:
			
		

> Superior players will certainly co-operate ... no special sanctions need be taken to prevent such exchanges ... Non-player character hirelings or henchmen will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cooperate freely with player characters ... As a general rule, they will require value plus a bonus when dealing with their liege. If they will deal with other PCs (or NPCs) at all, they will require double value plus a considerable bonus.




As well,


			
				1st DMG said:
			
		

> Naturally, the personality of the henchman or hireling would modify the bargain to some extent. A very avaricious or greedy NPC would ask for more magic items and/or gold too! As a good DM, you will have developed the character of each henchman and hireling to the extent that such determinations will be relatively easy.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> How about this seeming entitlement to a 20+-level character? I'm not seeing it in 3e, although according to 4e you should be able to keep up with the leader board _without even playing_.




What are you talking about with 4e? I actually can't figure out the point you're making here?


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Also, if its only a good DM that lets a game work, or players limiting themselves, then its a systemic issue. A good driver could theoretically race in a car with a the steering wheel on the ceiling, but its not necessarily good design.




And why shouldnt a DM be key to making the game "work"?

As for players limiting themselves, couldnt it be a give and take kinda thing? I mean, just because my Cleric can cast Find Traps doesnt mean I'm not going to let the rogue do his thing-cause thats his thing. Now, when the Rogue2/Swordsage9/Shadowlord3 of the party tries to find traps with a +13 mod on his search. 

My Eldritch Disciple? I have a +13 modifier on Search with absolutely no ranks due to feats, high int, and a Warlock Invocation. With Find Traps Spell I can raise it to +20. If I had his 10 ranks, I could have a total +30 mod, but that'd be a buttload of cross class ranks.

So when we get hit by that Wail of Banshee trap, I could be like "You want me to help?", but I dont automatically assume that role cause thats his schtick/deal/thing that he does. If it had a range other than personal, you know, I would just buff HIM. Of course, I could invest some gold in buying him a Wand of it too and some goggles of Insight-non magical characters do rely on gear/tools/equipment. 



ehren37 said:


> How do you not die then? In 3rd edition the damage output of monsters is obscene. And while everyone can poke each other with cheap, disposable 750gp heal sticks afterwards, you will need to expend solid resources to keep people alive. If the fighters arent being pressed for in combat healing, I would argue the battles are too easy. in earlier editions, potions didnt rain from the sky, so again, your fighter will last as long as your cleric. The casters again limit the adventuring day in some form or another.




Firstly let me say that your DM is nice if you have never had to worry about the enemy attacking you in the night disturbing your rest, nor being pressed to move on by some urgent matter even though ideally you'd wish to stop and begin the morrow. It may not happen every bloody day, but its more than realistic to happen.
Secondly, let me say that not all encounters need to be run at the full CR=Party level, nor do there need to be 4 per day.
The Alexandrian - Misc Creations


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The factotum is your jack of trades.  Certainly she knows her way  around locks and traps, but she's more then that.  Caught and arrested  and put naked in a cell?




Dammit, you just had to make your hypothetical Factotum a "she", didn't ya? I couldn't read any further past the sentence quoted above, because I was temporarily stunned and dazed by the image of a naked woman in a cell, her body somewhat dirty and oiled from the grim all around her . . . 

(shakes head)


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Also, if its only a good DM that lets a game work, or players limiting themselves, then its a systemic issue. A good driver could theoretically race in a car with a the steering wheel on the ceiling, but its not necessarily good design.



You know, no matter how "well designed" (whatever that means) a car, a bad driver will remain a bad driver, and drive it sooner or later into a ditch, a wall, off a cliff or whatnot. No matter what kind of car you choose, being a decent driver is a requirement to handling it properly. It's not like the car drives itself... yet. So you might as well pick the car that fits your tastes best, and enjoy the hell out of it, instead of bitching about the cars you did not pick in the first place.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:
			
		

> What are you talking about with 4e?



I am talking about this:


			
				4e DMG said:
			
		

> The game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate, even if their players miss a session.



That is NOT true of the game that Arneson and Gygax designed, of which 3e is a hack.


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Firstly let me say that your DM is nice if you have never had to worry about the enemy attacking you in the night disturbing your rest, nor being pressed to move on by some urgent matter even though ideally you'd wish to stop and begin the morrow. It may not happen every bloody day, but its more than realistic to happen.
> Secondly, let me say that not all encounters need to be run at the full CR=Party level, nor do there need to be 4 per day.
> The Alexandrian - Misc Creations



The more likely monsters come to disturb the cleric praying for his healing spells, the more important the wizard becomes with his rope trick or magnificent mansion, which also helps the fighter in healing and not dying. Especially if the roaming monsters are capable of passing through walls, becoming ethereal, turn themselves invisible, or have other magick powers to enchant and beguile anybody who is stuck on guard duty... 

After all, that's what adventurers do too to maximize the chance for a successful ambush, when they encounter an orc standing guard for his fellow sleeping orclings. 

That's because players might have learned or might think that whatever smart trick they come up with, the gm will do it too, and to prevent a party-wipe while they must rest for the magic-user and the cleric to regain the spells needed to succeed, they come up with tiresome tactics that make ambushing upon them really tedious on the gm, like disappearing in a magical dimension, summoning super-watchdogs that can detect all but the most powerful magick-using monsters that would have party-wiped them anyway, building elaborate magical rune traps and sigils that cause pain, sigils that spew forth deadly snakes and whatnot... 

That's why D&D should never degenerate into a gm vs players-situation.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> This "account" is so factually untrue and biased it is kind of mind-boggling to read, honestly.
> 
> The fundamental difference between the fighter and the magic user is that one class has some abilities that are strictly scripted by the rules to limit their scope precisely, aka Spells, whereas the fighter has access to abilities that are not strictly scripted by the rules, aka acquiring retinues, retainers, servants, favors, titles, influence, managing mercenary forces thereof, and most important of all, the actual tactics employed in the game with all the resources you gather thereof, including of course your own character, equipment and abilities.




And wizards cant have friends becaaaaaause? 

Any of those things that the fighter can do that arent covered by the rules, the wizard can ALSO do, and still have spells.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I am talking about this:
> 
> That is NOT true of the game that Arneson and Gygax designed, of which 3e is a hack.




Thanks for the clarification. I'll agree with the 4e's suggestion.

Say you're new to a longer term group and they're level 8-10 or so in 2e (can't comment on 1e, only played from 2e forward). You start at level 1. Is that fun? Basically, you're there but I fail to see this being fun as you either die in 1 hit, can't hit the enemy, or fire off your 1 magic missile of the day and then go back to using your sling...

I guess I have a different definition of fun than you do.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> And why shouldnt a DM be key to making the game "work"?[/qutoe]
> 
> Why shouldnt the first step being the rules themselves, instead of relying on Rule 0? Its pretty easy to add imbalance if you dont care about the consequences. Its harder to balance the game if you do care.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I'll agree with the 4e's suggestion.
> 
> Say you're new to a longer term group and they're level 8-10 or so in 2e (can't comment on 1e, only played from 2e forward). You start at level 1. Is that fun? Basically, you're there but I fail to see this being fun as you either die in 1 hit, can't hit the enemy, or fire off your 1 magic missile of the day and then go back to using your sling...




Also, after a while, many players just get fatigued with 1st level. "Ugh, can't we start a new game at 5th level or so? I'm sick of starting over with goblins every time." From a meta context, you have players who have "earned" the right to play higher-level characters because they've put lots of time and effort in the low-level trenches, and are resistant to doing it again because it "didn't count" for the campaign they're about to begin. Games that have better parity at any experience level simply work better for campaigns that begin with veteran characters. 

(This is also one of the problems certain prestige classes manifested. The idea that a prestige class could be more powerful than the class itself because you "paid for it" by playing levels 1-5 with weaker feats or skills fell down the first time someone created a 6th-level character from scratch and got the prestige class.)

The trouble with requiring people to play X amount of time before they get the good stuff is that time is one of the most precious resources we have. Take the player who's spent 30 man-sessions leveling three different characters for three different abortive campaigns to level 5. As far as he's concerned, he's invested 30 sessions in levels 1-5 and is very ready for 6+, despite it being a new campaign. I think it's only realistic to assume that he has a point.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:
			
		

> Say you're new to a longer term group and they're level 8-10 or so in 2e (can't comment on 1e, only played from 2e forward). You start at level 1.



If that's a rule in 2e, then there's another problem (there are a few, IMO) with 2e. It is most definitely not the rule in 1st ed. Advanced D&D.

If you're new to D&D, then you should get the same chance as your "elders" to play the low levels and have the fun of discovering things for yourself. If you're an old hand, and you still find it fun to cover that familiar ground, then more power to you.

Integrating _experienced players_ -- even if, for whatever reason, they are not bringing in higher-level characters from prior play -- is another matter.



> I guess I have a different definition of fun than you do.



That may well be. However, there is nothing whatsoever to the point when -- as you admit -- you do not know what you are talking about. ("can't comment on 1e, only played from 2e forward")

Your guesses as to most things in the world will tend to be more accurate if they are reasonably derived from actual evidence.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> You know, no matter how "well designed" (whatever that means) a car, a bad driver will remain a bad driver, and drive it sooner or later into a ditch, a wall, off a cliff or whatnot. No matter what kind of car you choose, being a decent driver is a requirement to handling it properly. It's not like the car drives itself... yet. So you might as well pick the car that fits your tastes best, and enjoy the hell out of it, instead of bitching about the cars you did not pick in the first place.




A good driver with a good car drives better than a good driver in a bad car. Shuffling the onus on the end user (DM) to avoid having to take the time to design a more a more solid system doesnt seem like a good idea to me. 

Moreover, this is pretty much a discussion on the narrative power afforded casters in various editions, and systems, as well as how the classic fantasy RPG doesnt really follow how wizards are portayed in classic fantasy literature, myth, etc.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> And wizards cant have friends becaaaaaause?



Because you're a magic user, and if you can indeed have retinues, they will be of a different nature (notice for instance the Followers for Upper Level Characters in the First Ed DMG p. 16-17, which does not list magic users). 



ehren37 said:


> Any of those things that the fighter can do that arent covered by the rules, the wizard can ALSO do, and still have spells.



If you're trying to act like you are a mercenary leader as a wizard most of the time in the campaign, you are going to earn way less XP than the fighter acting as a mercenary leader, because in one case, one character is actually playing according to his character archetype, while the other is not (See First Ed DMG, "Gaining Experience Levels," p. 86).


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 7, 2011)

I think there is something that can be done to potentially solve this problem other than taking away narrative power from the wizard: give fighters a comparable source of narrative power that is distinct in its quality. The answer is that dumb, brute force can become a source of Deus Ex Machina if it comes in a sufficient quantity.

Look at mythological heroes such as Heracles or Thor. If Heracles needed to clean out a massive stable in a day, he just used his ludicrous strength to redirect a river. If Thor had business with the Midgard Serpent, he just whipped out his fishing pole. If Thor wanted to lower sea levels, he just started drinking  (though this one wasn't intentional on his part). One of the best examples of Deus Ex Machina through brute superhuman strength comes from the Ramayana, where Hanuman jumps from Sri Lanka to the Himaleyas to find a mountain where healing herbs grow, then _uproots the entire mountain and carries it back to Sri Lanka in a single leap_, successfully bringing needed medicine to his friends.

If D&D Fighters could smash through solid stone walls with a punch, run for days on end without rest, leap hundreds of feet in a single bound, or dig canyons with their bare hands, then there would be greater parity between them and Wizards in terms of narrative power. There is even a strong basis for this kind of power in myth and legend. Unfortunatly, D&D fans have traditionally balked at giving Fighters anything resembling superhuman capabilities. There is a strange idea that even Epic level Fighters who can go toe-to-toe with Balors and Elder Dragons should fundamentally resemble mundane humans.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 7, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Moreover, this is pretty much a discussion on the narrative power afforded casters in various editions



I chose deliberately to leave that part of the conversation alone, because I do not believe there is such a thing as a "narrative" in a role playing game, nor should there be. To put it simply, RPGs do not tell "stories."

You're welcome to believe they do. 

I'm just reacting to the factually wrong accounts and interpretations that are perpetuated in this thread. As I said, it's okay to wonder and dig deeper, but don't be surprised if one makes a whole series of assumptions ignoring a whole lot of context and that's being pointed out right back. From there one can either persevere with factually wrong information, or choose to dig even deeper on his or her own. That's a prerogative we all happen to share.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> I chose deliberately to leave that part of the conversation alone, because I do not believe there is such a thing as a "narrative" in a role playing game, nor should there be. To put it simply, RPGs do not tell "stories."
> 
> You're welcome to believe they do.




I've heard "collaborative storytelling" used just about all my RPing life, but I'll say its an interesting point.

As for the role of the wizard-to satisfy the mundanes, _in combat_ I would see him ideally as being crowd control Notice here how the magician incinerates the oncomming charge, and yet he still has an assload of Fighters and Knights behind him because he knows he would never be able to clean up the broken ranks by himself. The individual soldier can fight how many targets? Just one at a time. Therefore, let the wizards strength be killing large numbers (see note*) at a time, or debuffing/debilitating them making the melees job easier. (Color Spray, Slow, Glitterdust, Evard's Black Tentacles)
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9898/fullwalloffire.jpg

_Out of combat_, he should definitely have _some_ divinations, and other neat "tricks". Flying, invisibilty, and other stuff should still be around somewhere its what mages do. ONE thing thats interesting to me is a Spell Point system rather than Slots/Day or Encounter/Daily/At will.

Consider this-with slots per day, at some point the wiz inevitable has at LEAST 4 spells in everyslot. Instead, make higher level spells cost more points. So if he uses up a bunch of little stuff he might not be able to get off any big stuff at all, and if he uses big stuff he might only get off 1 or 2 leaving him with only low stuff and no middle spells. Using 1 *BIG spell in this case means losing *MORE* than _ONLY_ the big spell because you dont have as many/any points for many middle ranks spells left over. Now it becomes resource management, and how you want to splurge or conserve your points.

Any spells that provide significant so called "narrative control" would still exist, they would just be bumped up in point value accordingly.

How do you guys think Psionics compare to regular spellcasters?
Thoughts?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

SKyOdin said:
			
		

> Look at mythological heroes such as Heracles or Thor.



Look at Dungeons & Beavers, or *Champions*, or *Exalted*, or *HeroQuest*, or...

It's a wild idea, but how about folks go and play whichever games they *actually like* instead of insisting that someone else's game has to get stuffed into some mold?

You are never going all to agree on the perfect fantasy game! Stop trying to homogenize the hobby! *It's a good thing* that we have different games from which to choose!


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> You are never going all to agree on the perfect fantasy game! Stop trying to homogenize the hobby! *It's a good thing* that we have different games from which to choose!




  Can we at least try to cut D&D down to size so something better can take its place as the default intro game and 800-lb. gorilla of the hobby?


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> I've heard "collaborative storytelling" used just about all my RPing life, but I'll say its an interesting point.



It's actually Gary Gygax that made me realize this while talking about this on two different occasions, where he told me something to the effect of "the story's the stuff you talk about after the game's done." I can't find the quotes back for the life of me, but there it is. Take that as you will.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 7, 2011)

SKyOdin said:


> Look at mythological heroes such as Heracles or Thor. If Heracles needed to clean out a massive stable in a day, he just used his ludicrous strength to redirect a river. If Thor had business with the Midgard Serpent, he just whipped out his fishing pole. If Thor wanted to lower sea levels, he just started drinking  (though this one wasn't intentional on his part). One of the best examples of Deus Ex Machina through brute superhuman strength comes from the Ramayana, where Hanuman jumps from Sri Lanka to the Himaleyas to find a mountain where healing herbs grow, then _uproots the entire mountain and carries it back to Sri Lanka in a single leap_...There is a strange idea that even Epic level Fighters who can go toe-to-toe with Balors and Elder Dragons should fundamentally resemble mundane humans.




Well, it is worth noting that Heracles, Thor, and Hanuman are all gods.

I'm not at all opposed to the idea of high level fighters doing superhuman things, but don't think you need to draw the lines so far out as Thor and Hanuman.   At 20th level, not that my campaign ever goes there, your average (average?) fighter under my rules would probably be able to out run a horse, leap over a small building, climb a wall of ice, leap from a 200' precipice and survive the fall, and smash a stone (or a wall of force) with his bare hands.  He can inspire a small army to fight with a fearless passion.  His hands may well be lethal magic weapons.  He can quite possibly win a bare knuckle brawl with a 3 ton giant, and drink an ogre under the table and that isn't even to begin to discuss the powers of the heirlooms and artifacts in his possession.   He's no longer merely mundane; he's a superhero.  That's the expectation.  

None of that would give him narrative power necessarily.  I'm inclined to see 'narrative power' as something of a red herring here.  

I have never known in any of the games in any edition I've played a man-at-arms of any sort to be a weak class.  I recognize that a very large part of that is the way I run games, but by far the most dominating character I ever encountered at any table was a fighter in a game I wasn't running.   I have never seen the actual in game stats (pre-publication) for any of Gygax's wizard characters, but I have seen them for.. a fighter.  As a person who has played 1e, the fighter didn't strike me as a particularly weak and scoffable character lacking 'narrative authority' or whatever you want to call it.

As for the Wizard, you don't have a lot of narrative control when you are dead.  Any wizard that thinks he can get by in the greatest of dangers without a stalwarth company is soon going to rue it.  The situation I strive for is this; the guy playing the wizard at the table knows he's dead meat without the brave assistance the fighter and the guy playing the fighter knows that he won't get very far at all without the brave assistance of the wizard.

Do I think that the 3e rules - or indeed the rules for any edition - have completely and fully realized this goal?  No, I don't.  And I fully agree that 3rd edition had this problem in spades and I don't doubt that many a new DM running his game by the RAW threw his hands up in frustration, or that many a player in such game rued the day he choose to play a lowly fighter.   Back in 2nd edition, you might have said much the same thing about playing a thief.  But I find that the situation is not as dire as all that.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I'll agree with the 4e's suggestion.
> 
> Say you're new to a longer term group and they're level 8-10 or so in 2e (can't comment on 1e, only played from 2e forward). You start at level 1. Is that fun? Basically, you're there but I fail to see this being fun as you either die in 1 hit, can't hit the enemy, or fire off your 1 magic missile of the day and then go back to using your sling...
> 
> I guess I have a different definition of fun than you do.




Back when I first moved to town I got a call about an AD&D game to join. I showed up with my first-level fighter and found out the core of the group was 7th level and they wanted me to sit on the roof outside the stronghold with a bow and take pot shots at anything that ran from them. 

Shortest

group

ever

3E gave the ability to fighters of equal levels to almost feel that way all the time after a certain point.


----------



## Goblyn (Jan 7, 2011)

Professor Cirno.

I've read through this thread and a bit from the one that seemingly made you want to make it(the one about dnd flaming out around page ... 17ish I think). I think you're right. The RAW gives spellcasters all sorts of opportunities for narrative control, albeit limited by daily uses compared to like abilities of other classes(using <i>invisibility</i> to mimic the hide skill, for instance).

I just have to ask though: Why is this a problem? Or is it not a problem and something you've noticed and are just pointing out?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Goblyn said:


> Professor Cirno.
> 
> I've read through this thread and a bit from the one that seemingly made you want to make it(the one about dnd flaming out around page ... 17ish I think). I think you're right. The RAW gives spellcasters all sorts of opportunities for narrative control, albeit limited by daily uses compared to like abilities of other classes(using <i>invisibility</i> to mimic the hide skill, for instance).
> 
> I just have to ask though: Why is this a problem? Or is it not a problem and something you've noticed and are just pointing out?




Because I feel D&D could or should go in one of three ways - a magic high game, a magic low game, or a mid-magic style game.  Right now D&D tries to be all three, and it doesn't work out well for either of the first two (though the mid-magic game gets by fairly well).

Wizards have an issue in being challenged.  I find it boring as a player to just steamroll everything with "I cast a spell" and I find it excrutiating and frustrating as a DM to have to amp up a bizarre arms race with the players unless they go by a "gentleman's agreement."

Fighters also have an issue in being challenged-the opposite one.  The DM has to babysit and go out of his way to either ignore the rules entirely or to make increasingly strange situations that only the fighter can solve.


RE: Leadership

I dunno about you guys, but when faced with Joe the Fighter and Billy the Wizard on who I want to follow, I'm going to follow the guy who better ensures we _win_.  Do I want a hardened mercenary captain or a guy who can incinerate arrows before they hit us, increase our speed twofold, and make us towering juggernauts in front of the enemy?

It becomes even more nonsensical of an argument when you go into other casters.  I'm pretty sure everyone will follow Suzy the priestess of Lathander, who can call down miracles and heal their wounds and raise the dead, and who has a direct connection to their god.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Look at Dungeons & Beavers, or *Champions*, or *Exalted*, or *HeroQuest*, or...
> 
> It's a wild idea, but how about folks go and play whichever games they *actually like* instead of insisting that someone else's game has to get stuffed into some mold?
> 
> You are never going all to agree on the perfect fantasy game! Stop trying to homogenize the hobby! *It's a good thing* that we have different games from which to choose!




I don't see how "play something that isn't D&D" is a legitimate response to my solution for what several people in this thread consider to be a problem with D&D. Are you saying that D&D fighters absolutely shouldn't resemble mythological heroes, and it wouldn't be D&D if they were?

The reason I suggest it is that for the most part I like playing D&D. I just think it could be better.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> You are never going all to agree on the perfect fantasy game! Stop trying to homogenize the hobby! *It's a good thing* that we have different games from which to choose!




Arguing in favor of new and different versions of D&D isn't "trying to homogenize the hobby" any more than asking for no more new and different versions of D&D is. It's adding more choices: a good thing, as you say.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

On a side note-has anyone notice that Magicians often end up being Big Bad Evil Guys? Othertimes he becomes the Court Wizard in service to a greedy, evil king and takes up the role of treacherous advisor. He may not directly oppose the Lord, but he works from behind the throne and puts himself at less personal risk/backlash than if he actually tried to sit on the seat himself-say if the king got overthrown. In that case, he just becomes Court Wizard to the new guy. Either way, he gets gold that pays for his eternal study.

Evil Sorcerer - Television Tropes & Idioms

I'm curious as to how often you see them as _heroes_ in fiction.


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> On a side note-has anyone notice that Magicians often end up being Big Bad Evil Guys? Othertimes he becomes the Court Wizard in service to a greedy, evil king and takes up the role of treacherous advisor. He may not directly oppose the Lord, but he works from behind the throne and puts himself at less personal risk/backlash than if he actually tried to sit on the seat himself-say if the king got overthrown. In that case, he just becomes Court Wizard to the new guy. Either way, he gets gold that pays for his eternal study.
> 
> Evil Sorcerer - Television Tropes & Idioms
> 
> I'm curious as to how often you see them as _heroes_ in fiction.



Plenty of them in japanese cartoons and comics (where most evil guys are also spellcasters or use magic in some way). Oh, and Twilight Sparkle from "My little Pony: Friendship is Magic" (awesome show). 

That's because magicians have better narrative abilities, with which the writers can go wild and justify all kinds of mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> On a side note-has anyone notice that Magicians often end up being Big Bad Evil Guys? Othertimes he becomes the Court Wizard in service to a greedy, evil king and takes up the role of treacherous advisor. He may not directly oppose the Lord, but he works from behind the throne and puts himself at less personal risk/backlash than if he actually tried to sit on the seat himself-say if the king got overthrown. In that case, he just becomes Court Wizard to the new guy. Either way, he gets gold that pays for his eternal study.
> 
> Evil Sorcerer - Television Tropes & Idioms
> 
> I'm curious as to how often you see them as _heroes_ in fiction.




Part of the reason you see Wizards more often as main villains is due to the added narrative power of magic. An evil wizard simply has more resources at his disposal than an evil warrior. An evil warrior can inspire an army to follow him. An evil sorcerer can raise the dead to serve him, summon demons, curse the heroes, rise from the dead as a lich, revive a dark god, etc. If an evil warrior wants to do those things, he needs to hire an evil wizard (who often betrays the warrior to become the true BBEG).

It is the natural progression of any system or setting where wizards have all of the Deus Ex Machina abilities and warriors don't.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Can we at least try to cut D&D down to size so something better can take its place as the default intro game and 800-lb. gorilla of the hobby?



Oh, I reckon the Wizards of the Coast are doing that just fine.

I wonder how many among us, fans and detractors alike,  would have cared (or even heard) so much about 3e and 4e, if AD&D were still on the market and these newcomers were billed as, say,
_Magic Era: Third Age_ from Atlas Games
and
_Heroes of Brightrealm_ from Alderac Entertainment Group.

Yes, I know that is in the event an imponderable.

However, the most visible results of the actual scheme look to me rather like something other than consolidating the brand's position in the market. "How about some D&D" is now not very useful for a lot of folks. "Which edition?" is on par with the choice between RoleMaster and Tunnels & Trolls, or some other two sort-of-D&D-ish games.

Whatever the proportions, there's a faction devoted to TSR-D&D (or "retro-clones"), one devoted to 3e (or Pathfinder), and one devoted to 4e -- only one of which WotC is actually selling. Unless 5e is just a total flop, it should be as fractious again.

Is there some great influx of new players? I don't know, but I'm not seeing any reason to think so.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Consider this-with slots per day, at some point the wiz inevitable has at LEAST 4 spells in everyslot. Instead, make higher level spells cost more points. So if he uses up a bunch of little stuff he might not be able to get off any big stuff at all, and if he uses big stuff he might only get off 1 or 2 leaving him with only low stuff and no middle spells. Using 1 *BIG spell in this case means losing *MORE* than _ONLY_ the big spell because you dont have as many/any points for many middle ranks spells left over. Now it becomes resource management, and how you want to splurge or conserve your points.
> 
> Any spells that provide significant so called "narrative control" would still exist, they would just be bumped up in point value accordingly.



This describes Rolemaster. Spell users still dominate mid-to-high level play.

HARP (a Rolemaster variant) has some mechanical features to try and obviate this, but I haven't played enough to know if it works (also, HARP takes out the extreme narrative control effects - like disintegrate, powerful creations, etc - altogether).


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> It's adding more choices: a good thing, as you say.



That is not so. How do you figure there would be _fewer_ choices in the scenario I mentioned above? As far as I can see, there would have been nothing to "lose" except the edition wars that would not have come into existence in the first place.

However, since you think it is so, then here's a solution to please us both:

All the "your game must be my game" crowd can go bother White Wolf instead!

"Waah! *Vampire* needs to be redesigned from the ground up to accommodate my Zamboni fetish!"

Oh, ye gods, if you would send blessings unto us, then this would do for a poetic start.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Well, it is worth noting that Heracles, Thor, and Hanuman are all gods.



Two of them are Demigods, technically, but I don't think that changes much. All three are fairly typical "heroes" from ancient myth. Most heroes from myth and legend had varying degrees of divine lineage as justification for their power. So did the monsters they fought, which are now used as normal D&D monsters (the original Hydra was Heracles' cousin twice removed, or something like that). Thor in particular had adventures very similar to what a high-level D&D character might experience. There is also the fact that high-level D&D heroes can fight gods, or become demi-gods or gods themselves. The idea of a strict boundary between god and mortal is more the product of monotheistic thinking anyways, and doesn't have much bearing on polytheistic myths.



> I'm not at all opposed to the idea of high level fighters doing superhuman things, but don't think you need to draw the lines so far out as Thor and Hanuman.   At 20th level, not that my campaign ever goes there, your average (average?) fighter under my rules would probably be able to out run a horse, leap over a small building, climb a wall of ice, leap from a 200' precipice and survive the fall, and smash a stone (or a wall of force) with his bare hands.  He can inspire a small army to fight with a fearless passion.  His hands may well be lethal magic weapons.  He can quite possibly win a bare knuckle brawl with a 3 ton giant, and drink an ogre under the table and that isn't even to begin to discuss the powers of the heirlooms and artifacts in his possession.   He's no longer merely mundane; he's a superhero.  That's the expectation.
> 
> None of that would give him narrative power necessarily.  I'm inclined to see 'narrative power' as something of a red herring here.



I think the best way to think about this is in terms of non-combat problem-solving ability, and the ability to create new situations. Let's look at the Fifth Labor Heracles faced (which I referenced earlier): cleaning out the Augean stables in a day. This is the kind of task that can either be solved by weeks or months of mundane labor (rendered impossible by the time limit), or can be solved through clever thinking and special abilities.

In D&D, the Wizard could solve this problem in a number of different ways using various high-level spells. A few move earth spells and walls could redirect the river like Heracles did, or the Wizard could try summoning up a large volume of water directly.

On the other hand, a high-level Fighter isn't really given many options. Traditionally, D&D doesn't really give them any tools. Performing superhuman feats of strength, such as digging canals to redirect a river in a couple of hours, generally falls outside of the reach of skills in D&D. It could be done with a complex skill check, but D&D hasn't ever encouraged people to allow superhuman feats, and gives little advice for doing so. Furthermore, such things would exist entirely outside of the Fighter's inherent abilities.

So there is a lot of problem solving that a Wizard can do as a Wizard, but very little that a Fighter can do as a Fighter. Anything a fighter can do is classless and generally available, while Wizards can do things only they can do (and those things are generally better than the classless alternatives). Since various similar non-combat problems can crop up quite regularly in a D&D campaign, this can become an issue.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 7, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> If that's a rule in 2e, then there's another problem (there are a few, IMO) with 2e. It is most definitely not the rule in 1st ed. Advanced D&D.
> 
> If you're new to D&D, then you should get the same chance as your "elders" to play the low levels and have the fun of discovering things for yourself. If you're an old hand, and you still find it fun to cover that familiar ground, then more power to you.
> 
> ...




I didn't realize this discussion was only 1e... weird that even the thread title has 3e in it... So in 1e when you died you came back as a same level PC? Didn't know that. Why do  people say that ToH is so badass then if you can just respawn as a new level 7 MU? 

So if you're newer to D&D and the group is level 6+ then you get the "privilege" of being little more than a henchman to the higher level PC's? Yeah, I think I get it. 

Another example is in my own group we had a guy who could only make about 60% of the sessions for personal reasons. He was a lot of fun and a great player so we had no problem supporting his schedule. This was back even in 2e days, and we had no problem with him getting the same xp as us as he'd be around half our level as we move up. Nothing less fun than being so far behind the rest of the group. Again, YMMV.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:
			
		

> On a side note-has anyone notice that Magicians often end up being Big Bad Evil Guys?



Yes. For instance, Gygax and Kuntz, when they provided for just such with the added spell levels (7th-9th) that found their way into Supplement I and on.

If people want a different game, then they can go for a different game. What the hell is so bad about actually using or making a set of rules that actually does by design what you want?

Why this fetish for the equivalent of trying to eat soup with a fork and drive nails with a cell phone -- and then bitching and moaning about how badly that works and how it's the designers' fault?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:
			
		

> I didn't realize this discussion was only 1e...



Please, at least read _your own posts_, okay?



> So in 1e when you died you came back as a same level PC?



That is the case if _raise dead_ is successful. I think it is the same in 2e.



> So if you're newer to D&D and the group is level 6+ then you get the "privilege" of being little more than a henchman to the higher level PC's? Yeah, I think I get it.



I see that you do not. You are welcome to read DMG p. 110. You are welcome at any time to stop trying to tell other people all about what we think, and all about the contents of books you have not read, and ignoring the facts of which we actually inform you.

It is very simply the fact that the D&D magic-user was designed to fit with the rest of the D&D game. If you find that it is troublesome when you shoehorn it into a different context -- especially one with fundamentally different structure, as means to different ends in the first place -- then the fault is not the designer's!

Why don't you go complain that the magicians are too powerful in _Ars Magica_ *because the game doesn't work so well when you decide to go at every turn completely against how Tweet and Rein*Hagen say they meant the game to work?*

That's 100% phony baloney, and just as much when it comes to _Dungeons & Dragons_. Use some common sense.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It is very simply the fact that the D&D magic-user was designed to fit with the rest of the D&D game. If you find that it is troublesome when you shoehorn it into a different context -- especially one with fundamentally different structure, as means to different ends in the first place -- then the fault is not the designer's!




   On the other hand, it would be nice if the designers had made the 'right' mode of play clearer, instead of relying so heavily on their own gaming groups' context and the broader wargaming hobby that the game expanded beyond so quickly. (This is a complaint about the game echoed by some of the people who were there at the beginning--Gygax assumed a lot of things that never made it into the text.)

   Of course, blame lies with the authors and the marketing team for trying to portray the game as something it's not--a broad fantasy adventuring game instead of a tightly focused game of amoral swords & sorcery characters scheming against, bluffing, bullying, and betraying the enemies, the Dungeon Master, and each other for wealth and power.  

  As for the specific complaints started by ProfessorCirno, I'm inclined to blame a lot of it on the fact that the spell list both grew like a tumor and was never dramatically restructured in 3E like the rest of the game was, resulting in things going more dramatically off-kilter than they had been before. (I also suspect that Aaron Allston saw the first glimmerings of CoDzilla and tried to correct for it in the _Complete Priest's Handbook_, but the design philosophy there didn't take.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 8, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> As for the specific complaints started by ProfessorCirno, I'm inclined to blame a lot of it on the fact that the spell list both grew like a tumor and was never dramatically restructured in 3E like the rest of the game was, resulting in things going more dramatically off-kilter than they had been before. (I also suspect that Aaron Allston saw the first glimmerings of CoDzilla and tried to correct for it in the _Complete Priest's Handbook_, but the design philosophy there didn't take.)




I think the core spell lists were ok. The addition of cheap/plentiful wands, scrolls and and the turn based initiative system which largely removed the risks of casting in the thick of combat were larger contributors to the power perception problem than the spell effects themselves.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 8, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> How many NPC spellcasters do your PCs kill over the course of a typical campaign?
> 
> _How much narrative authority did they have?_




Far too much, generally speaking. Antagonistic (and occasionally friendly) spellcasters can and have done things in 3e campaigns I played ranging from placing the party under magical compulsions to achieve their goals to sending them involuntarily to locations ranging from "the other end of the dungeon" up to "a world on a completely different plane".

And when you do finally turn the tables and start hunting them down, they're slippery beggars, always ready with a quick exit, whether it's Gaseous Form or Teleport or Plane Shift or just dying and waking up in a Clone half a continent away. I remember in the mid-teens game we played, it got so frustrating that we were buying up wands of Dimensional Anchor and firing off Forcecages and Walls of Stone first thing in combat, just to try and nail them down.

And if you do manage to finish one off, you'd better be supernaturally thorough about it, or some other spellcaster will wander by and Raise or Resurrect or Animate them the moment your back's turned.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

Look, if the 3e guys really had a coherent plan -- as opposed to a committee's collection of half-baked ideas about how to jury rig three incompatible machines out of parts cannibalized from a fourth -- then *what was it?*.

I don't want what 4e delivers, but at least it has a clear scheme and does not seem to be working at cross-purposes versus itself.

Old D&D is also clearly designed for the gears to mesh in a certain way, but that way is about as different from 4e as from _HeroQuest_, _Panzer Blitz_ or _Super Mario Brothers_.

As I have written repeatedly, the 3e designers seem to take flak for "rules" they never wrote. I might be confused as to their intent because I'm mistaking how _other people_ want the game to be for how Cook, Tweet and Williams actually meant it to be.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> That is not so. How do you figure there would be _fewer_ choices in the scenario I mentioned above? As far as I can see, there would have been nothing to "lose" except the edition wars that would not have come into existence in the first place.




Well, off the top of my head, there'd be no Mutants and Masterminds or Spycraft, to name a couple, if 3e had come out from a different publisher. There wouldn't have been nearly enough incentive for other publishers to adopt the d20 system, it not really being compatible with D&D, so there'd be a slimmer pool of RPGs in the market. 

There's nothing to "lose" from a lack of new games from the perspective of people who weren't going to play them anyway. But at the same time, there's not much to "lose" for them if new games or new versions of the current game come out. If you run a mean game, people will show up for it no matter what system you run -- and if they refuse to give it a try because they dislike a particular system so much, I hate to say it, but they probably wouldn't have been that happy in your game anyway.



> However, since you think it is so, then here's a solution to please us both:
> 
> All the "your game must be my game" crowd can go bother White Wolf instead!




Who's saying "your game must be my game"? Nobody is advocating kicking down doors and replacing rulebooks. When we talk about why designers change things to suit the tastes of people who don't care for elements of a system, they're not changing "your" game. Your game is still right there. It's fine. They're changing their game. 

As for bothering White Wolf -- well, people who want all Vampire to be their Vampire do. Often enough that we remind them as well (or really, other people will do it for us) that we don't have a secret police who mandates that people adopt the new system. If you're happy with the old one, fantastic: play it! If you didn't think that the four-roll combat system needed streamlining, then bear in mind that the one-roll system was designed for those who think it did.



> "Waah! *Vampire* needs to be redesigned from the ground up to accommodate my Zamboni fetish!"




If enough people said that, I can assure you it'd actually get some serious consideration. (At the very least, to try to figure out what they were using Zambonis as a metaphor for.) If enough people want a particular thing, it's no longer about a personal fetish: you're very likely looking at something emerging out of actual play. It might be a dissatisfaction with how your fighter performs; it might be a serious problem with the vampire-combat-on-ice-skates subsystem.

Whether each individual problem needs to be fixed or not -- well, there's the controversy. But "change nothing and fire the players who want any change" is not the cut-and-dried optimal answer; it's only argued that way because people adhere to this hobby like unto a religion.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 8, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> Because you're a magic user, and if you can indeed have retinues, they will be of a different nature (notice for instance the Followers for Upper Level Characters in the First Ed DMG p. 16-17, which does not list magic users).
> 
> 
> If you're trying to act like you are a mercenary leader as a wizard most of the time in the campaign, you are going to earn way less XP than the fighter acting as a mercenary leader, because in one case, one character is actually playing according to his character archetype, while the other is not (See First Ed DMG, "Gaining Experience Levels," p. 86).




Mercenary leader seems to be an occupation, rather than a class. I recall my mage being paid for fighting. Crap, guess I better reroll him as a fighter...

Your points are just... odd. Anyone can be the party leader, lead troops, etc.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 8, 2011)

SKyOdin said:


> I think there is something that can be done to potentially solve this problem other than taking away narrative power from the wizard: give fighters a comparable source of narrative power that is distinct in its quality. The answer is that dumb, brute force can become a source of Deus Ex Machina if it comes in a sufficient quantity.
> 
> Look at mythological heroes such as Heracles or Thor. If Heracles needed to clean out a massive stable in a day, he just used his ludicrous strength to redirect a river. If Thor had business with the Midgard Serpent, he just whipped out his fishing pole. If Thor wanted to lower sea levels, he just started drinking  (though this one wasn't intentional on his part). One of the best examples of Deus Ex Machina through brute superhuman strength comes from the Ramayana, where Hanuman jumps from Sri Lanka to the Himaleyas to find a mountain where healing herbs grow, then _uproots the entire mountain and carries it back to Sri Lanka in a single leap_, successfully bringing needed medicine to his friends.
> 
> If D&D Fighters could smash through solid stone walls with a punch, run for days on end without rest, leap hundreds of feet in a single bound, or dig canyons with their bare hands, then there would be greater parity between them and Wizards in terms of narrative power. There is even a strong basis for this kind of power in myth and legend. Unfortunatly, D&D fans have traditionally balked at giving Fighters anything resembling superhuman capabilities. There is a strange idea that even Epic level Fighters who can go toe-to-toe with Balors and Elder Dragons should fundamentally resemble mundane humans.




Agreed. Its what the TOB classes should have been. Superheroes with schticks, the kind you'd find adventuring with the other superheroes (clerics and wizards).  They have one playground, the other power grades have theirs (with a weaker mage role in the other tier).

D&D could then accommodate more styles of play (as well as emulating classic fantasy).


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 8, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> I chose deliberately to leave that part of the conversation alone, because I do not believe there is such a thing as a "narrative" in a role playing game, nor should there be. To put it simply, RPGs do not tell "stories."
> 
> You're welcome to believe they do.
> 
> I'm just reacting to the factually wrong accounts and interpretations that are perpetuated in this thread.




Your opinions are facts, are opinions are wrong. Got it.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Oh, I reckon the Wizards of the Coast are doing that just fine.
> 
> I wonder how many among us, fans and detractors alike,  would have cared (or even heard) so much about 3e and 4e, if AD&D were still on the market and these newcomers were billed as, say,
> _Magic Era: Third Age_ from Atlas Games
> ...




Hjave you been to any LFR events? The ones I've attended or ran have had lots of new players. A lot of lapsed early edition players have been drawn back by Essentials (blasphemy I know) and many now have kids that they're introducing. So yeah I think I've sEen an increase in new players


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Look at Dungeons & Beavers, or *Champions*, or *Exalted*, or *HeroQuest*, or...
> 
> It's a wild idea, but how about folks go and play whichever games they *actually like* instead of insisting that someone else's game has to get stuffed into some mold?




Why are you opposed to a new, theoretical non-spellcaster class, thats as awesome as spellcasters? 

Show me on the doll where the jock gave you the wedgie.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> That is not so. How do you figure there would be _fewer_ choices in the scenario I mentioned above? As far as I can see, there would have been nothing to "lose" except the edition wars that would not have come into existence in the first place.
> 
> However, since you think it is so, then here's a solution to please us both:
> 
> ...




You seem to have found your one true edition, and that's great. Some of us havent. I promise, we wont re-write your books. Your 1st edition stuff is safe, and shouldnt really be threatened by any discussion of alteration, house rules, or moving the newer, less worthy editions in a different direction. The cat got out of the bag with Unearthed Arcana, dragon articles, and the first time some kid dared to bend the holy writ of Gygax, likely 13 seconds after he cracked the book.  So arguing there shouldnt ever be any change in D&D after 30 years of change seems a little pointless.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Of course, blame lies with the authors and the marketing team for trying to portray the game as something it's not--a broad fantasy adventuring game instead of a tightly focused game of amoral swords & sorcery characters scheming against, bluffing, bullying, and betraying the enemies, the Dungeon Master, and each other for wealth and power.



I think it's just the opposite, that it has been a *narrowing* of the portfolio that is to blame. I suspect that you are following the fashion for saying things one knows very well are false because the cynicism gets celebrated as 'wit'.

In the old game (unlike in 4e!), a Paladin or Ranger could not be amoral. Furthermore, the structure of the game was one of players choosing their courses of action rather than being shorn of the responsibility upon which morality depends.

The 'breadth' I see in the prevailing sense of 'fantasy' is a wan and emaciated thing next to what informed old D&D. Anyone who cares to can look at the body of work Gygax produced, and at what came after him, and see where there is nurturing of the imagination. Nowadays, so much gets shuts down as "not proper fantasy" because it does not color inside the lines drawn by inbreeding between later commercial D&D and rigidly generic fictional pabulum.

Your claim is like the view of Trekkies (and I have been one) who imagine that it was Gene Roddenberry's goal and greatest achievement to create a pile of trivia. That the _U.S.S. Enterprise_ was designed as a vehicle for telling entertaining and thought-provoking science fiction stories on television goes overlooked. The contraption was a convenient means to that end, not the end in itself.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Why are you opposed to a new, theoretical non-spellcaster class, thats as awesome as spellcasters?



Why do you hate Exalted?

Show us on the doll how White Wolf debauched with you.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 8, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> Your opinions are facts, are opinions are wrong. Got it.



You're welcome.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> Well, off the top of my head, there'd be no Mutants and Masterminds or Spycraft, to name a couple, if 3e had come out from a different publisher.



I could ask "why not?", but instead I can only wonder,

Do you really miss the point?

There's no necessity for a different publisher. Guess what TSR published besides D&D?
Empire of the Petal Throne
Boot Hill
Metamorphosis Alpha
Top Secret
Gamma World
Gangbusters
Star Frontiers
Marvel Super Heroes
DragonQuest

Now, I happened to think it was pretty cool to be able to buy those games _in addition to_ D&D, and _in addition to_ each other. So did other people, and together we put more money in TSR's pockets than if there had been nothing but

... what?...

just book after book with TRACTICS on the cover?

<shrug> I'm just not seeing how that alternative type of situation is so much more appealing to some people.



			
				Barastrondo said:
			
		

> But "change nothing and fire the players who want any change" is not the cut-and-dried optimal answer; it's only argued that way because people adhere to this hobby like unto a religion.



Is this really so hard for you to understand?

Go ahead and make a game for those who consider Vampire fatuous and boring rubbish and Mark Rein*Hagen a hack. That might be a splendid game.

But why call it _Vampire_?

<shrug> To me, that seems silly and self-defeating. 

(Of course, I can't help but notice that you work for _the competition_, not for the owners of the D&D brand!)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I think it's just the opposite, that it has been a *narrowing* of the portfolio that is to blame. I suspect that you are following the fashion for saying things one knows very well are false because the cynicism gets celebrated as 'wit'.




  Actually, I'm providing a somewhat exaggerated but fundamentally accurate view of the impression I've gotten of 'old school' from listening to a bunch of people online pontificate about it. I admit that I look upon that school with an unsympathetic and somewhat jaundiced eye.



> In the old game (unlike in 4e!), a Paladin or Ranger could not be amoral.




   And paladins, at least, seem to often have been regarded as a burden to the party or a trap for players.



> Furthermore, the structure of the game was one of players choosing their courses of action rather than being shorn of the responsibility upon which morality depends.




  Unfortunately, the idea of any moral or social consequences for such actions occasionally gets derided as 'railroading' or 'heavy-handedness.' 



> The 'breadth' I see in the prevailing sense of 'fantasy' is a wan and emaciated thing next to what informed old D&D. Anyone who cares to can look at the body of work Gygax produced, and at what came after him, and see where there is nurturing of the imagination. Nowadays, so much gets shuts down as "not proper fantasy" because it does not color inside the lines drawn by inbreeding between later commercial D&D and rigidly generic fictional pabulum.




   I was thinking of the 2nd Edition days, when the game really seemed to be trying to reach beyond its origins. I do think 3rd Edition suffered from a tendency to wallow in 1E nostalgia and become an oroborous-like morass of self-referentiality.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

*M.L. Martin*:
Have you got an identity crisis there?

First, you seemed to imply that you were representing the views of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, "the authors" who "misrepresented" the game by not describing it in what on closer examination are terms dripping with contempt.

Now, you claim to be representing the views of... _weasel words_?

Logic seems to have gone on holiday, and not just for you. Has someone spiked the D&D branded soda pop?


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Do you really miss the point?
> 
> There's no necessity for a different publisher.




If the implication of "more choices is good" was that "one game publisher would suffice to keep the entire roleplaying populace happy," I confess that I absolutely did miss that. It seems unintuitive to me.



> Is this really so hard for you to understand?




No, it's just that I don't believe in the kind of absolute "all or nothing" language you're invoking. It's like asking if it's so hard for me to understand that the earth sits on a turtle's back -- understanding the premise is a long way from agreeing that it's true.

Real game design doesn't deal in absolutes like "you must change _next to nothing_ or you must change _everything_." If you're making a Star Wars game, and you've discovered that Gungans and Ewoks aren't real popular, you don't assume that your audience hates everything about Star Wars aliens, and throw out Wookiees and Twi'leks and Rodians as well. You certainly don't throw out everything and make a Star Trek clone. You look at what they do like about Star Wars. And if, in the process, you find a lot of people rate Han Solo as their favorite character, you consider making smugglers a competitive mechanical choice side-by-side with Jedi.



> Go ahead and make a game for those who consider Vampire fatuous and boring rubbish and Mark Rein*Hagen a hack. That might be a splendid game.




It doesn't work that way. Games are made up of individual elements, which people are capable of examining on an individual basis. That's why we have controversies like this: because people may like 80% of a given game edition but would like to see 20% changed. Or 90/10. Now, if part of someone's 20% that they'd like to see changed is something you really like, sure, you disagree. But assuming that they would be happier with another game when they like 80-90% of this one is almost certainly a failure to understand what they like about a game. 

Again, think of Star Wars. If somebody says they'd like to see some stories about non-Jedi for a change, it's silly to tell them to go find another sci-fi universe to follow. Star Wars is big enough, and full of so much stuff, that someone can find lots of things to like about Star Wars and still dislike some elements. D&D is the exact same way.



> (Of course, I can't help but notice that you work for _the competition_, not for the owners of the D&D brand!)




Ha, that would be an interesting conspiracy theory! "He's agreeing that people might not care for older wizard/fighter power dynamics, guys! He must be trying to sabotage WotC!"

No, actually, I like 4e quite a bit. And B/X, which I started with, and the Rules Compendium, and 1e, and I had a lot of fun with 2e, and 3e ultimately wasn't for me but it certainly provided some good gaming (and a Scarred Lands supplement I'm personally very proud of). I wish WotC success in their endeavors, and actually I've been pointing out how game designers can make decisions like "let's make the fighter and wizard more even at every tier of play" based on what they hear from people playing the game. 

There's not actually as much vitriol in the industry as you might think. We have friends at other companies. We like playing other companies' games. I passed on a Swords & Wizardry one-shot tonight because the wife was feeling ill. I do enjoy the concept of sabotaging rivals with supportive forum posts, though. It suits the industry sense of humor.



> Logic seems to have gone on holiday, and not just for you. Has someone spiked the D&D branded soda pop?




Out of respect, Ariosto? Seriously, man, it's not worth dropping the debate to that level. We're all just talking about games that we like to play.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 8, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Far too much, generally speaking. Antagonistic (and occasionally friendly) spellcasters can and have done things in 3e campaigns I played ranging from placing the party under magical compulsions to achieve their goals to sending them involuntarily to locations ranging from "the other end of the dungeon" up to "a world on a completely different plane".
> 
> And when you do finally turn the tables and start hunting them down, they're slippery beggars, always ready with a quick exit, whether it's Gaseous Form or Teleport or Plane Shift or just dying and waking up in a Clone half a continent away. I remember in the mid-teens game we played, it got so frustrating that we were buying up wands of Dimensional Anchor and firing off Forcecages and Walls of Stone first thing in combat, just to try and nail them down.
> 
> And if you do manage to finish one off, you'd better be supernaturally thorough about it, or some other spellcaster will wander by and Raise or Resurrect or Animate them the moment your back's turned.




So what was the point of Lichdom, seeing as you gain all the weaknesses of undead?

Isnt there some way to be immortal but "alive". And on an unrelated side note, it may be older edition-but wasnt it written somewhere that Liches cant bodily leave the plane? (at at least do so and leave there soul/phylactery behind)


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> Real game design doesn't deal in absolutes like "you must change _next to nothing_ or you must change _everything_."



You and your rhetorical fellow travelers do, though.

Why are you so fixated on this notion that the only options are either:
(A) publish one radical reaction against _Dungeons & Dragons_ (or just the latest "D&D") after another, label each one "D&D", and then discard it in a few years; or
(B) never publish any other RPGs?

Your huffing and puffing is not about game design. It's about taking a name made great by _someone else's_ game design! So is mine, only my opinion differs.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 8, 2011)

Here is what you can do with Time Stop!

Here is how a wizard can be 3 times as effective as the rest of their team with the right planning!


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 8, 2011)

Actually, I think fighters are a bigger problem for game design than wizards are.
No, really. I should type up my ideas on "The Tyranny of the Sword" sometime when I can put them in order.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 8, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The 'breadth' I see in the prevailing sense of 'fantasy' is a wan and emaciated thing next to what informed old D&D. Anyone who cares to can look at the body of work Gygax produced, and at what came after him, and see where there is nurturing of the imagination. Nowadays, so much gets shuts down as "not proper fantasy" because it does not color inside the lines drawn by inbreeding between later commercial D&D and rigidly generic fictional pabulum.




Do you really believe that? Seriously? As far as I can see, Gygax's 'vision' encompassed a bit more than the kitchen-sink pseudo-European fantasy setting, but it's a stretch to include something like Eberron or Dark Sun or Nyambe or a host of fiction settings as part of it. Fantasy is a much wider genre now than it was in the 1970s. Now, in places (the Sword and Sorcery pool, for example) there's not as much of it, but a claim that fantasy is narrower than it used to be isn't plausible.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm fed up with the number of reported post generated by this thread. Apparently not a topic that can be discussed by people at this time. Clunk goes the thread.


----------

