The Gaming Den

So, Shadzar, I basically disagree with everything you've said so far. Obviously, we're looking at Wizards as being two completely different animals. Can you tell me what you think it is that Wizards should be doing?

We'll do this between five points. Try to keep it high level. I'll start.

1) They're learned arcane spell casters. People who are naturally attuned to the use of magic don't become wizards. This shit is earned through long hours of study and having a large fucking brain.

2) Specialization is good. Sure, Generalist Wizards can potentially do anything, but they're always going to be mediocre at everything. If you want something done right or in a timely fashion, then you're going to want to get someone who knows what they're doing... like a specialist.

3) With that said, we want to reward proper planning and creativity while punishing laziness. A Wizard can't just sit on his laurels and just pick THE BEST SPELLS and expect to win every time. There are no spells that can be cast that will negate or win an encounter.

4) The Wizard shouldn't hold up the party. A Wizard needs to be useful even if they run out of spell slots and there should be alternate, more expedient, ways to recover spell slots beyond 8 hours of uninterrupted rest.

5) Wizards are kind of frail. Magic can assist with making them tougher, but maintaining defensive spells means losing out somewhere else. Also, Positioning is extremely important for a Wizard and more so if they decide to forego any sort of personal protection. Keep your party close and in front of the enemy.

OK, so the Wizard paradigm is something like ...

[*]You have your "cantrip" attacks (was a feat in earlier previews) that just keep on going all day for roughly level appropriate damage considering range and easy targeting. Like shooting a bow, only it's magic. Recall monsters don't scale quickly, so neither must the spell.

Just give the Wizard a fucking bow already, say I, but whatever. Or darts 3/round like the old days.

[*]Then you have some smallish number of spells (that may be delayed in casting if you're getting pounded) that work like classic D&D and win. They're cool with you dumping them all on the hard fight, because ... uh, yeh, that's the Wizard's job.

[*]Buffs will be designed to work better on Fighters than on Wizards, by giving penalties to hit or something. Mechanically sound enough with their tight bonus range, but ... uh, nothing says mega-buff like a big stack of attack penalties?

I guess it limits how many you can usefully stack, particularly if they add spell failure too. Interesting, if slightly tricky to write engaging fluff text for.


I can see what they're going for, but I'm not sure what they're going to do about the slow siege vs deep delve divide in play styles. Advice on time pressure I guess. Get to the final fight in 3 days or the Princess is dog tucker. Accept that Wizards dominate if given time.

I've done that same limit with Scrolls and it was fine, I've banned basically all but attack wands and that was fine too. Fuck 3e's healing stick (IYKWIM, AITYD).

Wrathzog wrote: No, it makes perfect sense. Generally speaking, people don't go around threatening authority figures or other people for that matter. It's a bad idea 95% of the time and you're only going to convince people that you're a colossal dick.

That's... total bullshit. The most cursory glance at politics demonstrates that threatening people still is incredibly common. Sure, threats nowadays are generally more sophisticated than "I'll kill you!", both in their content and the language used to deliver them, but, well, that's where the Intimidate skill actually comes into play.

And let's not even talk about, oh, every fucking human collective where violence is possibly on the table as a means of solving problems and isolating oneself from said collective isn't, so a pecking order is going to be established. Or, I don't know, running a protection racket (which an early feudal state is not that much different from). See, being considered a bullying dick only makes you an outcast if your targets can, with reasonable ease, call upon the greater power (of the state) if you go too far, or simply avoid you. Or if your threats look like and actually are empty. Otherwise it makes you a top dog. Of course, if your dickery is too unpredictable or too demanding, the subjugated people might eventually take a risk and gang up on you, but in DnDland this is less of a problem than in the real world.

And here I'm only considering Intimidate as a tool of self-serving social domination, even though it isn't. When you need to get through bureaucratic or procedural obstructions right fucking now, when you need to ensure that reluctant councilors are afraid of surrendering to Lord Evilman more than of opposing him, when you need to ensure that your dumbass recruits train wholeheartedly, in any situation where you browbeat people with the force of your personality, rather than convincing them with your arguments, you use Intimidate.

Tussock wrote:You have your "cantrip" attacks (was a feat in earlier previews) that just keep on going all day for roughly level appropriate damage considering range and easy targeting. Like shooting a bow, only it's magic. Recall monsters don't scale quickly, so neither must the spell.

Just give the Wizard a fucking bow already, say I, but whatever. Or darts 3/round like the old days.

This is actually something that really weirds me out. For the last several years, WotC R&D has claimed that one of their major design goals is to have Wizards shoot little bolts of fire as their standard attack like they were a Diablo Sorceress or a Gauntlet Wizard. What weirds me out is not that they've decided that Wizards should do this rather than having the Wizard fall back to a staff (or a sword), but that they have decided that this entirely cosmetic decision qualifies as a "major" design goal.

Harry Potter doesn't really make non-magical attacks. But Harry Dresden sure does. Modern fantasy simply isn't united as to whether or not Wizards should be throwing knives when they aren't casting big spells. And in any case, the logic of range and damage on non-charge attacks doesn't really change whether it's mana bolts or crossbow bolts. The actual game design decisions that matter are about how limited and how awesome your fireball is compared to how unlimited and how shitty your standard attack is.

It's like announcing that one of your major design goals is that when you shoot lightning bolts, they are yellow. Firstly, why can't they be blue? And secondly: what possible difference would that make, since either way the players at individual tables can just skin it the way they like it with minimal effort?

-Username17

fectin wrote: The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good,

No. Fuck no. There are maybe a dozen of really overpowered spells. Greases and Glitterdusts are totally smalltime compared to what magic usually does in modern fantasy.

fectin wrote:and wizards get all of them.

Now that is an actual problem. A class that only does everything.

Another big problem is that while some classes get actual mojo, others get a bag of dicks and are forced to bring knives to a gunfight. And then there are a lot of monsters (supposedly) balanced against the latter, gimped classes and incapable of countering even basic magic tricks.

And that's all. "Spells being too powerful" is mostly a misperception.

Wrathzog wrote:So, Shadzar, I basically disagree with everything you've said so far. Obviously, we're looking at Wizards as being two completely different animals. Can you tell me what you think it is that Wizards should be doing?

We'll do this between five points. Try to keep it high level. I'll start.

1) They're learned arcane spell casters. People who are naturally attuned to the use of magic don't become wizards. This shit is earned through long hours of study and having a large fucking brain.

2) Specialization is good. Sure, Generalist Wizards can potentially do anything, but they're always going to be mediocre at everything. If you want something done right or in a timely fashion, then you're going to want to get someone who knows what they're doing... like a specialist.

3) With that said, we want to reward proper planning and creativity while punishing laziness. A Wizard can't just sit on his laurels and just pick THE BEST SPELLS and expect to win every time. There are no spells that can be cast that will negate or win an encounter.

4) The Wizard shouldn't hold up the party. A Wizard needs to be useful even if they run out of spell slots and there should be alternate, more expedient, ways to recover spell slots beyond 8 hours of uninterrupted rest.

5) Wizards are kind of frail. Magic can assist with making them tougher, but maintaining defensive spells means losing out somewhere else. Also, Positioning is extremely important for a Wizard and more so if they decide to forego any sort of personal protection. Keep your party close and in front of the enemy.

1. in the case of spell scrolls, they are already full of the magic...the spell has already been cast into the scroll. you shouldnt lose more magic when using the scroll, because you already cast it once. the scroll is there so you can have it "in case of emergency break seal". it isnt that other classes get free magic, but a fighter doesnt have to study to use enchanted armor. the magic is there already. only casting NEW magic requires the study to be a wizard.

2. i dont even know what this one is on about. someone specializing in fire may be able to have advanced knowledge about some ancient fire barrier blocking your path, but that specialization is likely to not come in handy everywhere. nothing says a wizard cant specialize as far as i am concerned...

3. i dont believe in punishing players. an encounter or challenge, or puzzle or whatever was there because it is there. b4eing a wizard means nothing a the wizard is part of a team. it isnt always something for the wizard to decide. and the game should work if a wizard character isnt there. so under those circumstances, how would you punish a wizard that doesnt even exist? i dont do system mastery as a way to "win" at D&D.

4. i didnt mention anything about 8 hours of rest. if you are referring to my bit about cantrips, then they could royally screw up. a wizard uses magic, but not to get dressed in the morning or eat his meals. he is capable of basic human locomotion, so can still swing a weapon like the fighter, cleric, and dirt farmer. it is just when he has his spells, he is at his best. likewise when a fighter has a weapon he is at his best against the platemail wearing hill giant.

5. i really have no idea where this one is going. it seems you are breaking down Mearls ideas.. well i havent read the full thing yet so no idea what he is saying. yes wizards are weak with physical means, but dont need them. wizard is pretty much a sniper. hide-fire-and-move-repeat

FatR wrote:That's... total bullshit. The most cursory glance at politics demonstrates that threatening people still is incredibly common. Sure, threats nowadays are generally more sophisticated than "I'll kill you!", both in their content and the language used to deliver them, but, well, that's where the Intimidate skill actually comes into play.

dude did you seriously just read that one sentence, type all those words, and still miss the entire point of everything I've said about the subject?
Yes. Yes, that's exactly what you did.
You focused on the part where I said, "People don't do that." rather than, "because it's a bad idea."
Awesome.

Shadzar wrote:Stuff

And Shadzar, you weren't supposed to respond to what I think a Wizard is. You're supposed to Tell Me what You think a wizard is. I was giving you an example of how that would look. I may not have been totally clear about that. SO. MY BAD.

FatR wrote:

fectin wrote: The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good,

No. Fuck no. There are maybe a dozen of really overpowered spells. Greases and Glitterdusts are totally smalltime compared to what magic usually does in modern fantasy.

Well, there's also the issue that even Grease and Glitterdust can achieve very useful, combat-winning effects for a standard action and mundane options don't come anywhere close to that.

So just because Solid Fog is better doesn't mean that Grease and Glitterdust as written don't make fighters cry.

FatR wrote:

fectin wrote:The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good,

No. Fuck no. There are maybe a dozen of really overpowered spells. Greases and Glitterdusts are totally smalltime compared to what magic usually does in modern fantasy.

When people say "overpowered" with respect to D&D, the implication is "overpowered compared to poking someone with a dagger", IMO.

Wrathzog wrote:And Shadzar, you weren't supposed to respond to what I think a Wizard is. You're supposed to Tell Me what You think a wizard is. I was giving you an example of how that would look. I may not have been totally clear about that. SO. MY BAD.

might been you had the same number of points Mearls did...

1. wizards train to be able to rip magical energy from outside of them for their own use.

2. wizards can harness this external energy and place it into objects.

3. wizards sort of "see" through and with this magic in a way outside of the normal thinking. they are the mythical inventors and scientists, that can do near modern things, without the use of modern technologies. spontaneous combustion and the like.

4. wizards are a nuclear power plant. when used correctly their power can deliver wonderful results. when used improperly catastrophe can happen. and it is a delicate nature of that use, and the wizard itself

but this is just ONE concept of a wizard. there are tons of ways to do wizards even within existing editions, and even some not within them that would still work within them. the saying cant go far enough to explain a wizard: magic is magical.

hogarth wrote: When people say "overpowered" with respect to D&D, the implication is "overpowered compared to poking someone with a dagger", IMO.

Well... that's exactly right. Most of the time, at least. And that is one of the main reasons why we can't get nice DnD. Poking people with sharp pieces of metal is a pretty poor standard of power outside of low fantasy.

Wrathzog wrote: You focused on the part where I said, "People don't do that."

But people, in fact, DO that.

FatR wrote:Well... that's exactly right. Most of the time, at least. And that is one of the main reasons why we can't get nice DnD. Poking people with sharp pieces of metal is a pretty poor standard of power outside of low fantasy.

But people totally insist on making said sharp pieces of metal major fixtures of their character and then fail to see that the Law of Conservation of Detail necessitates them having a schizophrenic power level.

Their fate was sealed the minute that game designers and players believed that the particular shape and properties of a particular sharp piece of metal was important enough to guide character development. Until you break people of that mentality then no matter how much people mewl for their desire to have characters getting real and useful superpowers you'll just be pissing into the wind.

FatR wrote:But people, in fact, DO that.

So, are you actually trying to say that Intimidating people is good because people do it? That if it was actually a bad idea, people wouldn't be doing it (because it's bad, duh). Are you suggesting that North Korea is fucking onto something when it comes to their political strategy?
PLEASE TELL ME MORE I AM INTRIGUED.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

FatR wrote:Well... that's exactly right. Most of the time, at least. And that is one of the main reasons why we can't get nice DnD. Poking people with sharp pieces of metal is a pretty poor standard of power outside of low fantasy.

But people totally insist on making said sharp pieces of metal major fixtures of their character and then fail to see that the Law of Conservation of Detail necessitates them having a schizophrenic power level.

Their fate was sealed the minute that game designers and players believed that the particular shape and properties of a particular sharp piece of metal was important enough to guide character development. Until you break people of that mentality then no matter how much people mewl for their desire to have characters getting real and useful superpowers you'll just be pissing into the wind.

No, the problem is that they don't want to use superpowers with said piece of metal.

People need to go more anime, less "realism but still magic". A swordmaster with all the anime superpowers would not be out of place next to a wizard.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Their fate was sealed the minute that game designers and players believed that the particular shape and properties of a particular sharp piece of metal was important enough to guide character development. Until you break people of that mentality then no matter how much people mewl for their desire to have characters getting real and useful superpowers you'll just be pissing into the wind.

Yeah people should never accept any limitations on their chars at all, nor find anything cool. That just limits them and makes sure they are doomed before they even start.

Wrathzog wrote: So, are you actually trying to say

I'm saying that your argument is based on incorrect facts...

Wrathzog wrote:that Intimidating people is good because people do it?

...and that it boils down to "things I find morally bad should be automatically ineffective (even if these things are "threats" in a game where the main solution for problems is "violence")"...

Wrathzog wrote: That if it was actually a bad idea, people wouldn't be doing it (because it's bad, duh). Are you suggesting that North Korea is fucking onto something when it comes to their political strategy?

...and that your strawmanning skills leave much to be desired.

FatR wrote:

fectin wrote: The problem is that some spells are crazygonuts good,

No. Fuck no. There are maybe a dozen of really overpowered spells. Greases and Glitterdusts are totally smalltime compared to what magic usually does in modern fantasy.

That's true. Harry Potter has at-will death-no-saves available. Dresden has Gary Stu Fu. Sanderson's worlds all feature stratified social structures, because the lucky few with magic are literally better than you. We are not discussing Goodkind's bondage magic.

You're absolutely right in that most spells could be balanced with martial abilities, but basically none of them are. Within that, there are a lot of spells which are situationally unbalanced (looking at you, Control Undead) and will always win a given situation. Even without scrolls, a wizard has access to a really broad range of spells (which means a broad range of situations he just wins). With scrolls, he's always batman.

Seriously, think about this: if you are fighter with spare cash, is it better to pick up a +1 on your armor, or to buy a widget of Control Undead? Which improves your survivability more?

fectin wrote:You're absolutely right in that most spells could be balanced with martial abilities, but basically none of them are.

It'll be impossible insofar as people insist on making the exclusive playspace of martial abilities bullshit non-effects like 'extra damage with a sword swing' or 'spin around in a circle really fast with your sword!'. If you made it so that martial arts was the only way to reliably fly or tell the future (like in One Piece), then that problem would go away instantly.

Of course, pointing at the solution instantly reveals the how impossible it will be to implement. Insofar as D&D-inspired fantasy is concerned, martial abilities explicitly or de facto mean to be 'stuff that doesn't require phlebtonium to do but does require a lot of exclusive focus'.

Tome does pretty well at bringing martials up to caster level. I'd say the fact that someone has done it is pretty good evidence that it can be done.

I'm familiar with your Fighters Can't Have Nice Things (FCHNT?) bit, but the underlying problem is more that "nice things" means "win forever" and that some characters DO get it.

This:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l2cpv ... o1_500.jpg
...can never be a balanced ability. I like Control Undead, but it's not balanced in any way. That there are some spells which defeat "anything" instead of just one monster type is icing on the cake.

fectin wrote:Tome does pretty well at bringing martials up to caster level.

In what way, non-combat speaking?

fectin wrote:but the underlying problem is more that "nice things" means "win forever" and that some characters DO get it.

That exacerbates the problem, but non-casters still come up short even compared to marginal classes like the bard and healer (Miniatures Handbook version) and psychic warrior.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

fectin wrote:Tome does pretty well at bringing martials up to caster level.

In what way, non-combat speaking?

fectin wrote:but the underlying problem is more that "nice things" means "win forever" and that some characters DO get it.

That exacerbates the problem, but non-casters still come up short even compared to marginal classes like the bard and healer (Miniatures Handbook version) and psychic warrior.

Non-combat is a fair point. I mean, Tome fighters can just foil everything, knights can pick fights with anything, Samurai can sword their way through anything, but overall you're right. However, I'd say that's solvable in the same way that the combat side was solvable.

fectin wrote:However, I'd say that's solvable in the same way that the combat side was solvable.

Oh, definitely, you have many ways to solve it.

[*] Restrict the power leveling of the game. James Bond Jr., despite being totally non-magic, is actually very competitive with equal-level characters who actually have phlebtonium such as Harry Potter and 1st-Season Static Shock. If the game doesn't advance too much then 'martial' characters like James Bond Jr. will always be viable.
CONS: Because real-life isn't particularly impressive, you have to REALLY clamp down on the powering up of the setting. The gap between 'improbable but possible without magic' becomes 'impossible without magic' is actually very small. This might have some people complaining about not getting to do any crazy shit without DM hand-holding.

[*] Emphasize mundane or non-magical problem solving as the game goes on. Star Trek throws down with some seriously weird and insane magical shit. Just check out the first frickin' episode of the original series or the series finale of DS9. Regardless, though, Sisko having the ear of extremely powerful gods and getting DBZ powers means precisely donkey dick in most stories, since problems in the Star Trekverse are solved primarily through consensus or conflict negation. Similarly, in the original trilogy of Star Wars the Force wasn't all that big of a deal. It definitely changed the flavor of some of the adventures, but if you had taken the Force out of the original series entirely the general events could easily have gone the same.
CONS: Some (a lot) of people like the visceral thrill of a lone badass personally storming the evil armies and kicking their asses with their bare hands. Also, depending on how you implement the powers some people might opt to do something like using their Force Powers to displace the core of the Death Star from a televiewer, which then shifts the scope of adventures back to personal badassery.

[*] Having people run multiple characters at once. The Parliament and their bureaucracy of a magical metropolis can achieve about the same level of in-game effects as Spider-Man and Sailor Moon even if they don't have phlebtonium themselves. So about the time James Bond stops individually contributing to adventures it doesn't matter because you control the entire department of MI6.
CON: May not be a popular option. The reason why D&D shifted from a wargame to a personal combat simulator is that it's easier to play Magical Tea Party with one character than with 10. Now there will certainly be players eager and able to roleplay the Second Continental Congress, most people will barely be able handle being able to roleplay George Washington. The contrast becomes even more stark if you still allow some people to roleplay individual badasses. There's nothing unbalanced about letting someone control S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other person controls Magneto, but it can create table conflict.

[*] Just give non-magical characters crazy non-magical superpowers. This seems like a contradiction, but in fiction it's generally done by the story going out of its way to insist that the feats are non-magic and/or it's one of those settings where logic takes a back seat and a nonsentient sword can transform into a ginormous martial arts elephant. You can even make it so that magic is inferior to sufficiently pimped-out nonmagic; Gentou Kouken and Hokuto Ryuuken are heavily magical (complete with incantations and swirling magic symbols) and are still inferior to the similar but nonmagical style of Hokuto Shinken. Regardless, you still have to make non-magic do effects that are explicitly impossible with our normal ken of real world physics, otherwise you're just doing the first option.
CON: A lot of people will complain about your game being weeaboo and retarded. Also if magic or other phlebtonium still has a specific presence in the game it's still very hard to include non-magic and magic at the same time without making one or the other make the other obsolete. See: League of Extraordinary Heroes and Teen Titans.

[*] Give characters access to a magical substrate. It's really no big deal that the barbarian or rogue career path never provides any level-appropriate powers, because around that time picking locks or yelling really hard stops solving problems that's when Green Lantern Rings and Swords of Omens start to drop.
CON: Too many to list unless asked.

Exactly. And the last two don't even require you to touch casters.

Underall, it's totally possible to balance martials against casters for most cases. That it wasn't done is frustrating, but irrelevant. The thing actually preventing that is that a fighter basically can never compete with Command Undead. It wins the encounter, no save, and simultaneously makes the wizard stronger. Charm does the same thing socially. So does Glibness for a bard. These aren't high-level either; right off the bat, casters just win.

My personal preferred solution for my ideal DnD would be giving Fighters and Rogues far more magic item slots than everyone else (while restricting the overall number of slots so that it really matters)/explicitly providing them with artifacts as class abilties, to keep their legacy image, and then give everyone else powers. Paladin and Ranger can be relatively easily salvaged by giving them some actually appropriate holy/nature powers. No prizes for guessing what should be done to improve Monk. Some classes, though, like Barbarians - and any other "fighting man with some narrow gimmick" classes should just die. Instead, at least one gish class should be in the core to provide an arcane counterpart to Paladin/Holy Warrior. That assuming we don't want reshuffle the classes too much and introduce new archetypes (not that I actually have the talent to invent new strong archetypes...)/