D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[BayardSPSR]

Despite the sarcasm, this does have part of a suggestion--gut the schools. But not just them; gut the full set. Except probably Evocation, that one doesn't need to be torn to shreds so much. It shouldn't be the situation that a single spell has so much potential, and you can spam it all day long, and then rest and basically accomplish an entire investigation single-handedly just by using one thing.

You wouldn't even have to gut them; you could just shift the strongest spells to higher levels, and accomplish the same ends

[Raineh Daze]

You wouldn't even have to gut them; you could just shift the strongest spells to higher levels, and accomplish the same ends

Yeah, but you need to basically wreck the high-end spells anyway, and break things further if you don't really give any other class the ability to compete and keep up.

Dominate Person should not be superior to a full set of social skills and high Charisma except for the one fact that someone might make a will save. Oh no. Just bring a meatshield along and have them restrain whoever.

[BayardSPSR]

Yeah, but you need to basically wreck the high-end spells anyway, and break things further if you don't really give any other class the ability to compete and keep up.

Dominate Person should not be superior to a full set of social skills and high Charisma except for the one fact that someone might make a will save. Oh no. Just bring a meatshield along and have them restrain whoever.

And we come full circle to the question of 'how to hire peasants'. Actually, social skills and high Charisma probably have the advantage in that field, since Dominate Person is single-target, right?

[Raineh Daze]

And we come full circle to the question of 'how to hire peasants'. Actually, social skills and high Charisma probably have the advantage in that field, since Dominate Person is single-target, right?

Single target, limited duration. It's a pretty tiny investment, though, because if you use it in combat you can take an enemy out of the fight entirely, and out of combat you can get someone, no matter how little they want to work with you, to do literally anything within their power.

[BayardSPSR]

Single target, limited duration. It's a pretty tiny investment, though, because if you use it in combat you can take an enemy out of the fight entirely, and out of combat you can get someone, no matter how little they want to work with you, to do literally anything within their power.

And meanwhile the Fighter only gets an order of knights at level 19... But at least it's something, I guess.

[Wamyen]

So do you have an actual scenario or do I just need to keep guessing at what you have in mind until I find the real goal posts?

That's the entire point. There are no goal posts! You kick the ball, it hits the ground, you win! Any spell that hands you information, without you having to look for it, revealing exactly what evidence that you need to look for with no real foot work, is a boon to an investigation. Especially when all you have to do to regain it is to tell the DM "I go to bed." to regain it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Dominate Person should not be superior to a full set of social skills and high Charisma except for the one fact that someone might make a will save. Oh no. Just bring a meatshield along and have them restrain whoever.

Alternately, you can make skills more useful instead of weakening spells to compensate. If your answer to balance problems is "Nerf spells until skills, feats, and other mundane things don't suck by comparison," you might as well just remove those spells because the skills, feats, and other mundane things they're currently being compared against suck in a vacuum (no pun intended) before you even start to compare them to spells.

Of course charm person is going to look great compared to Diplomacy if you need to hit up to DC 50 over a full minute of talking to do the same thing the wizard can do with a standard action, a wave of the hand, and a smile, but even before that it's ridiculous for a skill named "Diplomacy" to have a single, very narrow, very difficult use that can't actually accomplish its name with any real depth. Same thing with Intimidate ("I do something intimidating and make the puny mortals cower before me!" "Er, no, you need a standard action and you can't get them past Shaken, sorry.") vs. any fear spells, Sense Motive vs. discern lies or similar, and so forth.

Bring skills up to the level of spells (or further), not vice versa. Let very Diplomatic characters nonmagically charm people with a wink and a smile, let very Stealthy characters hide in plain sight so they're basically invisible without requiring them to burn a half-dozen feats on it to get into a PrC that grants Hide in Plain Sight, let very Perceptive characters make saves against illusions just by looking at them and see the true forms of glamered and polymorphed things. Spells should give specific powerful capabilities to people who don't have the skill in question, not overwhelm those skills and make them useless past single-digit levels.

[Wamyen]

Alternately, you can make skills more useful instead of weakening spells to compensate. If your answer to balance problems is "Nerf spells until skills, feats, and other mundane things don't suck by comparison," you might as well just remove those spells because the skills, feats, and other mundane things they're currently being compared against suck in a vacuum (no pun intended) before you even start to compare them to spells.

Of course charm person is going to look great compared to Diplomacy if you need to hit up to DC 50 over a full minute of talking to do the same thing the wizard can do with a standard action, a wave of the hand, and a smile, but even before that it's ridiculous for a skill named "Diplomacy" to have a single, very narrow, very difficult use that can't actually accomplish its name with any real depth. Same thing with Intimidate ("I do something intimidating and make the puny mortals cower before me!" "Er, no, you need a standard action and you can't get them past Shaken, sorry.") vs. any fear spells, Sense Motive vs. discern lies or similar, and so forth.

Bring skills up to the level of spells (or further), not vice versa. Let very Diplomatic characters nonmagically charm people with a wink and a smile, let very Stealthy characters hide in plain sight so they're basically invisible without requiring them to burn a half-dozen feats on it to get into a PrC that grants Hide in Plain Sight, let very Perceptive characters make saves against illusions just by looking at them and see the true forms of glamered and polymorphed things. Spells should give specific powerful capabilities to people who don't have the skill in question, not overwhelm those skills and make them useless past single-digit levels.

Now THIS sentiment, I can wholeheartedly agree with. I don't want casters nerfed. I don't even care all that much about super balanced gameplay, I just don't want to have to play a so called "tier 1" character class to be able to do anything and do it well.

[navar100]

Alternately, you can make skills more useful instead of weakening spells to compensate. If your answer to balance problems is "Nerf spells until skills, feats, and other mundane things don't suck by comparison," you might as well just remove those spells because the skills, feats, and other mundane things they're currently being compared against suck in a vacuum (no pun intended) before you even start to compare them to spells.

Of course charm person is going to look great compared to Diplomacy if you need to hit up to DC 50 over a full minute of talking to do the same thing the wizard can do with a standard action, a wave of the hand, and a smile, but even before that it's ridiculous for a skill named "Diplomacy" to have a single, very narrow, very difficult use that can't actually accomplish its name with any real depth. Same thing with Intimidate ("I do something intimidating and make the puny mortals cower before me!" "Er, no, you need a standard action and you can't get them past Shaken, sorry.") vs. any fear spells, Sense Motive vs. discern lies or similar, and so forth.

Bring skills up to the level of spells (or further), not vice versa. Let very Diplomatic characters nonmagically charm people with a wink and a smile, let very Stealthy characters hide in plain sight so they're basically invisible without requiring them to burn a half-dozen feats on it to get into a PrC that grants Hide in Plain Sight, let very Perceptive characters make saves against illusions just by looking at them and see the true forms of glamered and polymorphed things. Spells should give specific powerful capabilities to people who don't have the skill in question, not overwhelm those skills and make them useless past single-digit levels.

But that would give fighters nice things having nothing to do with combat!

[Raineh Daze]

Alternately, you can make skills more useful instead of weakening spells to compensate. If your answer to balance problems is "Nerf spells until skills, feats, and other mundane things don't suck by comparison," you might as well just remove those spells because the skills, feats, and other mundane things they're currently being compared against suck in a vacuum (no pun intended) before you even start to compare them to spells.

Of course charm person is going to look great compared to Diplomacy if you need to hit up to DC 50 over a full minute of talking to do the same thing the wizard can do with a standard action, a wave of the hand, and a smile, but even before that it's ridiculous for a skill named "Diplomacy" to have a single, very narrow, very difficult use that can't actually accomplish its name with any real depth. Same thing with Intimidate ("I do something intimidating and make the puny mortals cower before me!" "Er, no, you need a standard action and you can't get them past Shaken, sorry.") vs. any fear spells, Sense Motive vs. discern lies or similar, and so forth.

Bring skills up to the level of spells (or further), not vice versa. Let very Diplomatic characters nonmagically charm people with a wink and a smile, let very Stealthy characters hide in plain sight so they're basically invisible without requiring them to burn a half-dozen feats on it to get into a PrC that grants Hide in Plain Sight, let very Perceptive characters make saves against illusions just by looking at them and see the true forms of glamered and polymorphed things. Spells should give specific powerful capabilities to people who don't have the skill in question, not overwhelm those skills and make them useless past single-digit levels.

I very much like that too, but 'make skills equal to spells' is going a bit overboard. The various Enchantment spells basically make a complete mockery of all forms of social challenges, and can do the same to investigations (and Divinations are even worse). Spells still need some reining in.

And stuff like Glibness absolutely cannot exist if skills are more powerful. Especially not Guidance of the Avatar. Oh god...

[Jerthanis]

That's the entire point. There are no goal posts! You kick the ball, it hits the ground, you win! Any spell that hands you information, without you having to look for it, revealing exactly what evidence that you need to look for with no real foot work, is a boon to an investigation. Especially when all you have to do to regain it is to tell the DM "I go to bed." to regain it.

From my perspective, I think about how in modern days, we have investigative techniques and technologies which would be largely considered magic to the people who lived mere decades ago, and yet CSI shows are more popular than ever. That's even without considering that the CSI shows depict the techniques being far more powerful than their real-world counterparts for the most part.

I guess I would question, if your rubric for if magical investigative techniques are too good because they require no footwork, would you find it acceptable if they were described as requiring complicated ritual or a skill check? Would you find Fingerprinting to be too powerful an investigative technique that cuts down too much on footwork? What is your ideal Investigation system in an RPG?

Personally, I prefer investigative tools to be powerful rather than impotent, because figuring out how to leverage your tools to discover further details of the plot is a lot of fun, and I find when investigative tools are impotent, the game is more similar to waiting for the DM to finally reveal the plot while the PCs were essentially kicking a can in a circle.

[Wamyen]

From my perspective, I think about how in modern days, we have investigative techniques and technologies which would be largely considered magic to the people who lived mere decades ago, and yet CSI shows are more popular than ever. That's even without considering that the CSI shows depict the techniques being far more powerful than their real-world counterparts for the most part.

I guess I would question, if your rubric for if magical investigative techniques are too good because they require no footwork, would you find it acceptable if they were described as requiring complicated ritual or a skill check? Would you find Fingerprinting to be too powerful an investigative technique that cuts down too much on footwork? What is your ideal Investigation system in an RPG?

Personally, I prefer investigative tools to be powerful rather than impotent, because figuring out how to leverage your tools to discover further details of the plot is a lot of fun, and I find when investigative tools are impotent, the game is more similar to waiting for the DM to finally reveal the plot while the PCs were essentially kicking a can in a circle.

Skill checks I could agree with. Even something like fingerprinting because you still have to do SOME investigative work. The biggest problem I have is the mundane characters sitting around picking their noses while the wizard uses clairvoyance and solves the entire thing in 30 seconds, needing only to use specific spells like knock, teleport and levitate to recover evidence and having the whole thing wrapped up in 30 minutes... maybe 45 if he decides to be nice and include the rogue. Mostly I just don't like the plethora of I win buttons that casters get while the fighter is sitting there going "Duh... can I hit something?" or the rogue is stealing the silverware and reverse pickpocketing it into servants pockets because she's bored.I always liked Shadowrun mages better than D&D wizards... no offense to a certain Old Mage that I love reading about.

[BayardSPSR]

Bring skills up to the level of spells (or further), not vice versa. Let very Diplomatic characters nonmagically charm people with a wink and a smile, let very Stealthy characters hide in plain sight so they're basically invisible without requiring them to burn a half-dozen feats on it to get into a PrC that grants Hide in Plain Sight, let very Perceptive characters make saves against illusions just by looking at them and see the true forms of glamered and polymorphed things. Spells should give specific powerful capabilities to people who don't have the skill in question, not overwhelm those skills and make them useless past single-digit levels.

I like this proposition. It's pretty much the "buff non-casters" option, the other being "nerf casters", and the choice being the result of we all know what, and a lack of clarity about how much power a character of a given level is actually meant to have.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I very much like that too, but 'make skills equal to spells' is going a bit overboard. The various Enchantment spells basically make a complete mockery of all forms of social challenges, and can do the same to investigations (and Divinations are even worse). Spells still need some reining in.

And stuff like Glibness absolutely cannot exist if skills are more powerful. Especially not Guidance of the Avatar. Oh god...

Spells do need reining in, but "Enchantment" doesn't ruin social encounters, certain broken spells do. Making friends (charm person), breaking up fights (calm emotions), giving orders that people listen to because you're just that imposing (command), inspiring someone to greater heights (heroism), pissing someone off (rage), and so forth aren't things that should be out of the reach of skills, nor do they break the social minigame. Only if you treat charm as a lesser dominate (or let people Diplomacize NPCs to fanatic, which is basically the same thing) do things break down.

Also, note that I'm talking about capabilities, not numbers. Something like glibness certainly should exist, but only the "make you resistant to magical lie detection" part is necessary. Guidance of the avatar doesn't give you any new capabilities, it just adds numbers, and rolling a skill check to add a big bonus to the same skill doesn't make much sense.

From my perspective, I think about how in modern days, we have investigative techniques and technologies which would be largely considered magic to the people who lived mere decades ago, and yet CSI shows are more popular than ever. That's even without considering that the CSI shows depict the techniques being far more powerful than their real-world counterparts for the most part.

Exactly. CSI essentially has divination magic--"Enhance!" doesn't give you better resolution on security camera footage, you can't hack someone's AES-128 encrypted password by typing really hard, etc.--and yet they have plots that work despite that because the DM writers takes the protagonists' abilities into account when making plots.

It's the same thing with teleportation: oh, long-range teleportation is broken because I can't tell my Lord of the Rings travel-for-months-overland story at high levels! No, your plot is broken because you're trying to tell a story that you know the PCs can trivially bypass and you're ignoring all the many things in the rules and the world that people can use to mitigate or counter teleportation problems. If your murder "mystery" can be solved by a single casting of speak with dead or discern lies when the murderer lives in a world where those are possible, the murderer knows about them, and the counters are fairly simple (break a jaw, don't let the victim see you, tell the technical truth, get a cheap item, etc.), then the murderer deserves to be caught and featured in the next Cracked article on "6 Baffling Mistakes Criminals Make All the Time."

[thugthrasher]

Unfortunately, as none of this is supported in the rules, we can't rely on this reliably happening in practice.

If the DM has to go out of their way to balance things, things aren't balanced.

By that logic, two party members being physically stronger than one person being investigated is not balanced. Those party members could go, grab the person being investigated, tie them up, and torture them until they got them to confess.

The only thing keeping them from doing that is social convention, legal outcomes, and morals. That's not "supported in the rules" any more than "magically dominating every person you are attempting to investigate will get you reported to the authorities" is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Spells do need reining in, but "Enchantment" doesn't ruin social encounters, certain broken spells do. Making friends (charm person), breaking up fights (calm emotions), giving orders that people listen to because you're just that imposing (command), inspiring someone to greater heights (heroism), pissing someone off (rage), and so forth aren't things that should be out of the reach of skills, nor do they break the social minigame. Only if you treat charm as a lesser dominate (or let people Diplomacize NPCs to fanatic, which is basically the same thing) do things break down.

Also, note that I'm talking about capabilities, not numbers. Something like glibness certainly should exist, but only the "make you resistant to magical lie detection" part is necessary. Guidance of the avatar doesn't give you any new capabilities, it just adds numbers, and rolling a skill check to add a big bonus to the same skill doesn't make much sense.



Exactly. CSI essentially has divination magic--"Enhance!" doesn't give you better resolution on security camera footage, you can't hack someone's AES-128 encrypted password by typing really hard, etc.--and yet they have plots that work despite that because the DM writers takes the protagonists' abilities into account when making plots.

It's the same thing with teleportation: oh, long-range teleportation is broken because I can't tell my Lord of the Rings travel-for-months-overland story at high levels! No, your plot is broken because you're trying to tell a story that you know the PCs can trivially bypass and you're ignoring all the many things in the rules and the world that people can use to mitigate or counter teleportation problems. If your murder "mystery" can be solved by a single casting of speak with dead or discern lies when the murderer lives in a world where those are possible, the murderer knows about them, and the counters are fairly simple (break a jaw, don't let the victim see you, tell the technical truth, get a cheap item, etc.), then the murderer deserves to be caught and featured in the next Cracked article on "6 Baffling Mistakes Criminals Make All the Time."

Oh dead god, all of this. I hate people whining about how "fly breaks my encounters! Teleport wrecks my campaign!" I'm like really? I've never had a problem with either one. Maybe you should try running a more interesting game.

(And maybe the GM's Guide should have better advice on dealing with game-changing spells)

I mean, yes, I know, Oberani fallacy, but that's no reason to cut out all interesting or powerful magic effects because "they can solve problems."

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's the same thing with teleportation: oh, long-range teleportation is broken because I can't tell my Lord of the Rings travel-for-months-overland story at high levels! No, your plot is broken because you're trying to tell a story that you know the PCs can trivially bypass and you're ignoring all the many things in the rules and the world that people can use to mitigate or counter teleportation problems.

I don't think that's quite it. Let's take my favorite comic of all time, Watchmen, as an example. Watchmen works as a story not because we worry about how the heroes are going to save the day. That happens but not very often: What made the story work for me is that each character has a complicated, conflicting set of motivations and we're not sure whether they're going to make the right choices or not.

This works no matter how powerful the individual characters are. I didn't ask "Can Dr. Manhattan save the world from nuclear war?" because the tension in the story didn't come from that. The tension in Dr. Manhattan's arc is that he struggles to find a reason why humanity is worth saving at all. He can do anything he wants but he doesn't know what he wants to do.

[BayardSPSR]

By that logic, two party members being physically stronger than one person being investigated is not balanced. Those party members could go, grab the person being investigated, tie them up, and torture them until they got them to confess.

The only thing keeping them from doing that is social convention, legal outcomes, and morals. That's not "supported in the rules" any more than "magically dominating every person you are attempting to investigate will get you reported to the authorities" is.

My point is that social convention is part of a setting, not a game mechanic. It would, for example, be possible to run a setting where there are no significant consequences for kidnapping and torturing someone unimportant. I don't think torture's a game mechanic either, though - at least, I kind of hope it isn't - so it's not quite the best comparison.

I guess what I'm getting at is that morals and legal procedures are very variable things, and that we can't expect either of them to be a certain way if the rules don't explicitly say so. How many PCs get away with murder?

[Turalisj]

http://www.twitch.tv/wotc_dnd/b/443283943

[1337 b4k4]

My point is that social convention is part of a setting, not a game mechanic. It would, for example, be possible to run a setting where there are no significant consequences for kidnapping and torturing someone unimportant. I don't think torture's a game mechanic either, though - at least, I kind of hope it isn't - so it's not quite the best comparison.

I guess what I'm getting at is that morals and legal procedures are very variable things, and that we can't expect either of them to be a certain way if the rules don't explicitly say so. How many PCs get away with murder?

The point is, if you don't want players to be able to get away with anything and everything willy nilly, then don't allow them to. Complaining that your players can defeat your intrigue plot because you've allowed them access to such tools is your own fault. In a world where dominating others against their will is both common place and lawful (or at least unpunished) it is reasonable to assume that individuals engaging in intrigue would defend themselves against such things. If those abilities are not common place and punished and you do not do so, then you have allowed the players to trample your plot, not the game.

The game gives you the rope, it is up to you as a DM (in conjunction with your players) to determine whether you tie bowlines or nooses with it.

[Person_Man]

Spells do need reining in, but "Enchantment" doesn't ruin social encounters, certain broken spells do. Making friends (charm person), breaking up fights (calm emotions), giving orders that people listen to because you're just that imposing (command), inspiring someone to greater heights (heroism), pissing someone off (rage), and so forth aren't things that should be out of the reach of skills, nor do they break the social minigame. Only if you treat charm as a lesser dominate (or let people Diplomacize NPCs to fanatic, which is basically the same thing) do things break down.

To agree with and expand upon your point, it would be nice if every class had a set of Roleplaying and Exploration abilities, supported by meaningful and fun crunch.

Currently, the rules are roughly 80% or more about Combat, 19% Exploration, and 1% Roleplaying. (Make a Cha check, Sense Motive is a Wis check, and a few spells might effect how someone acts around you). I would prefer for each part of D&D to be a well thought out part of a larger integrated game, not just a combat simulator with "yeah feel free to pretend to be your character, or you could invest in some stuff over here but you get less stuff for combat" tacked onto it.

[Flickerdart]

I disagree that Dominate Person shouldn't be better than social skills. They just have different uses. Dominate is obvious and blatant - you turn an unwilling victim into a meat puppet that follows your orders and nothing else. Social skills are subtle - you string someone along, and they either do it willingly or don't realize they're being duped. Neither should be "better" than the other.

[Kurald Galain]

I would prefer for each part of D&D to be a well thought out part of a larger integrated game, not just a combat simulator with "yeah feel free to pretend to be your character, or you could invest in some stuff over here but you get less stuff for combat" tacked onto it.

QFT!

I disagree that Dominate Person shouldn't be better than social skills. They just have different uses.

Thinking about it, games like Vampire The Masquerade have absolutely no problem with having a dominate ability next to social skills. Personally I like it if moderately-leveled characters can just lord it over the peasants and city guard. Doesn't mean that the king is going to be so easy, though.

[Felhammer]

The problem with D&D is that it has to be over-broad and appealing to a wide segment of the population of gamers.

The reason other games have better mechanics for specific niches of play is because they are specialized entities that do not have to, some how, accommodate the guy who wants to play his version of LotR with the guy who wants intrigue heavy Game of Thrones campaign, with the guy who wants a spell-slinging pirates in the Astral sea campaign, with the guy who wants a basic 1-20 minimal-RP dungeon crawl.

The best D&D can ever do is to steal the better mechanics from other games and offer them up as ways to turn D&D from a game you kind of like into the game you really want.

I've always liked Exalted's limit breaks, the Iron Kingdom's 2 class system, Dragon Age's stunt dice, Marvel Heroic's complication mechanic, Marvel Heroic's Doom Pool, Star Wars Edge of the Empire's Light Side/Dark Side Mechanic, L5R's complex social skills, etc. I'd love to see D&D embrace these kinds of ideas in the core rules but I know they won't because they are too specific and fiddly for the core game.

[Kornaki]

http://www.twitch.tv/wotc_dnd/b/443283943

At the 31:50 mark the fighter walks off to get food while the mages continue to plan their infiltration of the castle

[Ashdate]

QFT!

Thinking about it, games like Vampire The Masquerade have absolutely no problem with having a dominate ability next to social skills. Personally I like it if moderately-leveled characters can just lord it over the peasants and city guard. Doesn't mean that the king is going to be so easy, though.

I think you need to put such abilities in Vampire: the Masquerade in context however. For one, every vampire is likely to have crazy supernatural abilities. For two, as long as you care about not breaking the masquerade, using those abilities may carry a risk. For third, if your vampire solves all his problems by dominating the other guy, you risk losing respect with your fellow bloodsuckers.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think there are some lessons that D&D could learn from WoD, but it's also true that there are things other than hard mechanics holding vampires (and werewolves, and mages, and etc) back that don't have an analogue in D&D.

[Wamyen]

I disagree that Dominate Person shouldn't be better than social skills. They just have different uses. Dominate is obvious and blatant - you turn an unwilling victim into a meat puppet that follows your orders and nothing else. Social skills are subtle - you string someone along, and they either do it willingly or don't realize they're being duped. Neither should be "better" than the other.

However dominate person completely removes melee characters, from the part of the game they are supposed to help with the most, with almost no cost to the caster, and almost no specialization required by the caster. With one spell, that would be used by any evil npc wizard with half a brain, you've just taken the one niche that melee characters get to excel at away from them. Fighters and barbarians don't exactly get a ton of deep roleplaying opportunities in most campaigns. They fight. That's pretty much it. Now you've given wizards yet another cool trick to pull out of their hats to completely invalidate those characters. "Now that I'm done being dominated I'll go stand in the corner and wait for the next fight... again." Is it an issue of how the games are being put together? Partially yes. As a DM though, are you really going to spend a ton of time on an intricate social encounter and set of skill challenges... for a character that has absolutely none of the requisite skills... or are you going to continue gearing these encounters toward the people with classes clearly "intended" for these types of encounters?

[SiuiS]

Welcome to gamers... we are a versatile lot. Some what to grind for teh gp and teh xp, some want story (me!), some what the commoner railgun, some want to burn and bone entire worlds of nameless NPC's and barmaids, some are manipulative jerks willing to ignore anything that doesn't fit into their character's "I WIN!" button. I just described many issues in a very short amount of time. Some people just play D&D to stroke their own ego.

So?

This is a non-argument. If all you want is a speed run GP XP haul, then 15 minute workday is not a problem. If you want I Win, you're the wizard, everyone's a wizard, no problem.

So, following this chain of conversation:

133t says degrees are different by system.
Kurald says kelvin and Celsius are the same.
I say "that's not what he meant. What he said was..."
You go "NOPE!" And repeat Kurald's now-refuted statement and add nothing to it but indignation.

Well, here's my perspective. My problem with vancian spellcasting (or suppose I should more accurately say daily spell preparation) it that it makes the balance of the game depend on a rigid narrative timescale.

Like, let's compare two different scenarios: An investigation into political corruption that plays out over several weeks, and bandit attack that lasts several minutes. For the sake of argument let's assume that they both take the same amount of real time to play out at the table.

Why is the wizard solving an investigation with daily spells? Fireball only goes so far. You're not gonna animate dead your way to the clues. Levitate gets you height and no information.

I think we're talking about two completely different things here. For the record, I'm talking about when the caster has run out of spells (either completely or to the point where they can no longer effectively contribute) but the party hasn't accomplished the goal they've set out to do. Pressing on in this situation is tactical suicide at best and being a jerk to the caster's player at worst.

I'm talking about the fifteen minute workday: when a player expends all his resources without restraint and then complains about it so much that no one else continues despite still having their own resources. Working with the party is fine; co-opting it's time because you know you can force the issue is not.

You mean that the last order you give isn't 'forget the last hour so you can truthfully claim innocence'?

There are no rules for forgetting. Sorry.

Unfortunately, as none of this is supported in the rules, we can't rely on this reliably happening in practice.

If the DM has to go out of their way to balance things, things aren't balanced.

There are no rules for investigation games, so the problem doesn't exist.

I'm sure someone's published a mind-probing spell somewhere. Worst-case scenario? Short-term memory wipe spell to make them forget you were ever there.

Not for Next.

That's the entire point. There are no goal posts! You kick the ball, it hits the ground, you win! Any spell that hands you information, without you having to look for it, revealing exactly what evidence that you need to look for with no real foot work, is a boon to an investigation. Especially when all you have to do to regain it is to tell the DM "I go to bed." to regain it.

Now show me the spells that do that.

Oh dead god, all of this. I hate people whining about how "fly breaks my encounters! Teleport wrecks my campaign!" I'm like really? I've never had a problem with either one. Maybe you should try running a more interesting game.

(And maybe the GM's Guide should have better advice on dealing with game-changing spells)

I mean, yes, I know, Oberani fallacy, but that's no reason to cut out all interesting or powerful magic effects because "they can solve problems."

Truth.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why is the wizard solving an investigation with daily spells? Fireball only goes so far. You're not gonna animate dead your way to the clues. Levitate gets you height and no information.

I don't know what I was expecting.

[Whiteagle]

I don't see why most worlds could have a place like Council of Wyrms. My homebrew setting has a small district that is ruled by a brass dragon, who has 3 wyrmlings. A fourth wyrmling left the nest and lives in marshland shire of halflings. I think dragons should be present in politics, in war and as monstrous creatures. Dragons should havee a broad spectrum of uses. After all, this is Dungeons & Dragons. The best adventures I've played in always had a really good dungeon, a very cool dragon encounter, or preferably, both.

Nik

Many of the dragons seem to be made with that in mind. The sliver dragon in particular always struck me as an interesting ruler/patron of a political device of some sort. I was always much more interested in the way Shadowrun handles dragons from the perspective of they are extremely powerful and scary when angered yes, but in day to day life they handle things much as a very adept politician would and are natural leaders. Dunkelzahn and Ghostwalker come to mind. The political angle seems to make them much more believable and three dimensional than "They're a giant flying lizard that collects treasure because they like shiny things" angle. Dragons in Shadowrun are a verb akin to George R.R. Martin and Samuel L. Jackson.

Indeed!
One of my ideas for a Campaign STARTS with the Local Townsfolk goading the low-level Party into trying to slay an Ancient Red Dragon on rumors that it has fallen ill and is too sickly to fight back...

...Only to find out after a rather suspicious Dungeon Crawl, in which the Dragon's Kobold keep retreating instead of fighting, that the OLD Dragon died a while ago and his hoard now belongs to his Not-Evil Daughter whom, due to being primarily raised by said Kobolds, is far more open to the plights of "lesser creatures."

Queue an adventure in Courtly Intrigue as the Party now assist the Red Dragoness as she prys her way into becoming one of the Regional Nobility.

I think the knight order thing is, if not a dumb idea, then at least unsatisfactory, and here's why:

- So, can you take these 5th-level knights into the dungeon with you? If they die, do you get new ones? If members of the order die a lot then will attracting new members become harder? The rules have nothing to say on this issue so it's all left up to DM interpretation: The feature ranges from either extremely powerful or completely worthless depending on this interpretation.

Well you are right, it does leave a lot to interpretation...

Personally, since it specifies Level 5 Knight-path Fighters, I'd assume it was a band of low-level NCP Adventurers that have decided of their own free will to thrown in with a now nigh Epic Knight.
That said, you're probably not going to be able to attract any more if one gets killed, because who wants to follow a guy whose just going to lead them to their deaths?

- Let's say my 10th-level Mage character decides that she wants to start up a new spellcaster's guild in the local town. Am I just not allowed to do that, since the rules say only a 19th-level Knight can? That'd be a completely reasonable mechanical interpretation if the knight order is intended to "balance" the fighter and mage, though it's nonsensical from a fluff perspective.

Ahhh, but Guilds and Knightly Orders are two very different beast, especially when it comes to their Leadership and Internal Organization.

For one, Guilds usually elect their Leader, and only assign Apprentices to Masters for Training.
Mostly likely, your only going to be founding a Local Chapter of an already existing Guild of Mages instead of the Guild itself...

An Order of Knights is basically a gathering of Military Power around an already powerful Lord, in this case a Level 19 Fighter of the Knight Path.

- If I am allowed to do it, then how do the interpretations of how the orders work different between the two cases? No matter how the DM chooses to interpret how the Knight order works, if my 10th-level Mage's order is equivalent to the 19th-level Fighter's Knight order, then there's no point to the Knight order being written in the class features to begin with.

Well, you're probably NOT going to be allowed to Found your own Guild...
If Mages exist in the setting, then a Mages Guild of some kind probably already exist as well, and Guilds aren't exactly big on completion.

...That said, it could make for an interesting Arcane Tradition, where your "Scholarly Wizard" applies for Guild Membership to gain access to extra Spells and eventually Level 1 Mage Apprentices.

- I'm not even sure how powerful the Knight Order is supposed to be in the designer's eyes because we still don't know how powerful a 19th-level character is supposed to be within the fiction! Are we still running with 5th-level being the most competent real-life human being who has ever lived? In that case, making the fighter wait until 19th level before they can start up a knight order is completely absurd.

Well even if they aren't useful for a Dungeon Crawl, they are still a small army of Level 5 Fighters with the Defender Martial Path Feature, so I can see plenty of uses for them even BEFORE getting into whether Followers can gain Experience and Level-up.

So, here's the solution to these problems I would propose: Dump the Knight Order class feature. Instead, replace it with an optional Leadership-based Module (a module!? whodathunkit!?), with the following features.

...But then what are Knights going to get as a Capstone to their Martial Path?
Gladators have Relentless, which while weak on its own is still incredibly useful due to their dependance on Superiority Dice.

Warriors get what is practiaclly minor regeneration to offset their Critical dependant Features.

Everyone gets followers automatically as they level up. A "follower" is defined as an NPC who is unflinchingly loyal to the PC so long as they maintain their status as followers and is effectively under the control of that PC's player. (Mistreatment, however, can cause a PC to lose followers.)

You get followers automatically up to a cap (determined by level) but mistreatment of these followers (i.e. letting them die) makes you have to pass a Charisma check or lose followers. If you're below your cap, you can attempt to attract new followers by spending GP and making a charisma check. This makes the Knight automatically better (not much better but that's another problem for another day) at the Leadership shtick without making them have to have class features that depend upon it (that then become useless if the DM decides they don't want to use the leadership rules), because they have that bonus Charisma d4. If the Knight must be given a class feature, then we can say that they have a larger Follower cap.

Further optional rules (in a sub-module) can let a PC have and maintain a Stronghold, needing a minimum level of Followers to keep it. The rules can let the player pick what type of stronghold they want, and what kind of benefits it provides. (There could also be rules for strongholds that don't depend on the leadership rules.)

Nice, but I still don't think it should outright remove Coterie of Knights...

That's the entire point. There are no goal posts! You kick the ball, it hits the ground, you win! Any spell that hands you information, without you having to look for it, revealing exactly what evidence that you need to look for with no real foot work, is a boon to an investigation. Especially when all you have to do to regain it is to tell the DM "I go to bed." to regain it.

DM: "Oh, you're going to bed?"

"...Roll for Initiative with a Disadvantage for Surprise."

You see, there is this thing call discretion, where you try NOT to piss people off...

If your Wizard Magic-fingers a corrupted somebody, what's stopping them from sending some assassins to silence him and continue to keep the crime under wraps?

And, OH LOOK!
Said Mage just went to bed because he used up all of his high powered magic to dig up his dirt on your boss, so he's probably ALL ALONE and without anything but Cantrips and a Staff to try and defend himself with!