The Casterless World

[EldritchWeaver]

I get your point on selective monster manual grabbing, but where in the DMG does it say that these things are supposed to be speed bumps? Is this just an assumption based on what casters can do on your part?

I can answer that: A CR 3 monster should be killable by a party with a level of 9+ without breaking into a sweat. Just check the rules about which challenge ratings are appropriate. The lowest entry calls CR equal to "APL –1" an "Easy" encounter. A CR of "APL -6" is then so easy that a PC only needs to sneeze to kill any monster, assuming access to the appropriate counters.

I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

A: So the NPCs suffer a downtime exactly as long and at the same time as the PCs every time? If not, wouldn't a clever villain attack the PCs while they are weak? Or the PCs the villain?
B: So basically the DM may never homebrew an adventure with hard time limits?

[dascarletm]

A: So the NPCs suffer a downtime exactly as long and at the same time as the PCs every time? If not, wouldn't a clever villain attack the PCs while they are weak? Or the PCs the villain?
B: So basically the DM may never homebrew an adventure with hard time limits?

A: This argument can be made in any campaign with any amount of downtime. Secondly I did not say it is exactly as long. It may be more, it may be less. My point which you seem to be missing is that if players have a longer time to rest the villains of the story will also have increased downtimes. They are similar. Thus if it takes players 3x as long to reach level 20, it should roughly take 3x as long for the BBEG to enact his master plan that you stop at that level for example.

B: I also was not implying that. Let me make my point clear, the DM creates the campaign world. Thus if they want a time limit they will make it work for their party. This is not unique to long downtime campaigns. If I made a game in regular magic DnD that starts at level 3 and has a final fight that is CR 16, then a campaign time limit of 3 days will not work for that.

I don't think I'm writing in such a way to convey my points as you saw them, but I hope this clears it up.

[Beheld]

I get your point on selective monster manual grabbing, but where in the DMG does it say that these things are supposed to be speed bumps? Is this just an assumption based on what casters can do on your part?

As already stated, the DMG has rules for how many encounters you are supposed to face (or be able to face) in a day of different CRs relative to your level. It in fact says things like "Four EL=Party level encounters a day" and "two creatures of CR X equals and EL X+2 encounter." So if you describe to me the story of your level 12 party running into a pair of Lamia, and then having someone knocked unconscious with Wisdom Drain, and then giving up for the day (and possibly a lot longer, based on distance) and retreating to a town to beg, borrow, or steal a casting of Restoration. Or worse, declared your intent to level two more levels to 14 so that your Paladin can wake them up. What I hear is: "My level 12 party of four people, which according to the rules is supposed to be able to beat four EL 12 encounters in a day faced a single EL 8 encounter, and then we ran away with our tails between our legs." Or alternatively, "This is a party that is not playing up to the CR and EL rules spelled out in the DMG."

I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

Downtime isn't bad. I like to give my PCs downtime. I like to design games so there is downtime, and they can pursue their own objectives. But there's a difference between giving downtime and forced downtime from PC failure. One is the PCs getting a chance to direct the story, the other is the PCs failing. And yes, you can declare "Don't worry guys, it doesn't matter if you **** up, I promise no matter how many times you fail and have to sit around, it will never have any effect on anything" that is not the way I or any of the people I play with want to game. Part of knowing that your decisions matter is having there be actual differences depending on how you do, and that means that forced downtime inflicted on the PCs is only ever going to be bad for the PCs.

[EldritchWeaver]

A: This argument can be made in any campaign with any amount of downtime. Secondly I did not say it is exactly as long. It may be more, it may be less. My point which you seem to be missing is that if players have a longer time to rest the villains of the story will also have increased downtimes. They are similar. Thus if it takes players 3x as long to reach level 20, it should roughly take 3x as long for the BBEG to enact his master plan that you stop at that level for example.

That still means that there won't be adventures where there is a fixed deadline. Let's say the BBEG is only one step from enacting the plan, and for drama reasons the PCs know that. Then they encounter the very last challenge before they can confront the BBEG, which is of course relatively difficult. So they confront monsters with abilities for they have no counters, so they end up having downtime of weeks. Which leaves the GM with two options. Either he lets the BBEG win, or he postpones the last act until the PCs are ready again. Neither seems to be fun for the PCs. Compare to the group which has access to the appropriate items to heal themselves and then storm the last bastion.

Granted, you can avoid that situation if you plan accordingly, but that only proves my point.

B: I also was not implying that. Let me make my point clear, the DM creates the campaign world. Thus if they want a time limit they will make it work for their party. This is not unique to long downtime campaigns. If I made a game in regular magic DnD that starts at level 3 and has a final fight that is CR 16, then a campaign time limit of 3 days will not work for that.

I don't think I'm writing in such a way to convey my points as you saw them, but I hope this clears it up.

I don't think we have the same understanding of a time limit. For me, a BBEG has to fulfill several steps to succeed with his plan. The soft time limit is that he needs to succeeds with all previous steps, before the final one can be taken. That means one needs to roughly decide how long each step takes. Add those up and you have your hard time limit. The PCs need to foil him before the apocalypse starts. That means that if the PCs take vacation, things will happen and the BBEG wins by default. You on the other hand seem to say that any downtime - maybe because some unrelated undead caused some level drain and the PCs need to relevel in the meantime - is reflected in some way on the BBEG side as well. Which means that the BBEG travels with the speed of plot.

[dascarletm]

@ Beheld

I agree mostly but disagree on some of your game assumptions. I don't care enough to argue it though so I'll leave it at that.

@ EldritchWeaver

I think we fundamentally disagree on what is good game design. I'm not convinced these problems are unique to low magic games. More prevalent? Maybe. All in all, you trade having to design around access to high level magical effects (such as astral projection, binding, etc.) and instead have to design around lack of magic. I don't personally think one is better than the other, they are just different tastes.

[Necroticplague]

Everyone apposing seems to be ignoring that while caster's are out, magic items aren't. So it's not a case of "enountered something, need to wait the forever to heal this off" it's "encountered something, need to blow some charges from the runestaff of healing effects"

[Beheld]

Everyone apposing seems to be ignoring that while caster's are out, magic items aren't. So it's not a case of "enountered something, need to wait the forever to heal this off" it's "encountered something, need to blow some charges from the runestaff of healing effects"

Runestaff... Do you mean wands? Do you mean Staves? Because Runestaves only let you cast spells with spell slots you already have. The reason Paladin's can't cast restoration until level 14 isn't because they just have all these 4th level slots sitting around and restoration is a 5th level spell on their list, it's because they don't even get 4th level spells until that point.

Now I mean, it totally sucks to have to play a Paladin or Ranger at all, but the problem isn't that they don't have access to the spell list at the right spell levels, it's that they don't have access to the spell levels at the right character levels.

[Troacctid]

The problem with utterances is not that you can't use them, it's that most of them are not very good.

Yeah, that's why they're T5 instead of T4.

The reason given for their omission from the tier list is that they supposedly are broken as in they do not actually function as intended. But that's not true—they do function. They just aren't good.

[AnachroNinja]

A reliance on items means the party must devote a significant portion of wealth to being able to deal with all these status effects which makes them less capable of fighting other opponents. So this is all just designed to punish the players?

[dascarletm]

A reliance on items means the party must devote a significant portion of wealth to being able to deal with all these status effects which makes them less capable of fighting other opponents. So this is all just designed to punish the players?

Quite the leap in thoughts there. Let's be intellectually honest. You know that's not the case.

[AnachroNinja]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

[Beheld]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

People who ban casters love fighters so much. Chances are much better that they will give out infinite free healing and restoration items that never cost against other wealth gain, and then also some artifacts, and then also mentally substitute all monsters that might challenge a normal party with goblins with class levels in fighter and an occasional big bruiser as a boss.

[NichG]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

"Playing a different game"

If I run a Nobilis campaign where starter characters can punch out the sun or create a sandwich whose existence makes sadness create rainfall, and then the next campaign we all play is D&D where you have to wait a few levels before doing that stuff, the players haven't been 'punished'. It's a mistake to import assumptions and expectations from one game into another.

Casterless D&D is, necessarily, a different game than D&D. It should neither be shocking nor alarming that other things would change.

[EldritchWeaver]

"Playing a different game"

If I run a Nobilis campaign where starter characters can punch out the sun or create a sandwich whose existence makes sadness create rainfall, and then the next campaign we all play is D&D where you have to wait a few levels before doing that stuff, the players haven't been 'punished'.

I'm curious: At which level can D&D characters imitate Nobilis characters? I wouldn't know how to rule that outside of GM fiat.

It's a mistake to import assumptions and expectations from one game into another.

Casterless D&D is, necessarily, a different game than D&D. It should neither be shocking nor alarming that other things would change.

One of the points of discussion was exactly that some people argued that you can not use casters, without having to change other things as well. They still might believe that. At least I can't recall any post where an opponent admitted his switch.

[NichG]

I'm curious: At which level can D&D characters imitate Nobilis characters? I wouldn't know how to rule that outside of GM fiat.

It was mostly tongue in cheek, but...

There was a discussion on these forums awhile back as to a concept similar to Turing Universality for game systems - basically, at what point does a game system contain enough loopholes that its possible for a character to effectively do anything that could be done in any game system in it, even if it wasn't initially written in. In principle it just takes one or two open-ended abilities to get the ability to write your own rules in-character, and then everything becomes equivalent to everything. Pun-Pun is the canonical example, but even something like 'Polymorph Any Object' and 'Wish' are quite open-ended without being infinite like Pun-Pun.

Once you have Wish and the Save Game trick online, I think you're basically a Nobilis character. You can Wish off of the safe list, see if you like what happens, and if not try again ad infinitum until the universe looks the way you want it to. You can conceivably do the same with Travel Through Time, or if you manage to snag a high enough divine rank and grab that ability that lets you invent new spells as a free action, or for that matter if you just get epic spellcasting.

Some of the stuff D&D characters can do goes beyond Nobilis, because its unanswerable - there isn't a bigger fish that can just say 'no', whereas in Nobilis your imperator can just retrieve his soul fragment if he gets pissed off, and you're done.

One of the points of discussion was exactly that some people argued that you can not use casters, without having to change other things as well. They still might believe that. At least I can't recall any post where an opponent admitted his switch.

I don't recall anyone arguing that you should do it without changing other things as well. On the first page, its only a few posts before someone said 'of course you have to tailor encounters'.

[AnachroNinja]

I feel like the point of contention was that some of us were making exactly that point, that this version of the game would be nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D due to the many changes necessary, while others were essentially claiming that the needed changes were minor and small. There were people who's essential position was that a non-caster party was fine, they would be able to fight almost anything with no trouble, and if they do have trouble due to lack of spell casters, just let them sleep it off for a month.

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

[NichG]

I feel like the point of contention was that some of us were making exactly that point, that this version of the game would be nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D due to the many changes necessary, while others were essentially claiming that the needed changes were minor and small. There were people who's essential position was that a non-caster party was fine, they would be able to fight almost anything with no trouble, and if they do have trouble due to lack of spell casters, just let them sleep it off for a month.

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

I guess from my point of view, you don't even think about doing something like this unless your goal is actually to make something that is 'nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D'. Hopefully because you proactively want to explore something different and you have some idea in mind on how to create that difference, but (unfortunately) in most cases just because there are some things about 3.5 D&D that they find unsatisfying, limiting, or frustrating.

There's also a difference between a change that requires a lot of work, versus a change which creates a big distance in feel. Something like shifting CRs around to be appropriate for a group with more limited abilities is so close to what a good DM has to do anyhow that it shouldn't really be much if any extra work, but of course it can create a huge difference in feel since in one campaign you'd end up fighting balors and solars, and in another you're fighting giants and golems.

The one change which will require a lot of work, that you can't really get around, is that you need something 'else' to make the game feel rich and interesting in place of magic. The rest - balance adjustments, taking into account healing time, etc - I think you can mostly just learn by doing. Both can create a big difference in feel.

[Psyren]

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

With T3 classes/6th-level casters, you can - but it looks like he's decided to ban those too. With T4 and lower only, yep, this is going to be a lot of work.

[Jay R]

...I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

A. Same rules, yes, but you're using the same PCs, while the DM is using a different set of NPCs. There are a lot more NPCs than PCs in the world, and in a vast majority of encounters, you aren't re-using the same NPCs. Those goblins are dead; you are now facing some hobgoblins, that don't need any rest or downtime after you killed the goblins.

B. The DM is in charge of the world in the sense that he is creating it. That does not mean that aspects can be arbitrarily changed to suit the PCs' vacation plans. If the land is in the middle of a war or revolution, or the long predicted volcano eruption will soon sink Atlantis, then just deciding that nothing important happens for the next few months is bad world design.

Suppose an earthquake opens up an entrance to a long-lost dungeon, and the PCs go into once, coming out with major injuries and the first level's worth of loot. If they spend six weeks recovering, then by the time they get back to it, other adventurers will have stripped it clean.

[dascarletm]

B. The DM is in charge of the world in the sense that he is creating it. That does not mean that aspects can be arbitrarily changed to suit the PCs' vacation plans. If the land is in the middle of a war or revolution, or the long predicted volcano eruption will soon sink Atlantis, then just deciding that nothing important happens for the next few months is bad world design.

Suppose an earthquake opens up an entrance to a long-lost dungeon, and the PCs go into once, coming out with major injuries and the first level's worth of loot. If they spend six weeks recovering, then by the time they get back to it, other adventurers will have stripped it clean.

Actually that is exactly what that means. If you are creating a game with a timeline of events, you make it to suit the parties capabilities. If it was an equation it would just be a different static factor on how long it should be. You make the revolution take 3 years instead of 3 months. The volcano is going to erupt in a month instead of a week, and dungeon crawls are so very boring that I don't even care if they are affected.

This isn't mind boggling ideas, but I doubt anything I say will change peoples minds. It has been made up that this type of game is no good. However I have on multiple occasions made campaigns for such characters, and it has never been a problem. Maybe I'm a prodigy of game design, or perhaps my games are terrible and I should feel bad. Perhaps it isn't as difficult as everyone is claiming.

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

I'm not punishing them for anything. If I normally give people $10 christmas gifts, and then decide to give a $7 gift this year I'm not punishing them. They are not entitled to anything.
This is some typical new generation way of thinking.
"Everything that is less than something else is a punishment. My character's are entitled to a certain standard of living."

If normal games are power level X fighting threats of X/2 then playing a game of level Y fighting threats of Y/2 is not inherently worse. You may not like this style of game and that is perfectly fine, I would never have you as a player. However if I run a game like that it isn't.... (shall I say the word? Okay I will). badwrongfun.

[EldritchWeaver]

Actually that is exactly what that means. If you are creating a game with a timeline of events, you make it to suit the parties capabilities. If it was an equation it would just be a different static factor on how long it should be. You make the revolution take 3 years instead of 3 months. The volcano is going to erupt in a month instead of a week, and dungeon crawls are so very boring that I don't even care if they are affected.

This isn't mind boggling ideas, but I doubt anything I say will change peoples minds. It has been made up that this type of game is no good. However I have on multiple occasions made campaigns for such characters, and it has never been a problem. Maybe I'm a prodigy of game design, or perhaps my games are terrible and I should feel bad. Perhaps it isn't as difficult as everyone is claiming.

The point is not that adventures with timelines are impossible. The point is that only a subset of the previously working timeline adventures remain viable. That's not inherently bad, but has to be acknowledged in some way.

I'm not punishing them for anything. If I normally give people $10 christmas gifts, and then decide to give a $7 gift this year I'm not punishing them. They are not entitled to anything.
This is some typical new generation way of thinking.
"Everything that is less than something else is a punishment. My character's are entitled to a certain standard of living."

If normal games are power level X fighting threats of X/2 then playing a game of level Y fighting threats of Y/2 is not inherently worse. You may not like this style of game and that is perfectly fine, I would never have you as a player. However if I run a game like that it isn't.... (shall I say the word? Okay I will). badwrongfun.

No, the point is that the $3 were used to buy an air conditioner. But since you banned them, you shortened the amount of money to cover expenses. Now the party still needs to go into the desert, but has no AC. So they need to get large ice blocks and other cooling equipment. This additional equipment they have to pay from the $7 you still give them. This results in having them not invest as much in the normal equipment as usual. So effectively you expect them to pay from $7 the same amount of equipment (or rather, equipment capable of dealing with the same effects) as before, where you previously provided $10. That is what the punishment is referring to.

[dascarletm]

The point is not that adventures with timelines are impossible. The point is that only a subset of the previously working timeline adventures remain viable. That's not inherently bad, but has to be acknowledged in some way.

Well no, a different set of timeline adventures now work. An infinite theoretical amount of durations could possibly exist. Due to the character's abilities you then narrow it to a range. If their abilities shift so does that range. It is effectively the same as before, the DM still has to do the same thing he/she did before.

No, the point is that the $3 were used to buy an air conditioner. But since you banned them, you shortened the amount of money to cover expenses. Now the party still needs to go into the desert, but has no AC. So they need to get large ice blocks and other cooling equipment. This additional equipment they have to pay from the $7 you still give them. This results in having them not invest as much in the normal equipment as usual. So effectively you expect them to pay from $7 the same amount of equipment (or rather, equipment capable of dealing with the same effects) as before, where you previously provided $10. That is what the punishment is referring to.

I never once said that I would throw the same challenges at them. However your world-view on what is or is not punishment is not compatible with mine. You see the $10 as inherent. If it is not given then I am taking away from you. Instead, I see it as not inherent. I don't see the point of debating this. We fundamentally view the world differently.

EDIT: This translates to game assumptions. I don't believe I'm entitled to anything going into a game.

[EldritchWeaver]

Well no, a different set of timeline adventures now work. An infinite theoretical amount of durations could possibly exist. Due to the character's abilities you then narrow it to a range. If their abilities shift so does that range. It is effectively the same as before, the DM still has to do the same thing he/she did before.

If that different set is a subset or merely overlaps or has no overlap at all to the original set, does not matter. It only matters that the new set != original set. And there we agree.

I never once said that I would throw the same challenges at them. However your world-view on what is or is not punishment is not compatible with mine. You see the $10 as inherent. If it is not given then I am taking away from you. Instead, I see it as not inherent. I don't see the point of debating this. We fundamentally view the world differently.

EDIT: This translates to game assumptions. I don't believe I'm entitled to anything going into a game.

Actually, if you say "Let's play D&D!", then this translates into certain expectations. One of them are the $10 to spend. If you say "My D&D has no casters and you get only $7!", then people still compare the game to the original game and can rightly complain about the missing $3. If you instead say "I'm only using base mechanics, because that's what we are familiar with, but I've completely rebalanced it to make it work without casters!", then it is understandable that this a work of its own and merely getting $7 is exactly the amount a player needs.

So if you are giving not enough value, depends on what the hypothetical player's point of view is - yours or mine.