The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Cluedrew]

So I think caster/martial disparity does exist. I'm not going to pin down exactly what it is here or how much of a problem it is in a given system. I have had long decisions about that and more on the subject already. But there is one thing that I can't ever remember coming up directly. That is how do the base rules of a system, not even getting into the caster or martial particular rules, effect caster/martial disparity?

(By the way, "the man" means "the system" or here base rules. I'm not sure how common that saying is.)

As you might of guessed, I think the answer is they actually hinder the martial. Before I get into the reasons as to why, let me explain my analysis. First I am assuming the caster and martial are supposed to be equal. If a caster vs. a martial army is the balance point or martial heroes are supported by caster fortune-tellers, then we would have to look at this from a different perspective. Second I am comparing conceptual vs. mechanical and seeing how the two archetypes are effect by that conversion. The conceptual character, whether they be a martial or a caster, is the one as laid out in gene (or just system) fiction. The mechanical character is the one in play, how is that concept filtered through the rules and the result. Third I am just looking at the basic rules and how they slant things. It is entirely possible to put special rules in place or tweak the numbers to compensate for what I talking about here.

Now, let's get down to the rules systems that effect caster/martial disparity:

• HP: Starting high, the representation of health can sway the matter. HP is any system that uses two numbers, maximum and current. Current hitting 0 is significant and few other totals are nearly as significant if any. Also the maximum can usually vary widely.
  
  • Status Conditions: Dead might be the strongest debuff, but if the others are easy to inflict they can really change the flow of battle. And casters usually get way more ability to inflict them.
  • Burst vs DPS: Casters tend to burst and martials tend to strike repeatedly. When combat revolves around reaching a certain total, this can go either way. If casters can burst down entire HP bars then it favours them. If casters cannot then the steady damage of a martial is better.
  • 100% at 2%: Following again from the fact you don't weaken as you take damage. Characters who strike quickly (and hence first) suffer for this a bit. But one group that really beliefs from this are those who thematically take a lot of hits and keep on fighting. So this one is in favour of the martial characters.
  • Save-or-Dies: Not actually a base rule or effect but I had to call this out. Being turned to stone is lethal yes, but so is having your head chopped off with a sword. Its the same thing and whatever abstraction you are using to represent an attack, stick with it please, don't let certain abilities skip the hole process.
• Turn Based Combat: While mechanically simple dividing time into slices and then ordering everything within that slice (possibly rearranging the actual order of each event) is a very significant change from reality. The effects are strongest in one turn per character per round systems, weakens a bit with variable numbers of turns and more with off-turn actions.
  
  • No Reflexes: Actually the main reason, the others are sort of special cases of this one idea. Characters cannot react freely to what other characters are doing. Even if you are single step from cover, you cannot dive into it as someone lines a shot up at you. This is recovered in part by defensive dodge roles and other abstractions, but still the ones that suffer for it the most are those who are supposed to act and react quickly.
  • Locked In Place: This one I have to explain by metaphor. Imagine a system that uses square-grid based combat and characters can restrict movement in spaces adjacent to their own. How does a single character defend a four space wide hallway? Casters have various spells that might help, a martial has to turn around and chase the enemies that just ran by.
  • No Interruptions: No matter how big and awkward what your doing is, if it can be done in one turn no one can get in the way. Martial who use range weapons benefit from this, but casters even more so. The rules that try to patch this gap tend to be a lot more generous than the more realistic answer of "sorry".
• Exception Based Abilities: This one is not even a rule, but a form of organization. Games whose rules are all written at once can account for every option, ones with expanding generally allow exceptions to override the base rules. The simpler your base and the more exceptions you have the more these apply.
  
  • Counters Not Included: When a special rule is given to a character, it is generally for that character to use. What are not included are the things other characters would need to counter that. Meaning that characters with complex special rules can leave others in a position where they just have to hope they can take it, with little or no ability to proactively counter the ability.
  • Scaling Core: On the opposite end, if the base doesn't scale very well than those who rely on it will fall behind. A simple example is a skill system that as you improve gives you better chances of success and nothing else. That is it never opens up new options and then it becomes a matter of: is a maxed out chance of success at something everyone can do match a special ability only a few can do? In my experience, no.

And that is what I have. If I had to summarize the whole section it would be: you can't just slap on special cases to get what you want. The base rules need to be designed with what you are going for as well. So if you want casters and martials to be on equal footing, the system should be designed for that as well.

[Willie the Duck]

Nothing here is wrong, I'm just not seeing a primary argument. Is this just a running tally of ways you think different parts of game system architecture work to the magic user's benefit, compared to a martial?

On a second note, the thread title seems too confrontational compared to the actual meat of your position. Everyone has read entirely too many 'why can't martials ever get any love?'-style threads (usually bringing up the valid statement that martials are often given short shrift in TTRPGs, but also often just whining about this fact), and frankly that's what I thought this was going to be. A more restrained thread title might serve your purposes better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even before any of that, I think you need to look at the basic ideas of the game. Does your setting encourage warrior/mage disparity? If you start with the swords-and-sorcery ideal of the brave warrior triumphing over the evil mage through grit and willpower, it's almost inevitable that your rules will come down in favor of magic-- the underlying assumption is that wizards are powerful and fighters are the underdogs. Like, the best example of caster/martial equality in a crunchy system I can think of is Exalted, which is built from the assumption that you're a demigod who can leap tall buildings in a single bound, mind-control crowds with a single speech, and teach your pet dog to breathe fire because you're Just That Good. It's a lot easier to balance spells against a baseline like that than it is when your base is Conan.

[Max_Killjoy]

Even before any of that, I think you need to look at the basic ideas of the game. Does your setting encourage warrior/mage disparity? If you start with the swords-and-sorcery ideal of the brave warrior triumphing over the evil mage through grit and willpower, it's almost inevitable that your rules will come down in favor of magic-- the underlying assumption is that wizards are powerful and fighters are the underdogs. Like, the best example of caster/martial equality in a crunchy system I can think of is Exalted, which is built from the assumption that you're a demigod who can leap tall buildings in a single bound, mind-control crowds with a single speech, and teach your pet dog to breathe fire because you're Just That Good. It's a lot easier to balance spells against a baseline like that than it is when your base is Conan.

On the flip side, it also matters what you want magic to be able to do in the setting. When healing, small buffs and nerfs, daily-life utility effects, and basic attacks that aren't much more dangerous than weapons are for the most part the extent of the magic most characters (including PCs) will ever get, then your "martial" characters aren't outclassed.

The problem comes when there's a disparity between what the two can accomplish.

[Cluedrew]

On the Primary Argument: Maybe I should have opened with it as well, but it is roughly: Consider and design/choose core rules that support your final vision. With a focus on how this shows up in caster/martial disparity because that is how I got there and because I am on a constant quest to figure out why caster/martial disparity is not a solved problem.

On the Thread Title: I guess it seems a bit charged. I should probably also try to focus on the general take away as well. "A Discussion of How Core Rules have Unintended Consequences on Caster/Martial Balance" feels a bit unwieldy though. Any ideas?

On Setting Concept: I'm assuming action fantasy, which is what I have dubbed the more modern fantasy often seen in games where physical and mystic powers are seen on both sides. Although often in different forms (knights vs. assassins, healers vs. necromancers). I think it is prominent in games because it opens up more play options. And most of the time those options are supposed to be similar in power. (So Grod_The_Giant: You are right but I feel like the gene has shifted over the years.)

On Underdogs: In my experience, underdog doesn't mean "well and truly inferior" but "disadvantaged background", "an underestimated strength" or sometimes as little as "an unexpected demographic". I mean there are stories where the hero wins against all odds, but usually I find the odds actually were in there favour the whole time, it just didn't look like it at first. But then I consider the willingness to work hard and the determination to push through as kinds of strength.

[Gallowglass]

So I think caster/martial disparity does exist.
...
Now, let's get down to the rules systems that effect caster/martial disparity:
...

So, okay, what are your solutions? That would be far more interesting and worthwhile that posting a comprehensive list of what everyone already knows.

First, you are obviously talking about some flavor of D&D because other systems don't have the same problems.
You didn't post it in a particular D&D Subforum so I can only guess what version you play.

I exclusively play 3.5/Pathfinder. (I'm going to guess that you are talking 5e) which means any answers I give will be useless to you.

For example, on of your problem areas is "Turn Based Combat: No Interruptions." But my version of D&D/Pathfinder has readied actions which, my tables, interpret to mean "If you ready an action to trigger on 'enemy starts doing this...' then your readied action proceeds the completion of their action. (Which, frankly I don't want to talk RAW and RAI here, its the only reasonable reason for the rule to exist. So if you want to respond to this with "you are using readied actions wrong! just... don't.) And it also has Attacks of Opportunity. When 3.0 first came out and replace 2e, attacks of opportunity where my least favorite addtion/change. They were so messy. But over the years, as I came to understand and embrace them, now I sometimes build entire chassis around using AoO effectively.

So there IS a built in action to allow counter-spelling and interrupting casting and moving to guard a 15' hallway. Its needlessly cumbersome, but its there. It could certainly be IMPROVED, but doing so would require modifying some core mechanics and probably isnt' worth it.

I'm -told- that 5e doesn't allow this which, okay, I don't know that for sure, as I've only played one session of 5e like three years ago. So that's why I assume you are talking 5e.

So, long story medium, I agree with your contention. All flavors of D&D have mechanics that service the needs of the caster over the martial.

This is because spell-casting was strapped on top of the martial combat system so it has poor interaction with it.

But, in my opinion, the REAL disparity isn't one you have listed. The real disparity is that the Caster gets a wide variety of spells that affect the OTHER systems outside of combat. They trivialize the skill-system, they trivialize the social system, they trivialize the making money systems, they trivialize all the other systems. And the spells interaction with those simpler and less structured subsystem is even greater and more devastating that their effect on combat.

[Telok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be primarialy about thr WotC d20 D&Ds and the variants of them.

Most supers RPGs don't seem to have most/any of these issues. The Warhammer and Storyteller systems don't fit this. While I haven't played ShadowRun since 3e it doesn't seem to fit (except maybe some of the stuff with spirits). Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu are strongly themed to have magic users as almost exclusively opponent NPCs.

I don't recall these being an issue with early era AD&D, but I do think some items were appearing in a couple of the later AD&D games I played.

[Willie the Duck]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be primarialy about thr WotC d20 D&Ds and the variants of them.

Most supers RPGs don't seem to have most/any of these issues. The Warhammer and Storyteller systems don't fit this. While I haven't played ShadowRun since 3e it doesn't seem to fit (except maybe some of the stuff with spirits). Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu are strongly themed to have magic users as almost exclusively opponent NPCs.

I don't recall these being an issue with early era AD&D, but I do think some items were appearing in a couple of the later AD&D games I played.

There are definitely a few assumptions that probably are best to be declared. First and foremost, any game where all the players or none of the players are powerful magic users probably isn't a good fit for the situation (if you are playing Knights of the Round Table, and Merlin is a DMPC there to give you your quest, and Morgan Le Fay is the primary villain, than magic-martial disparity is part of the challenge, likewise the thrilling adventures of Merlin, Gandalf, and Dr. Strange also will not see a problem). Further, magic has to be able to do something that non-magic can't do (if comic book superhero character Ghostboy can walk through walls, but Impossible man can just punch through it, well then one effect being 'magic' is a distinction without consequence. CoC*, Superheroes games/Exalted, Storyteller**, and the like mostly fall into these categories.
*where you could theoretically play someone who knew spells, but given the SAN cost, you rarely, if ever, ended up actually doing so.
**where everyone in a given game was effectively the same level of 'mage'-ness

The TSR-D&D/Shadowrun/Warhammer situation is certainly a better example of having done the balance better than WotC-D&D, despite theoretically facing the same issues. In these cases, each decision has an opportunity cost. Shadowrun Mages give up a very real amount of build resources to get powers which are... nice, but do not overshadow guns or cyberclaws. AD&D wizards can do things that fighters can't... once or twice a day*, and that limitation has some actual teeth to it.
*plus, given how much of a fighter's actual power is more favorable from the magic item charts, the fighter may well have a magic sword which lets him cast those spells too

Mind you, particularly with TSR-era D&D, these issues could become problems, particularly at high levels and/or if you started poking at things/modifying things (such that some of the magic user constraints were lessoned), and people did that all the time. So you absolutely could see these problems with pre-WotC D&D, and many people did.

[Khedrac]

For a lot of these, I think it is less the concept but more the implementation tha provides the disparity.

For example:

• Save-or-Dies: Not actually a base rule or effect but I had to call this out. Being turned to stone is lethal yes, but so is having your head chopped off with a sword. Its the same thing and whatever abstraction you are using to represent an attack, stick with it please, don't let certain abilities skip the hole process.

These don't inherently favour casters over martials, it's down to implementation.
Take (A)D&D
In 1st/2nd Ed/BECMI saving throws fall as levels increase so high level targets of spells very rarely fail them (1 in 20) - in general Save or Die spells are a mistake in combat unless you have nothing else useful to do - a damage spell will at least do somethng when they make their save while most save or dies did nothing.
In 3/3.5 Ed saving throws increase, but it is usually possible for casters to push the difficulty of the saving throw up faster than the save. Even if they keep pace, spells usually have a 50% chance of working - much better than 1 in 20. As a result save-or-die effects have a much bigger impact on game play and caster/martial disparity.

RoleMaster (and MERP) criticals are another example of "process shortcuts" as you call them (*nice term*) - they apply equally to maritals and casters, but it could be easier for martials to push their attack skills to get the criticals in the first place. That said, I think the balance was reasonable, but the spiky nature of fumble and criticals could badly upset expected combat results without causing disparity.

[Cluedrew]

On System: I have seen these in D&D 3.X and 5 and that is the only place I have seen all of them together. Systems with more symmetric ability design tend to avoid the worst aspects of exception based approach, both because those would be evenly distributed and because they tend not to stratify the rules in the same way. Systems that use more fluid action rules, or even through them out and let people do things in the order you think they should happen avoid problem with turn order and so on.

On Solutions: I love solving problems. I haven't said too much about it here because of a few reasons. First let me understand the problem, which includes hearing other people's opinions on the matter. Next these things are only problems if the consequences are unintended and uncompensated. You can run with these things or you can use other rules to account for their effects. I do take the final option in my own system, which is to replace these rules with others.

The health system is not quite pinned down, but currently it has a fix sized track and I am looking into negative modifiers for pain. I go with a narrative initiative system (whoever would go next does) and use similar rules for interruptions. I have an symmetric skill system that consumes almost the entire rule set that is more modular than exception based (which might just come down to knowing the exceptions ahead of time). System is still under development, but there are plenty of complete systems out there that have solved this problem.

And I've been a bit distracted while writing this post so some new posts have slipped in and I generally agree with them. Yes, even Khedrac saying that this isn't the major issue. Its just that has been covered again and again and I don't think this has been covered at all.

[Arbane]

Most supers RPGs don't seem to have most/any of these issues.

It can be a problem - quite a few supers systems let you define magic (or shapeshifting, or a green power ring) as a 'do anything' power that you can re-allocate as needed. This usually costs massively more than other characters' pre-set powers so it balances reasonably well, but it still offers all sorts of opportunities to break the plot if you're creative with it.

[Quertus]

[*]Save-or-Dies: Not actually a base rule or effect but I had to call this out. Being turned to stone is lethal yes, but so is having your head chopped off with a sword. Its the same thing and whatever abstraction you are using to represent an attack, stick with it please, don't let certain abilities skip the hole process.[/

So, hmmm... I disagree with a number of your assertions. We'll take them one at a time, but let's start with the one above, because I disagree with it the most.

MtG is an awesome game because of the diversity of the play experience. Yes, by default, your opponent has 20 life, and your goal is to remove those 20 life. But you can also beat them by giving them 10 poison counters. Or having them draw from an empty deck. Or various "I win / you lose" cards. And that's ignoring the massive number of ways to facilitate the struggle, from resources to resource denial to battlefield manipulation to...

Torpedoing Role-playing doesn't stop when dice come out. I'm happy with my friends playing tactical basketball simulator. But, while they're doing that, I'm playing highschool drama. In other words, the easiest way to ensure that everyone has fun, everyone feels that they have a role to play, is to allow multiple vectors of fun simultaneously.

This sentiment that you express, that games should be samey and one-dimensional? I am strongly opposed to it. Queue jab at 4e.

The greatest advantage of an RPG over a cRPG… is open to debate*, granted, but I'll contend that is the ability to "rule 0" - to create rules on the fly for things that aren't covered by the rules.

When you've limited progress to a single dimension, it's simply a question how far along the progress bar a given action will take you. Even 4e wasn't that one-dimensional!

Or, let's look at Battletech. Sure, on the surface, it looks a lot like "dealing damage is the only thing". But, no, you can manipulate damage, heat, positioning, pilot damage, and whether the opposing mech is standing (which affects movement options), and even LoS. And even damage isn't against a pool of HP - big hits are more likely to disable limbs or even kill the pilot in one hit, whereas lots of hits for small damage are better for disabling damaged mechs, while the "best" weapons in the game deal their damage in inefficient, middling quantities. Physical attacks are much more likely to give status effects (like "knocked over" or "pilot dead"), but come at a penalty of occurring after Weapon attacks.

No matter which way you slice it, being able to approach things from multiple vectors is good.

Balance to the table. If your damage is so high that the SoD character never gets a chance to shine, it might be time to tone it back. If the Diplomacer is so bad that every fight actually happens, maybe it's time for them step up their game.

They're is absolutely no problem inherent to multiple vectors to victory (as evidenced by even one let alone multiple popular games which features such). That's my hill to die on.

* Another strong contender, for example, is "spending time IRL with your friends"

[Gallowglass]

With D&D 3.5/P one of the problems it the sheer number of different systems being used in any character. There are so many of them!

Each PC has 8! health pools. The HP health pool, the level health pool, and each attribute is its own health pool. The core combat mechanic shrinks the HP health pool, but there are disparate spells/powers/abilities/items/etc that allow you to focus on the attribute health-pools or level health-pool instead. The HP health pool has NO discernible effect on the usefulness of the character until it is 100% extinguished. The attribute and level health-pools gradually make the character worse as they are extinguished. The HP health pool has a large number of ways to replenish it, the other pools have smaller and more difficult ways to replenish them. In addition the HP health-pool grows quickly as the character levels, but the level health pool only goes up by 1 each level and the attribute health pools only go up VERY slowly, if at all, through a 1 every 4 level addition naturally and using spells and items to increase them on an arbitrary basis. A 20th level character very likely has three or four attribute health pools that are the exact same as they were when they were 1st level! And the other ones are likely only 1.5 to 2x what they were at level 1. Whereas the level Health pool is 20x what it was and the HP health pool is likely also nearly 20x what it was.

Even the most basic level of optimization tells you that it's far more effective to concentrate on the non-HP health pools. The caster has a large number of spells and abilities to do so in core. The martial really doesn't in core. This is because, when the combat system was designed, it ONLY used the HP health-pool. When spells were strapped on top of the combat system, they used these alternate effects to give it flavor and increase the options of the spellcaster. There's a reason why when you add ToB, SoM, and PoW, so many of the new abilities they add to the martial shift their focus to the alternate health pools.

Then you have defense! Each PC has >8! defenses. The Core combat defense is AC, but they have multiple flavors of AC for situational purposes. Touch AC, Flatfooted AC. AC is more fluid than offensive numbers. Then you have three saving throws as alternate defenses. Then you have SR and DR. Then you add on top abilities/features and spells that have negating or modifying effects on attacks against you. Once again, the martial, in core, really only attacks against AC and DR. The caster, on the other hand, can target whatever defense they want to and tend to go for whatever they think is the weakest defense. There's a reason why, when you add ToB, SoM and PoW, so many of the new abilities they add to the martial shift their focus to the alternate defenses.

So, your end goal is to -fix- the core mechanic to "fix" the disparity between the martial and the caster? I don't know how to do it, but I would start the thought exercise by simplifying. And then when you build it back up keep the core mechanic with a simple rule.

For every health pool, both the martial and caster have to have equal access to build toward aiming at each health pool

For every defense, both the martial and caster have to have equal access to build toward aiming at each defense.

That doesn't mean every character has to have the ability to target each defense and health pool, just that they have access to abilities that can while building their characters. You can build broadly to try and have something that will work for each defense and health pool, or you can specialize to only have something for a couple defenses and health pools but be much better at it.

Right now, the martial is forced to default to "really good at the one defense and health pool" with no ability to chose differently. The caster OTOH can choose to be "really good at ANY one defense and health pool" or "moderately good at all defenses and health pools." Hence the disparity.

And this is ONLY in combat. I'm just touching on doing damage and mitigating damage. You have a nearly endless number of non-combat minigames involved as well. Most use Skill-checks. Once again, the Martial has no features other than adding points as they level. But the Caster has access to spells and features that greatly alter the skill mini-games making them largely breakable with ease. Or bypassable.

This is a much harder nut to crack and one I'm not ready to take a stab at right now. But you should add it to your list.

[Kaptin Keen]

I have a ... sliver of a fix in my games: Barbarians can activate Rage to trigger a reroll, including all bonuses, against any status effects affecting them. It's a bit academic - no one plays a barbarian - but it does make Barbarians interesting wizard counters, in a way that's safisfyingly Conan-esque.

It's by no means Die Endlösung to the disparity - just a small fix that makes mages slightly unsure of themselves around big, hairy men in loincloths.

[Jama7301]

So, hmmm... I disagree with a number of your assertions. We'll take them one at a time, but let's start with the one above, because I disagree with it the most.

MtG is an awesome game because of the diversity of the play experience. Yes, by default, your opponent has 20 life, and your goal is to remove those 20 life. But you can also beat them by giving them 10 poison counters. Or having them draw from an empty deck. Or various "I win / you lose" cards. And that's ignoring the massive number of ways to facilitate the struggle, from resources to resource denial to battlefield manipulation to...

But most decks do regular damage + one gimmick. Infect decks aren't going to deal poison counters AND Mill you out AND get their damage through Graveyard Manipulation AND Counter you so you don't get to play, while still being a playable deck. In that game, if you try to generalize like that, you're deck is going to be massive, or not be very good at any one thing.

Variety of play is great! When one type of player gets to have most of the variety though, that's not great. Wizards are like a Magic the Gathering deck that touch on all sorts of gimmicks at minimal cost.

[Potato_Priest]

As far as the setting keeping the martials down goes, here is an excellent explanation of why it happens by Necroticplague. I have linked the post because I can't quote it directly.

I always thought the problem was that the two are held to different standards because of the types of characters they were based off of. Martials are based off of characters like Aragon, Conan, Batman, King Arthur: people who the stories center around, the protagonists. Their abilities get well-explored, and are always challenged, to provide a sense of tension. Meanwhile, mages tend to be based around Merlin, Gandalf, Saruman: people who basically act as just living plot devices, and are typically absent much of the story. They're DEM-lites, essentially. Giving that poorly-defined plot-device abilities into hands of those who aren't fettered by the same narrative shackles drastically changes things. Stuff goes from "every once in a while, when I've written myself into a corner" to "constantly, as is convenient".

That's why I beleive martials are shackled by having SOME kind of ceiling to struggle against, while mages get a free pass. Martials are the heroes who must overcome adversity, wizards are the walking DEMs who don't have limits so they can do anything to move the plot forward.

[Cazero]

TFurther, magic has to be able to do something that non-magic can't do (if comic book superhero character Ghostboy can walk through walls, but Impossible man can just punch through it, well then one effect being 'magic' is a distinction without consequence.

There are many very obvious consequences in having to break a wall to go through it, stealth factor and enabling enemy mobility to name only two.
In fact, every variance of method will create differences in outcome that may not matter in most cases, but invariably open or close options in specific circumstances. I wouldn't call something that can radically change every event going forward "a distinction without consequence".

[Willie the Duck]

There are many very obvious consequences in having to break a wall to go through it, stealth factor and enabling enemy mobility to name only two.
In fact, every variance of method will create differences in outcome that may not matter in most cases, but invariably open or close options in specific circumstances. I wouldn't call something that can radically change every event going forward "a distinction without consequence".

Well, since you point out a consequence, it's clear that it is an imperfect example. I made it mostly for expediency. That larger point, however, is that magic has to actually be different, or else it is just flavor and the distinction is academic. In a superhero game, it might matter that character A uses magic ghost powers to get through a wall while B blows it away (particularly if someone has some kind of ghost-zapping countermeasures), however, in a typical D&D-like game, a sufficiently resilient wall during a dungeoncrawl is effectively impenetrable to a martial character*, while a wizard with a passwall or insubstantiality effect can get by it (and one of the more valid critiques of the martial/nonmartial divide in all D&D, not just 3e or the like).
*yes, yes, hours upon hours with hammers, chisels, and pickaxes. Sometimes we're talking practical limitations, not absolute ones.

[Cazero]

Well, since you point out a consequence, it's clear that it is an imperfect example. I made it mostly for expediency. That larger point, however, is that magic has to actually be different, or else it is just flavor and the distinction is academic.

Being a magical mean is a difference in itself. Even ignoring the unavoidable differences of how your choice of method impacted the physical world, flavor is enough to empower flavor-targetting countermeasures.
And if you care at all about balance, you can trivially spread around the availability of those countermeasure in a proper gamist way, for example with backstabbing ignoring most magical protections (basically rock-paper-scissors with Rogue->Wizard->Fighter->Rogue), or allowing everyone to punch caster in the mouth while they're trying to speak words of power based on raw combat prowess (where wizards have range advantage but are helpless if fighters can reach melee).

[Cluedrew]

So, hmmm... I disagree with a number of your assertions. We'll take them one at a time, but let's start with the one above, because I disagree with it the most.

And I look forward to hearing them all. But for now I will focus on save-or-dies and your objections from this post:

• In the rich context of an role-playing game where characters can interact on a social or economic level as well as a physical one, where I can build buildings, sail ships, cook meals or (countless other options), how many different ways of "kill someone in direct combat" do we need? Magic: The Gathering is always about two planeswalkers fighting. What if the same match you could end up teamed up against a world eater or you could spend some solo time rehabilitating an island after a foe made a volcano go off to destroy some mage allies that were stationed there? I mean it doesn't but if it could I would hope it would develop those a bit more.
• I think the binary nature of save-or-dies also makes them less interesting. It either works or it doesn't. Is there a Magic: The Gathering card that reads "Roll a die, on a six you win." I doubt it, you can't progress towards that goal nor can your opponent do much to counter it. (I mean there are mana pool and counter spell things, but that is a still a lot less than what interacts with creature cards. Like how you can buff or nerf the defences the save-or-die is targeting, but healing and damage accumulation and others give a lot more options around HP damage.)
• There is also a concern with the "ability to prevent getting hurt" interpretation of HP (don't get Hit Points vs. Health Points). I already think it is one of the weaker views on the HP abstraction, but this does even worse because it ignores your reserved ability to dodge and just its you fatally anyways.
• For the caster/martial discussion the only really important distinction is what abilities are treated this way and who gets them. Usually it works out to spells and casters.

With D&D 3.5/P one of the problems it the sheer number of different systems being used in any character. There are so many of them!

Each PC has 8! health pools.

I hadn't even thought about that. Oddly I think of my three main points at the front of the thread it has more do with exceptions than health. Mostly because individual exceptions have built up to produce these new sub-systems that are not part of the base system and hence the characters who interact with the base system are comparatively venerable to them. Although it seems like they tried to patch it back into the base system by giving everyone the appropriate special abilities? I haven't actually read all of those books you mentioned.

[Willie the Duck]

Being a magical mean is a difference in itself. Even ignoring the unavoidable differences of how your choice of method impacted the physical world, flavor is enough to empower flavor-targetting countermeasures.

Um, okay. I'm not sure where your going with this that meaningfully interacts with my points. I think we're in agreement that [magic] can simply be a flag that you can attach to an effect that only really signifies that 'anti-[magic]' effects can target it. That's a real, but minor issue.

And if you care at all about balance, you can trivially spread around the availability of those countermeasure in a proper gamist way, for example with backstabbing ignoring most magical protections (basically rock-paper-scissors with Rogue->Wizard->Fighter->Rogue), or allowing everyone to punch caster in the mouth while they're trying to speak words of power based on raw combat prowess (where wizards have range advantage but are helpless if fighters can reach melee).

Oh sure. If you want mages and martials (let's keep it to 2 categories, for simplicities sake) to be able to do that same basic categories of activities, but also have differences in implementations, these are certainly ways to do it. The primary distinction is that magic users can do so with more punch, less chance of failure (spider climb, for instance, always works unless countermanded, whereas a martial might have to make a climbing check), but only a limited number of times per day, and with some serious limitations like spell disruption. Those are ways of keeping the differences distinct, even if magic and non-magic mostly can do the same things. That is a distinct grouping from what I was discussing, however, so again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with this.

I will focus on save-or-dies and your objections from this post:
[LIST][*]In the rich context of an role-playing game where characters can interact on a social or economic level as well as a physical one, where I can build buildings, sail ships, cook meals or (countless other options), how many different ways of "kill someone in direct combat" do we need? Magic: The Gathering is always about two planeswalkers fighting. What if the same match you could end up teamed up against a world eater or you could spend some solo time rehabilitating an island after a foe made a volcano go off to destroy some mage allies that were stationed there? I mean it doesn't but if it could I would hope it would develop those a bit more.

You don't really need much of any. Honestly, having both armor class and hit points themselves aren't strictly needed and didn't exist (much) in Chainmail or the early forms of Arneson proto-D&D. It is simply a pacing mechanism designed to add a slight continuum between 'perfect' and 'on the casualty list.' On some level, there is an assumption in these games that people want to engage in a somewhat complex combat system. Although that has changed, where skill-based and narrative games make combat not-necessarily any more interesting than any other resolution-events in the game. Still, complex combat rules don't need to be complex because you can also cook meals seems like kind of a non sequitor answer - one does not mean much in relation to the other, although yes good that you can do both in a TTRPG, whereas MtG only needs one of those options.

I think the binary nature of save-or-dies also makes them less interesting. It either works or it doesn't.

I kind of agree with this. Binary effects can be an issue. Especially if the same basic mechanic is used as things with a less binary outcome. I think that's why, as WotC D&D moved from 3 to 4 to 5e, they started making save-or- effect much more like to-hit effects (you were likely to fail vs an individual effect, but that's okay since the consequence was more limited, and/or you would have more chances to roll to shake off the effect. TSR-era 'save-or-___' effects has a real problem in that they were often 'save-or-lose/die' and thus, to be balanced, you had to almost not be able to fail them by the time they regularly showed up. Unfortunately, a 5% chance of die/lose is still quite the wrench in the gameplay gears, and a lot of countermeasures/take-backs then had to come into play. I don't think a true resolution really congealed by the time the design ethos changed, although it would be interesting to find a game that went 100% in that direction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I totally agree about Save or Die effects being a problem for balance. They're also (in my opinion) not very fun--either you're immune (in which case they're a waste) or you die. Wheeee!

The 5e developers agree with me. There just really aren't that many SoD spells in the game--the only four I could find are as follows:

Divine Word (7th level cleric): only kills if they fail a save and have less than 20 HP. So you need to whittle them down quite a ways or for them to be chaff. Great way to kill hordes of goblins though.

Magic Jar (6th wizard): Doesn't really kill, but effectively has that effect. Leaves the caster quite vulnerable, however. Humanoids only.

Power Word: Kill (9th Arcane). Has no effect when they're over 100 HP. No save if they're under that, however. But you only get 1 9th level slot per day. And most things at that point have more than 100 HP at full health. Great for taking down a wounded boss, but can't just straight bypass HP entirely.

Flesh to Stone (6th Wizard) Requires 3 failed saves before 3 successful ones, with what's normally a very strong save (CON). Also, if they pass their first save they're completely unaffected. Also concentration, so limits what else you can do.

There are a lot of strong crowd control spells, but they're harder to pump your DC for (basically impossible outside of a couple items) and still require someone to do HP damage. And they're mostly concentration, which limits you a lot.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D still suffers from having a little mini-mechanic tacked on for each new thing, in a way, though less so than some previous editions. I tried to get into this in another thread recently, but really what's needed is a standardized system of some kind for all the possible effects, with resistance and defense and such, rather than a hodgepodge of HP, levels, Ability score "damage", saves that don't always do the same thing, etc.

Binary effects really are a problem, whether they're "save or suck", "save or die", "save or suffer", or whatever.

Compare all the "make this save or be mentally affected" spells and powers in D&D, where there's no gradation of impact or effect, to a system where a mental attacker needs to wear down the target's Willpower/Determination/Whatever, and/or gets degrees of effect based on how much they overcome the target's resistance by.

At least then non-magic-using characters could still somehow gain higher resistances to a lot of magical effects, and be on a more level playing field in that regard.

[Quertus]

With D&D 3.5/P one of the problems it the sheer number of different systems being used in any character. There are so many of them!

Each PC has 8! health pools. The HP health pool, the level health pool, and each attribute is its own health pool. The core combat mechanic shrinks the HP health pool, but there are disparate spells/powers/abilities/items/etc that allow you to focus on the attribute health-pools or level health-pool instead. The HP health pool has NO discernible effect on the usefulness of the character until it is 100% extinguished. The attribute and level health-pools gradually make the character worse as they are extinguished. The HP health pool has a large number of ways to replenish it, the other pools have smaller and more difficult ways to replenish them. In addition the HP health-pool grows quickly as the character levels, but the level health pool only goes up by 1 each level and the attribute health pools only go up VERY slowly, if at all, through a 1 every 4 level addition naturally and using spells and items to increase them on an arbitrary basis. A 20th level character very likely has three or four attribute health pools that are the exact same as they were when they were 1st level! And the other ones are likely only 1.5 to 2x what they were at level 1. Whereas the level Health pool is 20x what it was and the HP health pool is likely also nearly 20x what it was.

Even the most basic level of optimization tells you that it's far more effective to concentrate on the non-HP health pools. The caster has a large number of spells and abilities to do so in core. The martial really doesn't in core. This is because, when the combat system was designed, it ONLY used the HP health-pool. When spells were strapped on top of the combat system, they used these alternate effects to give it flavor and increase the options of the spellcaster. There's a reason why when you add ToB, SoM, and PoW, so many of the new abilities they add to the martial shift their focus to the alternate health pools.

Then you have defense! Each PC has >8! defenses. The Core combat defense is AC, but they have multiple flavors of AC for situational purposes. Touch AC, Flatfooted AC. AC is more fluid than offensive numbers. Then you have three saving throws as alternate defenses. Then you have SR and DR. Then you add on top abilities/features and spells that have negating or modifying effects on attacks against you. Once again, the martial, in core, really only attacks against AC and DR. The caster, on the other hand, can target whatever defense they want to and tend to go for whatever they think is the weakest defense. There's a reason why, when you add ToB, SoM and PoW, so many of the new abilities they add to the martial shift their focus to the alternate defenses.

So, your end goal is to -fix- the core mechanic to "fix" the disparity between the martial and the caster? I don't know how to do it, but I would start the thought exercise by simplifying. And then when you build it back up keep the core mechanic with a simple rule.

For every health pool, both the martial and caster have to have equal access to build toward aiming at each health pool

For every defense, both the martial and caster have to have equal access to build toward aiming at each defense.

That doesn't mean every character has to have the ability to target each defense and health pool, just that they have access to abilities that can while building their characters. You can build broadly to try and have something that will work for each defense and health pool, or you can specialize to only have something for a couple defenses and health pools but be much better at it.

Right now, the martial is forced to default to "really good at the one defense and health pool" with no ability to chose differently. The caster OTOH can choose to be "really good at ANY one defense and health pool" or "moderately good at all defenses and health pools." Hence the disparity.

And this is ONLY in combat. I'm just touching on doing damage and mitigating damage. You have a nearly endless number of non-combat minigames involved as well. Most use Skill-checks. Once again, the Martial has no features other than adding points as they level. But the Caster has access to spells and features that greatly alter the skill mini-games making them largely breakable with ease. Or bypassable.

This is a much harder nut to crack and one I'm not ready to take a stab at right now. But you should add it to your list.

There are several errors here.

First, HP and level scale at approximately the same rate.

Second, the most basic *accurate* level of optimization would tell you to evaluate damage vs health. If your average foe had 5 Int and 20 Str, would you attack Int? What if you dealt 10 Str damage, but only 1 Int damage?

Similarly, a good DPS Rogue or übercharger build is looking to one-turn kill an ancient dragon. So I'm not seeing the advantage in them targeting a different, smaller stat. Unless it's to let them take out two ancient dragons per round.

Which reminds me - your post is very 3e centric (thus my reply), whereas the OP seemed interested in a more system-agnostic discussion.

But, if we are discussing 3e, encounters can also be "defeated" through things which do not target any those 8 defenses, including diplomacy, turn undead, Rod of Construct Control, suffocation, starvation, or even oddball solutions like outliving your opponent, or healing them death.

Lastly, all this talks about PCs, not about monsters.

But most decks do regular damage + one gimmick. Infect decks aren't going to deal poison counters AND Mill you out AND get their damage through Graveyard Manipulation AND Counter you so you don't get to play, while still being a playable deck. In that game, if you try to generalize like that, you're deck is going to be massive, or not be very good at any one thing.

Variety of play is great! When one type of player gets to have most of the variety though, that's not great. Wizards are like a Magic the Gathering deck that touch on all sorts of gimmicks at minimal cost.

To continue the analogy, a good 3e übercharger build is like a deck with 20 1-drop win buttons, or 15 copies each of mountain, Lotus, Channel, and Fireball.

Not that comparing MtG to 3e hasn't been fun, bit I think it brings up something missing from the OP: viability of solutions.

I played !not-Diablo, where the Wizard got lots of cool powers, and had to play the minigame of carefully balancing their elements so that they always had something in their hotkeys to affect any given enemy. Whereas the Fighter was much stronger and easier, because their swords just worked.

Turn Undead doesn't work against most opponents. A lot of Wizard spells are going to find foes that are immune. The target is not undead, or is immune fire, or doesn't even have targeted stat. But, once you get to 3.5, a good Fighter build never has to worry about a foe being immune to HP damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a note, I see uberchargers (or other high-op 3e martials) as being basically indistinguishable from a binary save-or-die effect. If it works, the enemy goes away. If it doesn't, you did roughly nothing. In my mind, that very binary nature is a problem.

5e gets around the binary problem by scaling the number of attacks, not the damage per attack (at least as much). So if you miss once, you still can hit normally on the next attack and do something. And except for a paladin doing a full nova, you're unlikely to one-round delete a big enemy. Spells are still a bit too binary for many effects--I'd like to see a lot more "save for half*" non-damage effects. I'd also like to see a lot more acceptance of martials doing amazing things (whether by ability checks or as class features or the like) without spells.

But the big thing is that purely binary effects (especially when that's all you do in a turn) are unfun in my mind.

[Max_Killjoy]

As a note, I see uberchargers (or other high-op 3e martials) as being basically indistinguishable from a binary save-or-die effect. If it works, the enemy goes away. If it doesn't, you did roughly nothing. In my mind, that very binary nature is a problem.

5e gets around the binary problem by scaling the number of attacks, not the damage per attack (at least as much). So if you miss once, you still can hit normally on the next attack and do something. And except for a paladin doing a full nova, you're unlikely to one-round delete a big enemy. Spells are still a bit too binary for many effects--I'd like to see a lot more "save for half*" non-damage effects. I'd also like to see a lot more acceptance of martials doing amazing things (whether by ability checks or as class features or the like) without spells.

But the big thing is that purely binary effects (especially when that's all you do in a turn) are unfun in my mind.

There are a lot of things where "save for half" can't happen, because the way the system (D&D) handles the effect in question is binary. How do you save for a result of half-Charmed, or half-Incapacitated, or half-Paralyzed?

[Cazero]

Um, okay. I'm not sure where your going with this that meaningfully interacts with my points. I think we're in agreement that [magic] can simply be a flag that you can attach to an effect that only really signifies that 'anti-[magic]' effects can target it. That's a real, but minor issue.

An issue? It's a feature. It makes magic feel different without throwing balance in the trash can. Balance doesn't matter one bit when writing a book, but is pretty important when you make a game.
With a system that isn't D&D, you could have a spell like spider climb allowing the mage to use a spellcraft skill instead of an athletics skill for climbing purpose, and it would be a lot more balanced by completely avoiding the issue of non-combat magic having to be ridiculously overpowered to account for them draining spell slots that where precious back when you unlocked the spell but are dirt cheap now that you've gained in power.

Oh sure. If you want mages and martials (let's keep it to 2 categories, for simplicities sake) to be able to do that same basic categories of activities, but also have differences in implementations, these are certainly ways to do it.

I'm not talking about having everyone do the same categories of activities. Verisimilitude of most settings will make a long list of big noes for martials. I'm talking about not making up a large variety of stupidly unbalanced mechanics for one category of activity.
Using magic opens new solutions to every problem. That include solutions to problems where martials can't do a thing. That also include trivializing problems that martials find inherently difficult. But then balance swings back and demands for martials to be highly competitive in categories of activity where magic isn't inherently superior.
You end up with a choice between poor balance, very weak magic, or martials who basicaly are superheroes.

The primary distinction is that magic users can do so with more punch, less chance of failure (spider climb, for instance, always works unless countermanded, whereas a martial might have to make a climbing check), but only a limited number of times per day, and with some serious limitations like spell disruption. Those are ways of keeping the differences distinct, even if magic and non-magic mostly can do the same things. That is a distinct grouping from what I was discussing, however, so again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with this.

I wasn't talking about that. But since you brought it up...
I just don't see how "you can only do the X thing Y times per day" makes this 'flavorful' or 'magical'. Sure, applying that specific limitation to martials generaly feels stupid, but you've just copied the words saying the spell is magical and used them to describe the mechanics used for general spellcasting, and I don't see the point of putting an extra metaphorical coating of [magic] tag on those mechanics.


edit :

There are a lot of things where "save for half" can't happen, because the way the system (D&D) handles the effect in question is binary. How do you save for a result of half-Charmed, or half-Incapacitated, or half-Paralyzed?

With weaker versions of the same conditions. So D&D still not having those weaker conditions is the obvious issue here.

[Gallowglass]

There are several errors here.

First, HP and level scale at approximately the same rate.

Which... I said in my post. I said they both are about 20x greater at 20th level than 1st...

Second, the most basic *accurate* level of optimization would tell you to evaluate damage vs health. If your average foe had 5 Int and 20 Str, would you attack Int? What if you dealt 10 Str damage, but only 1 Int damage?

Similarly, a good DPS Rogue or übercharger build is looking to one-turn kill an ancient dragon. So I'm not seeing the advantage in them targeting a different, smaller stat. Unless it's to let them take out two ancient dragons per round.

Absolutely nothing I said indicated that i would optimize to target stat A if stat B was a better choice. That's something you parsed that was not written by me.

Which reminds me - your post is very 3e centric (thus my reply), whereas the OP seemed interested in a more system-agnostic discussion.

I very clearly stated IN MY POST that his arguement targets D&D in general and implied that he should've posted it in the specific D&D forum he wanted actual advice in, then stated IN MY POST that my opinion would target 3.5/P because that's the system I use

But, if we are discussing 3e, encounters can also be "defeated" through things which do not target any those 8 defenses, including diplomacy, turn undead, Rod of Construct Control, suffocation, starvation, or even oddball solutions like outliving your opponent, or healing them death.

As I, clearly, called out, my post was specifically about attacking health pools and attacking defenses. I neither indicated, nor implied, nor argued that there aren't other ways to defeat encounters. In fact I specifically called out the other hundred or so minigames that would need to be addressed.

[/QUOTE]

Lastly, all this talks about PCs, not about monsters.

So? We're talking about PCs, not monsters.

In short, there are no "errors" as I am giving an opinion of the shortcomings and strengths of a particular system. Actually just one small part of a particular system. My "opinion" is not an "error" and nothing I stated was factually incorrect.

Honestly, Quertus, I get that your only joy on this forum is to be as confrontational and condescending as possible and oppose any viewpoint on the basis of wanting to argue with people, but seriously. At least read the post you respond to?

[Cluedrew]

Still, complex combat rules don't need to be complex because you can also cook meals seems like kind of a non sequitor answer - one does not mean much in relation to the other, although yes good that you can do both in a TTRPG, whereas MtG only needs one of those options.

It is entirely a matter of effort, you can put effort into both areas and that is great too, but you are going to put effort (or rules text) into just one I know which I would prefer. I know it is not a really strong reason, but that is why it was just one in a list.

[Quertus]

[*]In the rich context of an role-playing game where characters can interact on a social or economic level as well as a physical one, where I can build buildings, sail ships, cook meals or (countless other options), how many different ways of "kill someone in direct combat" do we need?

Lots. More than we have. How many creatures does MtG need? Sometimes, WotC wins, and published new creatures that are playable without invalidating / obsoleting old creatures. That's what keeps the game fresh, what all such games should aim for, IMO - continuous publication of equivalent-strength options that feel different at some fundamental level.

I suppose one could go the 4e / point buy route, and let the player fluff it as desired - whether they turned their foe into a lawn ornament, launched them into orbit, froze their brain, or destroyed all of reality, then rebuilt the universe, only without them in it. So, in that case, maybe only 1 save-or-die effect needed.

I do agree, though, that there could be much better, more engaging games built around non-HP effects.

Magic: The Gathering is always about two planeswalkers fighting. What if the same match you could end up teamed up against a world eater or you could spend some solo time rehabilitating an island after a foe made a volcano go off to destroy some mage allies that were stationed there? I mean it doesn't but if it could I would hope it would develop those a bit more.

I mean, I dislike 1-on-1 and hate free for all formats. I much prefer teamwork alla D&D; thus, I gravitate towards 2-headed giant, emperor, or other team MtG formats.

Not quite the variety from 1-on-1 you meant, I'm sure.

[*]I think the binary nature of save-or-dies also makes them less interesting. It either works or it doesn't. Is there a Magic: The Gathering card that reads "Roll a die, on a six you win." I doubt it, you can't progress towards that goal nor can your opponent do much to counter it. (I mean there are mana pool and counter spell things, but that is a still a lot less than what interacts with creature cards. Like how you can buff or nerf the defences the save-or-die is targeting, but healing and damage accumulation and others give a lot more options around HP damage.)

There are numerous not entirely dissimilar spells. My "favorite" is the Jack-in-the-Mox, which provides a random color of mana, or exploded for 5 damage on a 6. I lost 15 life for no mana gained in a single game in a tournament with those.

Coalition Victory was IIRC the original win button, giving you an automatic win if you control a land of each basic land type, and a creature of each color. There are numerous creatures which count or can count as every color, and you can do some land-search, but it's still a "if your deck came together (faster than your opponent killed you), you win!" card.

D&D would be better, IMO, if the other "damage" minigames were both as robust (lots interactions & options) and simple (no effect until you reach 0) as the HP minigame.

[*]For the caster/martial discussion the only really important distinction is what abilities are treated this way and who gets them. Usually it works out to spells and casters.

In 3.0, the Great Cleave Improved Crit Keen Vorpal build had "no save just die" supremacy. The übercharger of either 3.0 or 3.5 certainly isn't bad. Neither is the well-buffed Rogue.

Personally, I would like greater caster/martial equality - both are "at will", both can play as either "I target one thing that 99% of the universe is vulnerable to" and/or "I can target so many different things that surely everyone must be vulnerable to at least one of my tricks".

But the big thing is that purely binary effects (especially when that's all you do in a turn) are unfun in my mind.

And what if they are fun in someone else's mind? Isn't it better to include them, and let the group decide what to use?

Although I'm not exactly a fan of having them, the group that removed them? I found their gameplay boring and samey. So, I'm not a fan of removing them (from 3e) without adding at least equal depth to what was lost by their removal.

There are a lot of things where "save for half" can't happen, because the way the system (D&D) handles the effect in question is binary. How do you save for a result of half-Charmed, or half-Incapacitated, or half-Paralyzed?

There are numerous systems that present gradations of effect, albeit often poorly. It is open to debate whether 3e would be better if it had 5x the number of conditions, and each effect listed the most logical hierarchy of possible effects (one poison may list dead / nauseous / dizzy, while another might list dead / blind / dazzled, for example).

Honestly, Quertus, I get that your only joy on this forum is to be as confrontational and condescending as possible and oppose any viewpoint on the basis of wanting to argue with people, but seriously. At least read the post you respond to?

Less "joy" and more like "brief escape from Ennui". Very, very little actually gives me joy. And reading comprehension isn't one of my strengths. Rereading your post in context, I see that my comments were generally unmerited (although I think at least the optimization question could be valid, if completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

I apologize for misrepresenting your position.