The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[MeimuHakurei]

If, say, the game is set up to be a good-natured dungeon crawl using the PF rules, then players should only join that sort of game when they are really interested in it. It would be dubious when someone brings a character to this sort of game that doesn't want to engage with it (Ah dungeon? No, thank you, they are dangerous and full of monsters. My character rather hangs around in the tavern..) or when someone intentionally breaks the game.

I wasn't arguing that the players shouldn't reject the campaign premise or anything, I just think they shouldn't be punished for accomplishing a goal in a way the DM didn't intend.

[Florian]

I wasn't arguing that the players shouldn't reject the campaign premise or anything, I just think they shouldn't be punished for accomplishing a goal in a way the DM didn't intend.

I think we are talking by each other. I will agree with you that creative thinking (or lucky dice) within the set parameters of the game should be applauded, maybe especially when it surprises the GM. Key here is the point of "within the set parameters", tho. What I was saying is that I was not going to reward, maybe even outright punish, players for intentionally finding tactics that circumvent the set parameters for a given game, not for surprising the GM or acting in an unintended or unexpected way.

[Rhedyn]

I think we are talking by each other. I will agree with you that creative thinking (or lucky dice) within the set parameters of the game should be applauded, maybe especially when it surprises the GM. Key here is the point of "within the set parameters", tho. What I was saying is that I was not going to reward, maybe even outright punish, players for intentionally finding tactics that circumvent the set parameters for a given game, not for surprising the GM or acting in an unintended or unexpected way.

I only GM to be surprised or have the party act in unintended our unexpected ways.


But for this thread, the idea that caster power is curbed due to the GM applying meta restrictions and the wizard following then for meta rewards is bollocks. You don't have to do that for the Fighter, especially in 3.5. Shoving a bunch of hirelings in a dungeon is useless because they are useless. Meanwhile the wizard could just bind an army for free and have them clear the dungeon. He only doesn't do that because the GM steps in not because the game or rules can handle it.

[Florian]

But for this thread, the idea that caster power is curbed due to the GM applying meta restrictions and the wizard following then for meta rewards is bollocks. You don't have to do that for the Fighter, especially in 3.5. Shoving a bunch of hirelings in a dungeon is useless because they are useless. Meanwhile the wizard could just bind an army for free and have them clear the dungeon. He only doesn't do that because the GM steps in not because the game or rules can handle it.

Yes, but why is GM stepping in?

There are two distinct approaches to the function of a rules system. It can either be the map of the game or it can be the interface to the game, in the ideal case, it is both at once. D&D 3.xE/PF is a case of its own because the type of game it was build to support as an interface and the result of using it as a map are so much out of sync, they can be considered to be on different planets altogether.

I tend to advocate looking at the game the devs wanted to create first, then following up with a look at the interface and map they hand you, not the other way around. In case of Paizo, that means looking at the design of their adventure paths and FPS modules to notice that the balance point is relatively straight forward and allows every class to stay relevant, but a lot of the options you are handed as part of the game system are practically useless because they will break the game once you start using them. As in, when you start switching from the agreed upon game as presented to switching to the game that is mapped by the game system.

For example, grab a 3.5E MM and look at some of the example tactics given for some of the monsters. They make sense when you few them in light of the intended balance point of the game, they are completely nonsensical when you try to use them based on the map of the game and how you read it (the Pit Fiend is practically a melee brute while it could be played "more intelligently" as some sort of Gish and such...)

While yes, the rules might allow you to chain bind outsiders, the GM is stepping in because you made a switch here, away from what the particular game was supposed to be.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, but why is GM stepping in?

There are two distinct approaches to the function of a rules system. It can either be the map of the game or it can be the interface to the game, in the ideal case, it is both at once. D&D 3.xE/PF is a case of its own because the type of game it was build to support as an interface and the result of using it as a map are so much out of sync, they can be considered to be on different planets altogether.

I tend to advocate looking at the game the devs wanted to create first, then following up with a look at the interface and map they hand you, not the other way around. In case of Paizo, that means looking at the design of their adventure paths and FPS modules to notice that the balance point is relatively straight forward and allows every class to stay relevant, but a lot of the options you are handed as part of the game system are practically useless because they will break the game once you start using them. As in, when you start switching from the agreed upon game as presented to switching to the game that is mapped by the game system.

For example, grab a 3.5E MM and look at some of the example tactics given for some of the monsters. They make sense when you few them in light of the intended balance point of the game, they are completely nonsensical when you try to use them based on the map of the game and how you read it (the Pit Fiend is practically a melee brute while it could be played "more intelligently" as some sort of Gish and such...)

While yes, the rules might allow you to chain bind outsiders, the GM is stepping in because you made a switch here, away from what the particular game was supposed to be.

If I'm reading that right, it seems to be a symptom of less-than-great system design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I'm reading that right, it seems to be a symptom of less-than-great system design.

And a whole lot of motivated reasoning on the players part. But yes. A lot stems from the fact that the game most forumites talk about and the game the designers intended to be played are completely different beasts.

As a data point, the most broken stuff is early on in the run. The last few books (especially Tome of Battle) are known for being normally balanced with the "intended" balance point, ending up in the Tier 3 sweet spot. They can contribute to everything and are better at their specialty, but still can be challenged/don't break the game. So much so that a common "balance" recommendation is to throw out the top (Wizard/Cleric/Druid) and the bottom (Fighter especially) and only use those later classes (including the fixed-list casters). Makes a lot of people squirm and scream, however. :shrug:

[Max_Killjoy]

And a whole lot of motivated reasoning on the players part. But yes. A lot stems from the fact that the game most forumites talk about and the game the designers intended to be played are completely different beasts.

As a data point, the most broken stuff is early on in the run. The last few books (especially Tome of Battle) are known for being normally balanced with the "intended" balance point, ending up in the Tier 3 sweet spot. They can contribute to everything and are better at their specialty, but still can be challenged/don't break the game. So much so that a common "balance" recommendation is to throw out the top (Wizard/Cleric/Druid) and the bottom (Fighter especially) and only use those later classes (including the fixed-list casters). Makes a lot of people squirm and scream, however. :shrug:

Not unique to 3.x D&D.

I've come across quite a few systems in my hunt, usually "small market" systems, where it's clear the system that was published would not result in the gameplay that the designers had in their heads. Not least of all because gamers coming in fresh and picking up the book(s) would not be swimming in the same soup the designers were, mentally -- they'd have none of the designers' vision or assumptions, and lack that framework.

Besides the... rather unproductive "character creation as a hidden challenge" approach detailed in the Monte Cook quote elsewhere linked, I also get the strong impression that the 3e designers were suffering under that sort of "this is how we've always played, so if we write the rules around that, we'll get the same gameplay at other tables" presumption, without considering all their assumptions and experiences that were going unsaid in the printed text.

[Willie the Duck]

I also get the strong impression that the 3e designers were suffering under that sort of "this is how we've always played, so if we write the rules around that, we'll get the same gameplay at other tables" presumption, without considering all their assumptions and experiences that were going unsaid in the printed text.

It's unclear how they were expecting certain high level issues (that have dogged most versions of D&D) to go. The one thing the designers almost never respond to (reasonably, I think, if frustatingly) is 'what were you thinking/what was your goal?' to things people have found troublesome. Regardless, at the low-to-mid-level range, you can guess to a lot of thinking, or at least a lot of it makes sense as-a-reaction-to AD&D 2e. Examples include:

• People keep complaining about 2e spell disruption, apparently lots of people didn't bother. Solution: consolidate into mostly Attack of Opportunity- or Held Action- gated disruption with Concentration attempt to preserve spell. Problem: cast-under-duress-w/o-AoO ability added which is too easy to do (and doesn't check vs. opponent-skill). Also, while this is moving to make casting easier, other actions are moving to make physical fighter harder.
• People keep complaining about 2e clerics being giant hit point batteries for their allies. Solution: make healing wands affordable*, give clerics a number domain-based perks and combat spells that make them fight at the fighter level (but only for a short period of time and taking up first round or two of combat) to make them feel more useful. Problem: people just rely on healing wands for hp, entirely too many ways to circumvent the duration/casting time limits on combat boosts, clerics end up being as good at being a fighter as a fighter is, plus has spells. *and magic item making/buying rules rigorous and formulaic.
• People complain about 2e Druids: spells don't seem very impressive, animal companion dies to readily at mid+ levels, shapechanging is unimpressive. Solution: change all of those. Spells are good (although often situational, such as needs nearby plants or storm clouds). Shapechange is powerful (bears approach fighter combat level, limitation is you can't cast spells). Animal companion also powerful. Both druid and animal limited by having trouble finding magic items which work with them (prime example being druids and armor, but is an overall problem) Problem: except that it isn't because all those limitations were immediately trivialized through various means, meaning you could have a full magically armed and armored bear-caster with a armed and armored bear companion dishing out melee justice while having spells as well and if there are no stormclouds in the area well you can summon those with a low-level spell and if there are no plants in the area well just have every teammate and pack animal carry a bag of holding full of shrubbery )
• People complained about unrealism in combat, also lack of variety. Solution: make combat more realistic. fighting and moving is less efficient than standing and fighting. Drawing weapons takes actions. Lots of things provoke AoOs (also realistic). Fighting now has options like disarming, tripping, or attacking an opponent's weapon. Problem: All of these realistic limitations are ways to restrict a fighting individual from making however many attack actions they would have in 2e (or giving others reprisal attacks) at the same time that you are removing restrictions from the spellcasters. Also, although giving the fighter-types some more decisions, to be at all good at a given combat option, you need to devote your build to it, meaning you are still spamming 1-3 types of actions.

Those are just some of the more frequently referenced ones. But they highlight to me that it at least seems like the designers were focused more on 'solving' problems people had with AD&D, with solutions that might have been appropriate if-and-only-if people kept playing like they had in 2e, and not thinking through how someone would actually play when presented with these rules.

This really makes me suspicious of the 'we meant to do it' from the Cook interview. Skill focus in basketweaving more meant for NPCs? Toughness either as a feat tax or maybe 1st level wizard in a one-off? Sure. An entire planned out system where people were supposed to learn the ropes and get better as a play mechanism? It just doesn't match up to the rest of the design-that-happened, which seems entirely more a reaction to 2e than a grand plan to make D&D into MtG.

[Florian]

If I'm reading that right, it seems to be a symptom of less-than-great system design.

Not necessarily.

Analogy: I've got me one of those fancy tactical tomahawks for when I want some out time, leave the capital behind and just spend one week trekking in the deepest wilderness. It´s just one of those tools I schlepp along to facilitate my fun at trekking and camping. Now I know that a tomahawk ain´t a bad murder weapon and a tactical tomahawk ain´t a bad breaking and entry tool and the manufacturer, a company specializing in personal defense weaponry, did know that as well but didn't sell it as such, while I didn't buy it as such. The topic only gets annoying when people insist on being empowered to murder and commit B&Es, just because they are handled a tool to do so.

So I´m absolutely not against having options in. A game system already having options in place for, say, planar or interplanetary travel, running your own business or handle mass combat is fine. For when you need it. It only gets out of hand when players insist on using them the moment they become available to you, absolutely in spite of what the agreed upon game for a given table is.

Those are just some of the more frequently referenced ones. But they highlight to me that it at least seems like the designers were focused more on 'solving' problems people had with AD&D, with solutions that might have been appropriate if-and-only-if people kept playing like they had in 2e, and not thinking through how someone would actually play when presented with these rules.

Well, sure. The initial dev team was tasked to create an AD&D 3rd Edition. The A was only dropped for marketing reasons and because the last plain D&D was so old at that point that there was no point in keeping this distinction.
So it´s no biggie to admit that they did their job quite well in this regards, replacing the Gygax rules mess with a more coherent core system, addressing one of the major complaints by empowering the players against the GM, all the while keeping all the stuff that the franchise accumulated over the years more or less intact and in the game.

To echo something Max wrote, it´s noteworthy that people coming straight from AD&D 2nd had less problems that those attracted when 3.5E was at the peak of popularity and were not already socialized into the hobby but used the rules as a "map".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regardless, at the low-to-mid-level range, you can guess to a lot of thinking, or at least a lot of it makes sense as-a-reaction-to AD&D 2e. Examples include:

Honestly, I think that most editions of D&D (and lots of other games) have this issue.

AD&D was a reaction to OD&D.
AD&D 2e was a reaction to AD&D
3e as a reaction to AD&D 2e
4e as a reaction to what they thought were the problems of 3e (balance, mainly)
5e as a "best parts" version, explicitly trying to cherry pick the things that the devs thought worked well in previous editions and pouring them into a unified matrix.

Seen in this light, many of 3e's early design decisions make sense in isolation. What they failed at was integration testing--seeing that all these changes taken together threw what balance there was out the window and made for a very different game than they thought it did.

[Rhedyn]

Honestly, I think that most editions of D&D (and lots of other games) have this issue.

AD&D was a reaction to OD&D.
AD&D 2e was a reaction to AD&D
3e as a reaction to AD&D 2e
4e as a reaction to what they thought were the problems of 3e (balance, mainly)
5e as a "best parts" version, explicitly trying to cherry pick the things that the devs thought worked well in previous editions and pouring them into a unified matrix.

Seen in this light, many of 3e's early design decisions make sense in isolation. What they failed at was integration testing--seeing that all these changes taken together threw what balance there was out the window and made for a very different game than they thought it did.

Both 4e and 5e are just reactions to the previous edition.

4e did solve most 3e problems. It's "failure" (aka more success than 99.9% of RPGs which funded a complete collection of hardbacks that still dwarfs 5e's library) was a combination of nasty problems very few of which had anything to do with the system itself.

Likewise 5e is just 4e with all the sacred cows back and a bunch of rules not written down to make the game seem simpler.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, sure. The initial dev team was tasked to create an AD&D 3rd Edition. The A was only dropped for marketing reasons and because the last plain D&D was so old at that point that there was no point in keeping this distinction.

Uh, um, sure. That is a thing that happened. I'm not sure I'm following the relevance. Were you just establishing that 3e mostly flows from AD&D 2nd edition, as opposed* to the basic/classic line (which did not use edition terminology)? I'm pretty sure we all knew that and I don't see what downstream point this supports.
*although one could also argue that the two were simply rolled together, I suppose

So it´s no biggie to admit that they did their job quite well in this regards, replacing the Gygax rules mess with a more coherent core system, addressing one of the major complaints by empowering the players against the GM, all the while keeping all the stuff that the franchise accumulated over the years more or less intact and in the game.

No one's admitting anything. I'm suggesting that that was what they were doing--being reactive to the perceived issues with 2e AD&D more than making a new edition based on a new grand theory like system mastery as a goal unto itself or the like. As to quite well, I would say that's an open question we haven't established, merely what job and goal they were attempting.

To echo something Max wrote, it´s noteworthy that people coming straight from AD&D 2nd had less problems that those attracted when 3.5E was at the peak of popularity and were not already socialized into the hobby but used the rules as a "map".

And as I said, I believe it was, "focused more on 'solving' problems people had with AD&D, with solutions that might have been appropriate if-and-only-if people kept playing like they had in 2e." If you keep playing 3e like you played 2e, then the game actually does work just fine for quite a while at low-mid levels. I think it's important not to suggest that something is torturously broken if you deliberately attempt to break it and/or use it for purposes well outside of the intended use. For that reason, I tend not to worry too much about either 3e Pun Pun arguments or drown-healing or the like. However, at some level, the designers could (maybe should) have realized that they were hoping to get new people interested in 3e, so there would be new people coming in fresh eyes and no assumptions. So while I don't know if that would fall under reasonable critique of the game system, it certainly is a critique of the designers' plan. There's a sliding scale between, 'this thing is broken because I can find ways to abuse it,' and 'this thing doesn't break so long as no one breaths heavily near it while it's running,' and I think 3e is somewhere in the messy middle between those two (deliberately ridiculous and extreme) ends.

[Florian]

Uh, um, sure. That is a thing that happened. I'm not sure I'm following the relevance. Were you just establishing that 3e mostly flows from AD&D 2nd edition, as opposed* to the basic/classic line (which did not use edition terminology)? I'm pretty sure we all knew that and I don't see what downstream point this supports.

Just pointing out that folks in this case were not tasked to "build a better game", they were tasked to "build a better (A)D&D". This becomes important when your understanding of game is synonymous with D&D.

[Rhedyn]

I personally see a lot of the Basic D&D line in 3e, mainly in the form of how painless using magic is, while 2e had a lot of downsides to use certain spells.

[Cluedrew]

At some point, I was playing around with modifying 3e and one thing I came to very quickly is that Condition effects are both underused and unfairly favor casters.

I've been trying to find time for a significant answer but right now I have just time to mention a otherwise unremarkable CRPG that the second move your melee character unlocked was a move that inflicted bleed. A status condition that functioned like the usual poison condition. It wore off pretty quickly but it still did a lot of damage that might scale with the damage of your initial attack (which also did damage as you cut them open) and keeping your foes bleeding added up pretty quickly.

And there are other option to inflict status conditions with technique but I have to run.

I also want to reply to Willie the Duck's comments, like how "how come wizards don't need feats to not cast new 'spells' without penalty".

[Mechalich]

I've been trying to find time for a significant answer but right now I have just time to mention a otherwise unremarkable CRPG that the second move your melee character unlocked was a move that inflicted bleed. A status condition that functioned like the usual poison condition. It wore off pretty quickly but it still did a lot of damage that might scale with the damage of your initial attack (which also did damage as you cut them open) and keeping your foes bleeding added up pretty quickly.

Well, the biggest problem that martials have in many systems - including but not limited to D&D - is not that they cannot do sufficient damage when they hit or inflict some series of horrific conditions upon an enemy when they engage, it's that they often cannot get the opportunity to attack at all. Even a fairly low-op melee fighter build in 3.5 will perform just fine advancing and full attacking against enemies that are willing to engage them directly and don't target their will save with debuffs and SoS abilities (pertinent example: Valerie and Amiri in Pathfinder: Kingmaker work fine...until the Wild Hunt shows up and them if they don't have Freedom of Movement cast on them for even a single round they just die). The difficulty emerges when a martial faces something outside the traditional engagement framework they were built to operate within and their limited adaptability renders them useless.

For combat purposes, what this means is that, if the game assumes everyone needs to be able to operate within the same general combat scenarios - which not all games do but D&D certainly does - then everyone needs to be able to operate within all scenarios. So, if you have a flying scenario everyone needs to be able to fly, and if you have a ranged combat scenario everyone needs to be able to engage at range, and if you have an underwater scenario everyone needs to be able to fight underwater, and so on. In D&D part of the problem here is that so much of a martial's power is bound up in specific pieces of equipment, and equipment is very vulnerable to complete utility loss when situations change. For example, if you build a spike-chain based trip fighter, and then the adventure goes underwater, suddenly they're totally useless.

So if you design the system so that the martial isn't relying on equipment for power, but instead on a generalized skill set or training or the like, then you can make martials more adaptable because then all their weaponry is plug and play and they can just gradually grab whatever specialized tool they need for the job.

[Pleh]

Well, the biggest problem that martials have in many systems - including but not limited to D&D - is not that they cannot do sufficient damage when they hit or inflict some series of horrific conditions upon an enemy when they engage, it's that they often cannot get the opportunity to attack at all.

Our points aren't mutually exclusive. We're trying to talk about aspects of various RPG systems that are prejudiced towards casters. Both are examples of ways the bias influences.

But it's not so bad as, "flying trumps martial" because martials can still use bows. Some editions are worse than others, but there's usually at least 1 tactical option available to the fighter (partly because the Schrodinger's wizard is more powerful in theory than in practice). The real problem with the fighter plinking at a flying wizard is that plinking becomes more or less his only tactical option, while the Wizard has their entire tactical repertoire still available.

[Quertus]

Our points aren't mutually exclusive. We're trying to talk about aspects of various RPG systems that are prejudiced towards casters. Both are examples of ways the bias influences.

But it's not so bad as, "flying trumps martial" because martials can still use bows. Some editions are worse than others, but there's usually at least 1 tactical option available to the fighter (partly because the Schrodinger's wizard is more powerful in theory than in practice). The real problem with the fighter plinking at a flying wizard is that plinking becomes more or less his only tactical option, while the Wizard has their entire tactical repertoire still available.

When facing a flying dragon, the übercharger could use a flying mount, and still paste it in one hit, whereas the Wizard cannot use touch-range spells (like the Playground approved optimal Shivering Touch).

So, in this case, the difficulty (flying foe) reduced the Wizard's options, not the Fighter's.

[Willie the Duck]

When facing a flying dragon, the übercharger could use a flying mount, and still paste it in one hit, whereas the Wizard cannot use touch-range spells (like the Playground approved optimal Shivering Touch).

So, in this case, the difficulty (flying foe) reduced the Wizard's options, not the Fighter's.

That seems like a battle of the extreme specifics (this time Schrödinger favoring the martial). This martial has a (durable) flying mount, and their charge build works with the mount doing the charging. The wizard, in comparison, doesn't have one of the many ways to get around touch distances, doesn't have flight themselves, and does not have one of the many non-touch-range spells available which might work for the situation. It's certainly not wrong, and it is nice to see the goose and gander getting switched treatment, but a fairer comparison is both wizard and martial getting equal amount of conveniently-situationally-optimal-preparatory-decisions-made-correctly.

[Quertus]

That seems like a battle of the extreme specifics (this time Schrödinger favoring the martial). This martial has a (durable) flying mount, and their charge build works with the mount doing the charging. The wizard, in comparison, doesn't have one of the many ways to get around touch distances, doesn't have flight themselves, and does not have one of the many non-touch-range spells available which might work for the situation. It's certainly not wrong, and it is nice to see the goose and gander getting switched treatment, but a fairer comparison is both wizard and martial getting equal amount of conveniently-situationally-optimal-preparatory-decisions-made-correctly.

I do try.

My point was, the statement that the Wizard loses no options against a flying opponent (ie, at range) is flatly wrong, as evidenced by the existence of touch spells.

And, sure, there are ways for both parties (Fighter and Wizard) to try to protect their option range, but how many Wizards can catch a flying dragon, or even want to try, given their taughted "other options"?

[Rhedyn]

If summon monster isn't solving all your problems then you must have better solutions.

Summon Monster may not always be the answer, but it is an answer.

[Pleh]

I do try.

My point was, the statement that the Wizard loses no options against a flying opponent (ie, at range) is flatly wrong, as evidenced by the existence of touch spells.

And, sure, there are ways for both parties (Fighter and Wizard) to try to protect their option range, but how many Wizards can catch a flying dragon, or even want to try, given their taughted "other options"?

Seems like nitpicking semantics and I'm not sure it's useful in this instance. Any Wizard that prepped Shivering Touch has already taken the problem of touch ranged spells into consideration. Theoretically, they could have prepared something else and likely DO have something else prepared.

And to be fair, I don't consider a flying mount to be a fighter's advantage since the wizard can have the exact same mount (even easier with the right summoning). No reason the fighter can ride a beast up to smash any easier than a wizard can ride a beast up to deliver a touch spell.

Better yet, a wizard high enough level to fight dragons can probably Fly without any mounts or magic items.

You have to squint at the problem pretty hard to make it seem like the fighter has advantage, when the scenario is probably more evenly met between casters and martials in a scenario that was constructed to favor the martial. I believe they call that, "handicap."

[Florian]

I think of myself as being quite competent at playing martial characters in PF, especially Fighters and Barbarians. It´s not that much of an argument to be able to one-shot more or less anything, when you're building on a chassis that is geared towards overkill when it comes to dealing damage. So, yeah, anecdotally, I played a Barbarian that managed a mounted teleport-interplanar-pounce without resorting to magic items, simple on-board features (feats and such) and one-shot two major demon lords in the same campaign without breaking into a sweat. Not overly impressive, because while it took me a while to gather the system mastery to pull it off, I could hand the same character sheet to a 7 year old and I'm quite confident that it will lead to the same results.

Now it saddens me a bit that Quertus hasn't answered my PM RE: Wizard builds. The kinds of caster characters I play function on a similar principle. They are geared to be lethal in their main approach to handle things and have the advantage of being spell casters on top of that. I'm, let's say, not overly subtile in my approach to raw power, which I tend to handle like a sledgehammer. Beyond that, I simply worked out how to make limitations into a strength. Now compared to the statement I gave about my martial character builds, I'm far from confident that I could hand a character sheet of my Wizard or Shadow Oracle to a 7 year old and recreate the same results, because they rest on a deep understanding of the depth of the system, while a more knowledgeable player than me will be able to coax even more out of it.

[Pleh]

I think of myself as being quite competent at playing martial characters in PF, especially Fighters and Barbarians. It´s not that much of an argument to be able to one-shot more or less anything, when you're building on a chassis that is geared towards overkill when it comes to dealing damage. So, yeah, anecdotally, I played a Barbarian that managed a mounted teleport-interplanar-pounce without resorting to magic items, simple on-board features (feats and such) and one-shot two major demon lords in the same campaign without breaking into a sweat. Not overly impressive, because while it took me a while to gather the system mastery to pull it off, I could hand the same character sheet to a 7 year old and I'm quite confident that it will lead to the same results.

Now it saddens me a bit that Quertus hasn't answered my PM RE: Wizard builds. The kinds of caster characters I play function on a similar principle. They are geared to be lethal in their main approach to handle things and have the advantage of being spell casters on top of that. I'm, let's say, not overly subtile in my approach to raw power, which I tend to handle like a sledgehammer. Beyond that, I simply worked out how to make limitations into a strength. Now compared to the statement I gave about my martial character builds, I'm far from confident that I could hand a character sheet of my Wizard or Shadow Oracle to a 7 year old and recreate the same results, because they rest on a deep understanding of the depth of the system, while a more knowledgeable player than me will be able to coax even more out of it.

Ah, but system bias is measured statistically over the group of possible choices.

The fact that some systems are less biased and the fact that optimization can reduce the influence of bias was never in question.

Point is you had to work around the bias. You could give a 7 year old your character sheet and they would gain the benefit of your system mastery, but that's not the same as if a 7 year old could easily make characters as powerful as yours (without blindly stepping into the same choices).

[Cluedrew]

In response to Willie the Duck I want to through out a brief mention of how a wizard can learn a whole breadth of spells fairly trivially where as a fighter (correctly me if I am wrong) has to train separately to trip someone and to push them. Now those are separate motions, but I feel like fire magic, divination and healing are completely different areas of study. It is rare to have a physicist also to be a master chemist, let alone a doctor or engineer on the side. It does not make sense to me.

To Quertus: Is there a way for a fighter (or any similar class, if there is a mounted Tome of Battle rider class that is great) to acquire a flying mount in the same way a wizard can acquire fly? Which is to say as a consequence of leveling up, in a safe way that cannot be taken from them, although temporarily disabled is fine.

[Mechalich]

In response to Willie the Duck I want to through out a brief mention of how a wizard can learn a whole breadth of spells fairly trivially where as a fighter (correctly me if I am wrong) has to train separately to trip someone and to push them. Now those are separate motions, but I feel like fire magic, divination and healing are completely different areas of study. It is rare to have a physicist also to be a master chemist, let alone a doctor or engineer on the side. It does not make sense to me.

This is definitely a thing in D&D (and in some other systems like VtM where Thaumaturgy gets you all of the powers while every other discipline does 5 discrete things), and 3.X might be the edition where this restriction is the worst. In 2e, all of the various combat maneuver feat-based things were just combat options that anyone could try. D&D has also always preserved the idea that training with specific weapons, or at least groups of closely related weapons, is a thing that matters for small group combat. That's logical, since all the evidence suggests that yes, being familiar with even a single specific sword versus another almost entirely identical one does matter in combat (this is something that holds true even with modern firearms to some degree), but it imposes huge barriers to versatility.

It certainly makes sense to break magic up into different 'types' and to restrict casters in that way, and there are classes that do that, in particular the various PF partial-caster classes tend to have fairly restricted spell lists. Unfortunately this doesn't necessarily make that much difference because spells are wildly unbalanced and as long as your spell list includes just enough high-potency spells then most of the time you won't miss the one's you don't get. The Inquisitor's spell list, for instance, is fully stocked with all the core divine caster goodies.

Part of the problem, for D&D and similar kitchen-sink style games at least, is that the endless versatility of the full casters makes it easier to produce adventure modules because so long as the party has a full caster they'll be able to cobble together an answer to any sort of specific challenge. If you don't have those answers available, certain enemies become impossible to counter - as the classic Allip TPK scenario illustrates. Essentially, if the game has the full kitchen sink of possible problems, the party needs to have the full kitchen sink of possible solutions. Part of the problem with martials is that the system encourages specialists in face-stabbing and skull-crushing and then throws out hordes of opponents who are entirely immune to those methods of problem solving. You can compare this to an alternative d20 situation like Star Wars in which the 'shoot it!' approach will pretty much always do something.

[Willie the Duck]

People complained about unrealism in combat, also lack of variety. Solution: make combat more realistic. fighting and moving is less efficient than standing and fighting. Drawing weapons takes actions. Lots of things provoke AoOs (also realistic). Fighting now has options like disarming, tripping, or attacking an opponent's weapon. Problem: All of these realistic limitations are ways to restrict a fighting individual from making however many attack actions they would have in 2e (or giving others reprisal attacks) at the same time that you are removing restrictions from the spellcasters. Also, although giving the fighter-types some more decisions, to be at all good at a given combat option, you need to devote your build to it, meaning you are still spamming 1-3 types of actions.

In response to Willie the Duck I want to through out a brief mention of how a wizard can learn a whole breadth of spells fairly trivially where as a fighter (correctly me if I am wrong) has to train separately to trip someone and to push them. Now those are separate motions, but I feel like fire magic, divination and healing are completely different areas of study. It is rare to have a physicist also to be a master chemist, let alone a doctor or engineer on the side. It does not make sense to me.

You are definitely highlighting the issue I brought up. 3e gated a bunch of fighter stuff behind specific builds, while continuing the ongoing trend of generalist wizards getting access to any type of magic excepting those specifically cordoned off for other classes like druid or cleric (and continuing the newer trend of getting to choose new spells as one levels up, rather than have to find them). It is certainly the later issue that has been the wrench in D&D's works for a lot longer. Magic Userswizards worked much better as tactical battlefield artillery, with the occasional dungeon-crawling utility spell as they seemed to have been originally intended (although I have been reminded recently that even oD&D LBB original Magic Users had some pretty epic abilities).

Regarding a physicist not also being a master chemist, that's true, but that probably goes into one of the 'complaints about non-realism' threads that we have going on around here. D&D has never been shy about emulating fantasy, pulp, or cinematic tropes. The scientists of D&D would be more like Dr. Zarkov of Flash Gordon or Dr. Quest of the Johnny Quest cartoons (or the Professor from Gilligan's Island) than a real world scientist. Honestly, I would be okay with that, if that didn't mean that the scientist could (and would) solve every week's thrilling adventure while Flash, Johnny, or the rest of the Minnow Gang just sat and watched (or just kept the villains at bay while the scientist worked their magic).

This is definitely a thing in D&D (and in some other systems like VtM where Thaumaturgy gets you all of the powers while every other discipline does 5 discrete things), and 3.X might be the edition where this restriction is the worst. In 2e, all of the various combat maneuver feat-based things were just combat options that anyone could try. D&D has also always preserved the idea that training with specific weapons, or at least groups of closely related weapons, is a thing that matters for small group combat. That's logical, since all the evidence suggests that yes, being familiar with even a single specific sword versus another almost entirely identical one does matter in combat (this is something that holds true even with modern firearms to some degree), but it imposes huge barriers to versatility.

Well, D&D had not always had weapon proficiencies, much less various other character build-choices that made warriors differentially competent between groups of closely related weapons. An OD&D - BEC (previous to picking up the M boxed set) fighter was just as good with all weapons.

Part of the problem, for D&D and similar kitchen-sink style games at least, is that the endless versatility of the full casters makes it easier to produce adventure modules because so long as the party has a full caster they'll be able to cobble together an answer to any sort of specific challenge. If you don't have those answers available, certain enemies become impossible to counter - as the classic Allip TPK scenario illustrates. Essentially, if the game has the full kitchen sink of possible problems, the party needs to have the full kitchen sink of possible solutions. Part of the problem with martials is that the system encourages specialists in face-stabbing and skull-crushing and then throws out hordes of opponents who are entirely immune to those methods of problem solving. You can compare this to an alternative d20 situation like Star Wars in which the 'shoot it!' approach will pretty much always do something.

That certainly has increased since spellcasters could choose their spells, and thus if the party wizard doesn't have know languages or knock, it's their own darn fault. There certainly have also been lots of dungeons made that became trivial once someone could fly.

Star Wars RPGs tend to be better, but there are still a lot of situations where 'you need someone who can _____,' becomes a problem. 'We're the most powerful force in this Endor valley, and we've got the stormtroopers on the run, but our ship is damaged, and no one has the ability to fix it, much less fly it, so we can't actually get to Hoth where the bounty hunters are going with our carbonite frozen Han-expy' is definitely something that can come up. The class distinctions just aren't as great and certainly the Jedi-nonjedi distinction in no way approaches the martial-caster divide D&D has.

I forgot where I'm going with this...

[awa]

I actually find the caster versatility a complication rather than an asset for adventure design.

I roughly know what Conan in a gritty setting can do to get through a mountainous blizzard which means I can stick a yeti fight in the only shelter and justify spending time to make an interesting encounter there. Because I know, that is where he will end up.

For dr strange? I’m much less able to predict what he will do, teleport, plane shift, protection from cold, poly morph are caster has so many way he might be able to fix this problem that I have hundreds of more things I need to prepare for stretching me far thinner. In addition, that's ignoring the possibility that the wizard did not happen to memorize (or spent) the right spell for this encounter.

Going back to the star wars example if you know the party does not have any repair people then you can build your adventure around that either by not making it a requirement to solve the problem or by sticking an npc with the skill in the area. With a wizard (cleric or druid), you never know exactly what they are going to be able to do.

edit
with the allip example its only a problem if you dont know what your party is capable of doing. Designing a fun fight is more than just throwing level appropriate encounters at the party you need to understand what the party can do. Again this is far easier to do with martial who dont even change that much level to level in terms of what they can do compared to casters who change every single day. Did the wizard remember to bring magic missile or magic weapon or are they loaded down with sleeps, glitter dust and web?

[Willie the Duck]

I actually find the caster versatility a complication rather than an asset for adventure design.

That's a good point, but I think it's generally the same one. Casters give the party abilities. That's true in the positive for adventure design (you can put the macguffin across a lava pit if someone has fly), and in the negative (pits are no longer an effective boundary). It all depends on whether you're having more trouble empowering or constraining the PCs.

It does show, however, exactly why the current system differentially treats people with situational options vs. those that can mostly just leverage damage output.

[Max_Killjoy]

You are definitely highlighting the issue I brought up. 3e gated a bunch of fighter stuff behind specific builds, while continuing the ongoing trend of generalist wizards getting access to any type of magic excepting those specifically cordoned off for other classes like druid or cleric (and continuing the newer trend of getting to choose new spells as one levels up, rather than have to find them). It is certainly the later issue that has been the wrench in D&D's works for a lot longer. Magic Userswizards worked much better as tactical battlefield artillery, with the occasional dungeon-crawling utility spell as they seemed to have been originally intended (although I have been reminded recently that even oD&D LBB original Magic Users had some pretty epic abilities).

That's a bigger problem with D&D combat in general, gating general combat moves behind classes/subclasses or feats instead of making them part of the basic combat system and then giving subclasses or feats bonuses or extra uses or whatever with those moves.