Do caster out of combat options matter?

[Segev]

On the whole I think these spells are simply one way in which you remove aspects of the game which it was time to move on from anyway.

Teleport is a nice flashy way to not spend the session dealing with bandits and whether you have enough feed for your mounts. But by tier 3 you shouldn’t be spending your session time on that stuff anyway.

As a DM I’m not going to spend all that time on tier inappropriate stuff anyway.

Why not? Why is that inappropriate? The ways that higher-level characters deal with such problems are also choices.

I'm not saying you should be dealing with them at that tier, either, but to say you shouldn't suggests there's a reason why you shouldn't.

If that reason is that the PCs have abilities to trivialize them, then those abilities aren't meaningless. But if that reason is that the DM doesn't want to be bothered so will ignore them or hand out stuff to trivialize them, the question arises as to why that is something the DM thought was once okay but now thinks is not appropriate game time.

In other words: it's quite possible that they do become trivial as player characters gain abilities to trivialize them. But the thing that makes them inappropriate to spend game time on is how trivial they have become, not the tier just because it's the tier. I feel like saying "cars are irrelevant because by the time people have them they're at an age where walking 100 miles being an obstacle is inappropriate, so they shouldn't have to deal with that anyway." No, having a car has made those 100 miles a 90-minute trip, rather than something that will take days of travel. Assuming that distance just is inappropriate to have as a challenge because you're 16 years old and thus having a car is irrelevant kind-of misses the point of what made that 100 mile trip suddenly no longer a multi-day problem.

[Psyren]

I'll also point out that Bandits are very far from the only appropriate encounter you can run into during overland travel. Things like a hungry dragon, a drow surface raid, a Shadowfell Incursion, or a bound fiend that just broke free of its wizard's tower are all things that could feasibly pop up in the wilderness while being appropriate challenges for a T3 party.

[Vahnavoi]

Segev & tokek: I think it would be better to say that abilities that act as shortcuts or eliminate some aspect of the game, exist as optional rewards for playing those aspects out.

This was pioneered by D&D to a degree but is ubiquitous, especially in videogames, and has been for a long time. What I mean is this: a game expects you to do a thing or get to a place the hard way for the first few times. Once that's done, an optional method is given that makes that particular thing take less time or effort. Teleportation is the most obvious example: whether you talk of D&D or Legend of Zelda, it's common for a game to reward the player with a method to get to key locations fast after they've completed the initial challenge.

A player who prefers the scenic route, obviously retains that possibility, and there may be other advantages to doing so (such as hunting for hidden treasure). In a D&D-like game, where the amount of abilities might exceed what a character can actually have, this also involves players thinking of and expressing their priorities. It's worth noting, though, that if nothing new comes around to fill the gap, this just reduces the game and its aspects. Many powerful abilities in 5e are grandfathered in from earlier editions of D&D, where characters were meant to transition from vagrant dungeoneers to managers of their own domains and keeps at about the same time those abilities become available. A game where characters are expected to remain vagrant dungeoneers likely shouldn't have them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't call anyone out specifically...

Ah, the age old "but I'm not touching you" argument. Truly we are learning at the feet of the masters!

True... if and only if the GM wants to tell a story and wants to run an adventure. I'm an odd one out when I GM. The game I play is to set a world, build a simple intro dungeon, and then let PC actions and NPC reactions drive things. No plot, no prepped adventure, completely emergent story.

With respect, I want to point out that these factors are not really relevant, in my opinion. You can do these things and also include ways that don't make magic the only path forward.

I've had a lich with a hidden strongbox type place accessible only by teleportation and known to nobody else in the world. A dragon nursery & day care in what was effectively a magma submarine. A wind-mage's home flying in a permanent hurricane. A demon lord using tarrasques as ammo. An invisible brick wall in front of the landing spot on the other side of the barely jumpable chasm. Anything resembling normal PCs simply can't deal with some stuff without certain abilities that noncaster classes don't have.

Of course then there was the not-mount-Olympus where gods literally hung out partying a lot of the time. No form of magic would get anyone to the top, and no form of anything would save them from the consequences. But hey, a high level fighter could at least try to get noticed. Plane shifting was much safer, you show up at the front door and the flunkies kick you out instead of popping onto the dance floor and getting stepped on. Weirdly, magic also didn't help much if you wanted to join the fire breathing arctic dire bear calvary.

This all sounds like a lot of fun.

And I suspect that your players enjoy it as much as you do. And I think this is reinforcing behavior. Players might know when they sit at your table that they're going to need spells in order to interact with the things you have in mind. And it just becomes self-fulfilling.

But I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking all games are like this or have to be like this. Or that these same encounters/scenarios can't exist in a different game without spellcasters, and they have to use other means to engage.

On the whole I think these spells are simply one way in which you remove aspects of the game which it was time to move on from anyway.

Teleport is a nice flashy way to not spend the session dealing with bandits and whether you have enough feed for your mounts. But by tier 3 you shouldn’t be spending your session time on that stuff anyway.

As a DM I’m not going to spend all that time on tier inappropriate stuff anyway.

There are random encounter tables for all levels of play though, and a DM can also just put whatever they want during travel.

It's really just up to the DM what they find interesting or appropriate. We can't say for all games.

I'll also point out that Bandits are very far from the only appropriate encounter you can run into during overland travel. Things like a hungry dragon, a drow surface raid, a Shadowfell Incursion, or a bound fiend that just broke free of its wizard's tower are all things that could feasibly pop up in the wilderness while being appropriate challenges for a T3 party.

Agreed.

I mean, a lot of this is just preference or style related.

Take the utterly ridiculous claim made recently that a campaign around a group of all fighters traveling the planes sucks and is bad writing. This is preposterous. There are magic items that let you travel through the planes. Have we never seen stories about a guy or a group of people using a device to travel to other dimensions? A campaign of martials plane-hopping could be a blast to play and run.

Unless you have very specific and narrow ideas about how people should play D&D, and insist that if people are going to plane-hop, it MUST be through the Plane Shift spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not entirely sure why you and Samurai feel this is a zero-sum game where a Wizard can be either 100% utility or 100% combat with no in-between.

Your average Wizard would have a mix of both. They might prepare Fireball, Haste, and Summon Monster for their combat spells, and Knock, Spider Climb, and Speak With Dead as their utility spells.

My Lore bard had a mix of combat, healing, and utility. We didn't have a wizard; as the primary arcane caster she had to do a bit of a balancing act. I almost drove myself nuts with the choices for Magical Secrets (and I posted here asking for help in the 5e sub forum). My 'analysis paralysis' has cropped up again with the warlocks I play. (Own goal, but that's me...)

My "speak with dead" at will has been incredibly useful. (Eldritch Invocation).

The DM needs to make sure his players are able to participate in the story he wants to tell, the adventure he wants to run and the game he wants to play. Nothing more nothing less

"The story he wants to tell"
Hmm. The stories I want to tell is "what the players did during the game." Some of that will fit with pre gen encounters that I build, and some of it is stuff that the players come up with on their own. Plots aren't all that necessary, but world events that inexorably move forward on their own might be "a plot" though I tend to call it a 'situation' ... since I am not sure what the players will do.

These are the kinds of games I run and (largely) play. I don't write a story, I create a setting.

It's a good way to do things.

[Rafaelfras]

Hmm. The stories I want to tell is "what the players did during the game." Some of that will fit with pre gen encounters that I build, and some of it is stuff that the players come up with on their own. Plots aren't all that necessary, but world events that inexorably move forward on their own might be "a plot" though I tend to call it a 'situation' ... since I am not sure what the players will do.
It's a good way to do things.

Sure, it is as valid as any other way to do things. But even your pre gen encounters have to be done in a way that your players can participate, or else why even bother to build then in the first place. I don't think a plot is required either but some times will scale up from a encounter that you have made.

In my case we play in the forgotten realms, I have read the FRCSG 3rd and SCAG (and several other books) so I know about a lot places and adventure hooks that my players don't have any idea about but I can pick up the moment they chose to go to some of these places. (FR even had its own inaccessible lich, Larloch in the warlock crypt)
That said I like plots and for our current campaign we are facing a vile curse that befell on our home kingdom and the witches that unleashed it.
Because we are high level (18) I have to take into account a lot of spells and abilities that my players have access to, like teleport, plane shift and all their divinations, and my villains have to be the ones that are prepared to those kind of things. So there are places that are warded against planar travel, spells that block divination and while the curse is up no one can be bough back to life (and so they will have to lift the curse first to be able to bring back beloved npc's that already died during these events).
At the same time simply countering everything they have will lead to frustration so there must be places where these counter measures are not in place.

That's why I said earlier that out of combat abilities have greater impact on the DM because he has to take then into account, while it is very simple to create options when they would be needed but aren't there

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's why I said earlier that out of combat abilities have greater impact on the DM because he has to take then into account, while it is very simple to create options when they would be needed but aren't there

I think this is right, and you can see lots of places in various published adventures where the module writers haven't taken these abilities into account, or assumed that the players wouldn't use them, or forgot they existed entirely. It's a balancing act, and a very tricky one.

My experience, generally, is that it doesn't matter which character has the ability as long as all the players are contributing equally. Player A has the plan, Player B casts speak with dead, Player C composes the specific questions, Player D makes the rolls. Players A and C aren't rolling dice but they're equal partners in what's happening. What you don't want, and as a GM need to take steps to avoid, is Player A having no directly useful abilities and checking out of play until there's something written on their sheet they can use.

[Rynjin]

Ah, the age old "but I'm not touching you" argument. Truly we are learning at the feet of the masters!

I made the post(s) you're taking so personally close to 24 hours before you ever posted in this thread. Hell of an ego to assume they're directed at you.

My Lore bard had a mix of combat, healing, and utility. We didn't have a wizard; as the primary arcane caster she had to do a bit of a balancing act. I almost drove myself nuts with the choices for Magical Secrets (and I posted here asking for help in the 5e sub forum). My 'analysis paralysis' has cropped up again with the warlocks I play. (Own goal, but that's me...)

My "speak with dead" at will has been incredibly useful. (Eldritch Invocation).

Yeah, Wizard was just an example. Pretty much any caster should IMO be built the same. Even a dedicated blaster should have slots for utility, because in any good campaign problem solving will involve more than combat.

[rel]

This may sound controversial but hear me out.

Casters can do a lot out of combat. They can teleport past obstacles, plane shift, open locked doors, fly etc.

But do these options actually matter? If you need to get to the plane of fire as part of the campaign there will be a way to get to the plane of fire that didn't rely on class abilities or make assumptions. Anytime you need to fly to overcome an obstacle there's either a way to fly or another way to overcome it or the only reason flight is required is because you have it. The same can be said of any of those spells. So are those spells as game altering as they seem or are they just good for making you feel useful when in reality they were not required.

Not every GM carefully prepares the game world with the PC's in mind.

- Some game worlds such as persistent campaign settings simply exist, irrespective of any PC's that happen to explore them.
- Some are shared worlds explored by many PC parties.
- Some are generic published worlds the GM and other players pick up and use, largely unchanged.
- Some might be somewhat tailored to the PC's, but still have background and scenery elements that have no such customization.

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.

When resolving a combat challenge, the PC's require in combat options with which to actually interact with said challenge. Similarly, when resolving a non-combat challenge, the PC's require non-combat options to interact with said challenge.

Seeing as the vast majority of non-combat options are spells, to the point that an argument could be made that spells are the only significant class specific non-combat options available to PC's, I would say that
caster out of combat options matter. They matter for the same reasons caster combat options matter.

Just as caster combat options allow the caster to participate in combat challenges, caster non-combat options allow the caster to participate in non-combat challenges; the roughly 2/3 of the obstacles in a standard game that cannot be reduced to some variation of 'Do X HP of damage to thing Y'.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work.

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work.

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, it is as valid as any other way to do things. But even your pre gen encounters have to be done in a way that your players can participate, or else why even bother to build then in the first place.

Most of my pregen encounters are someone in the world, usually a group, doing something for their own reasons. how the players engage with that varies.
Some of my pregen stuff doesn't get much interaction, but I can keep it for the future if I want to.

I don't think the game's own designers should be believed on this point, given the way their adventures are written. They may say that, but it's not apparent in their work.

Some of their adventure books are pretty good. I liked both ToA and Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

The quality varies. And as an aside, Curse of Strahd is one of those adventures that can live up to the game's potential, or, it can sour people on the game.
We have had three people now quite our CoS campaign. (I am a player in it).
Their complaint? They don't like the feel. (We had two others stop due to RL scheduling conflict).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

Sure. As a DM designing your own adventures you're not bound by what's in published modules. My point is that, while the developers say they expect a 2/3 - 1/3 noncombat to combat split, I don't see that reflected in what has been designed for the system. The DMG, for one, doesn't have any guidance or advice for creating noncombat encounters in its Creating Encounters section -- there's some explanation of why encounters should happen, but otherwise it's all about combat.

[Skrum]

That's half right. It's true that what designers claim of their intent isn't always reflected in basic rules, and what is in basic rules isn't always reflected in supplementary materials such as modules. However, a dungeon master making their own material doesn't have to go by the last in line: it is possible to stress intent over basic rules, or basic rules over supplements. It would be hardly odd to think 5e D&D is a decent game but the published modules don't live up to its potential.

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

[NichG]

The key to that is to design things in terms of ways that characters can change state and then have dynamic, responsive chains of states that lead to different places rather than pass/fail barriers.

HP like mechanics are a simple example of a general state graph like this (and it's what 4e tried to go with for it's skill challenges), but something like positioning has more traction with the world and is less abstract.

I'd probably go with factor sets - a scenario consists of a set of Factors that apply, and actions generally swap certain Factors for other Factors, and you're trying to navigate the composition of the set into a configuration that makes success possible.

[Dr.Samurai]

Point being, it isn't unreasonable for non-combat challenges that genuinely challenge or stymie the party to exist and appear in a campaign. If the games' own designers are to be believed, some 2/3 of the game should consist of such non-combat challenges.

I don't think the OP is saying there shouldn't be these out of combat challenges.

It's a question of do they need to be solved by magic, and/or does solving it by magic have to have some impact over solving it another way.

There's an assumption that the players will have the chance to achieve their goals without needing magic, and some people are arguing that there then needs to be a consequence for not solving these problems through magic.

Spoiler: Rynjin

Show

I made the post(s) you're taking so personally close to 24 hours before you ever posted in this thread. Hell of an ego to assume they're directed at you.

I think it's pretty clear which posts were directed at me

Look, nothing anyone says here has any impact on my game whatsoever, and I'm not the type of person that takes the comments of a rude and overly confident stranger on the internet to heart; they're a dime a dozen . But for the sake of discussion on this forum, I don't like arguments that amount to "I know the right way to play make believe, and anyone that disagrees is doing it wrong and sucks at writing". I generally don't like bullies and know-it-all's on principle, and enjoy calling out bad arguments when I see them.

I don't think your comments disparaging the games and writing of those that play differently to you were directed at me (they can't be as I don't run 5e games). But I do think they're in poor form, and not persuasive, and I do think it's ironic that you then went ahead and accused me of arguing poorly and having bad intentions. But I'm not surprised, as anyone trying to support a weak side will inevitably resort to these sort of tactics .

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

I think, in that scenario, it'd depend on what was happening that went into that Athletics roll. Are they trying to jump across? Is that the only way to get across the crevasse? Because I think at my table a player who tries to jump across a crevasse and fails to do so just... falls the 700 feet and dies, so they're trained to not try to do that if they don't have to. Presumably they could throw something across to use as an anchor -- lasso a rock or something, I dunno -- or construct a temporary bridge, or go around to somewhere easier. And if I, as the DM, know the crevasse is 700' deep and that it's a long way to the other side, I'm going to have to communicate that in a way that makes them make intelligent decisions, because I don't want to be responsible for my player thinking it's a trivial jump when it's not. There have to be multiple ways to get across that ravine, and if there aren't there's gotta be a reason why.

[Vahnavoi]

I guess, but that's an awful lot of work on the DM's part. The skill system alone is about 50% complete by my estimation, and that's not even factoring in wanting to use skills when character death is potentially on the line. I'd be extremely underwhelmed by a DM that created a whole scenario and then was like "Roll athletics. Oh wow, 11? Looks like you fell. The crevasse is 700 ft deep, so...you died." For skill checks to be used that way, it can't just be a single roll, and it can't just be the DM asking for specific rolls. Player agency has to be inserted somewhere. And making a skill system that supported proper branching Skill Challenges, it's no small feat (I've tried!)

It shouldn't be that difficult. But if 5e's own advice doesn't get you there, let's see if I can fetch you something else.

Let's presume you don't want to stray top far from basic probabilistic model: skills are primarily used by adding modifiers and die rolls together. The first additional mechanic would be to add a resource, similar to hitpoints - it can just be hitpoints, depending on context (we'll get to that). Other widely applicable resource costs are time and money, with money being able to take the form of various forms of equipment.

An interesting development here is the unit of Lume, from Veins of the Earth supplement for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lume, to put it simply, is light, food, heat and money boiled down to a single abstract unit. So all time spent and actions taken have a direct cost.

In addition, Veins proposes a particular way of mapping three-dimensional cave systems. Without explaining all the details, this system results in flowchart-like maps, where each individual cave connects to one or more other caves in various ways. This, in addition to the expanded climbing system*), naturally creates branching choices. Whenever there's more than one path, it isn't just that they lead to different locations (they might or might not), the easy path might take more time (costing more Lumes) while the hard path might require abandoning equipment behind. Some paths don't have the same difficulty in both direction (generally, climbing up through the ceiling is harder than descending down through the floor), so only a specialist might be able to make the trip both ways. Playing it safe, preparing each route so they don't require rolling, is technically possible, but might be prohibitively costly - so at a point, the players have to take risks to avoid certain failure by attrition. Saved Lumes might have to paid in lost hitpoints, equipment or characters - and vice versa.

You may think "but that's only climbing", but it should be easy to set up comparable systems for anything involving movement through space. Classic hexcrawls do a comparable thing with travel through the wilderness.

*) the basics are nothing special, it just varies time taken to prepare a route and the number needed on a d6 roll based on angle and method of climbing. Most of the additional detail is in what happens when a climbing check fails. It would be trivial to translate the odds to d20 based system of 5e.

[Theodoxus]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.

[Rukelnikov]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.

The magic replicating science in DnD is treated as spells, when Artificers use science to replicate magic, they are doing that, science not magic magic, but the thing about this is the setting wide repercussions, a setting where the Portal Creator 3000 is relatively easy to obtain is gonna be very different from one where its not.

[Dr.Samurai]

Do caster out of combat options matter? I don't think it makes any difference if they do or not. A DM is going to tailor the adventure to the parties capabilities (either intrinsically or through item obtainment), or the party doesn't partake in that particular (side)quest. (In which the DM then tailors the adventure to whatever the results of their inability is - and the best DMs make it appear seamless so the players never really know for sure what transpired.

I do think that D&D's magic is WAY too forgiving. There's nearly no RAW accountability for using magic willy-nilly outside of spell slot limits. I haven't encountered much fantasy literature where magic use, much less knowledge, is afforded such fast and loose comport. Even the novels written for D&D tend to showcase magic in a much more malign light; one doesn't just shoot lightning or teleport across the planet on a whim...

I'm still a bit dismayed that magic has to be the answer for everything. Either a Wizard does it, or a Wizard a millennia ago made an item that does it. A fighter has no chance against something that is immune to mundane weaponry, unless said fighter finds or buys an item magically enchanted - or begs the magic guy in his party or town to... enchant an item. If it isn't magic, regardless of how hard or easy it is to obtain, it is impossible. Certainly can't science your way out of a problem. Need to get to the Plane of Fire? Magic. Not a portal device that uses electricity to spin some diodes that thin the veil between the prime and fire planes... no, just magic. A spell, a box, an amulet... but all magic.

Can a DM use science? Sure. Is it expected, even talked about anywhere? No! The Four Fighter Problem always boils down to someone, somewhere, at some time, doing magic.

I generally agree with all of this.

Though my attitude toward the magic item thing is a bit different.

Firstly, because it's a staple of fantasy, I just give it a huge pass. I've mentioned in other threads that the whole "you don't need magic items" attitude bugs me because for me it's such a huge part of the fantasy aesthetic. That's not to say that I think there should be magic marts everywhere and every game needs to take place in Eberron. But I don't consider it some sort of concession that the fighter finds a magic sword or shield, and a ring that lets him see invisible creatures, etc. That's a large part of the fun of exploration and defeating bad guys and a reward for braving dangers and killing monsters.

Secondly, we can, in some ways, divorce these items from "magic" so to speak (though it will still be "magic" of a kind or another, just not necessarily a spellcaster doing it). But I'm thinking of something like Guts' sword, which has been "tempered by the malice" of all the evil demons Guts has slain with it and is now capable of harming even more powerful evil entities. The sword has taken on magical qualities by killing all of these supernatural creatures. Now, someone could argue that it's still supernatural "magical" creatures making the sword magical, but I'd argue that it's actually Guts, who is capable of killing all of these demons all of the time, that is facilitating this transformation of the sword. In other words, hand the sword to a normal person, and you're not getting a magic sword out of it. Hand the sword to a high level fighter like Guts, and it will probably be a +10 Crushing Vorpal Fiend-Slaying Greatsword Maulblade by the time the manga is over.

On a similar note, the Dragon Hoard items from Fizban's are another way of making magic items without a spellcaster. Items that have been lost in strange places, like a sacred grove, a cursed place, can take on magical properties by the time our heroes, who have braved the dangers to find it, encounter it. Or items that are used in auspicious acts, like heroic sacrifice, or lethal betrayal, etc, can take on magical qualities.

This way the magic originates more from what the item has experienced or been used for, as opposed to the more traditional "a wizard made this". And in the case of something like Gut's Dragonslayer, it's directly tied to how powerful the warrior is, and the feats they perform with it.

[Theodoxus]

Sure, but it's just pushing what 'magic' means. It's like the origin of life. If life originated somewhere else in the universe, and life on earth was seeded by a rogue comet - that doesn't actually answer the question on the origin of life.

My own solution was to make 'magic' super science through augmented reality, nanites, and sophisticated programming code aka spells. Then, super geeks back in the day opened portals to the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, and the Outer Planes, causing energies; arcane, divine, and primal to infuse the nanites with supernatural energies.

But anyone with enough gumption can work out how to craft a spell and get an augmented reality affect, if they so cared. There is a bit more of a cost than standard D&D; I still hate the idea of 'easy magic'.

[NichG]

Giving other archetypes strong out of combat options that are as definite and determined as spells would be a great idea (IMO), and would definitely make it not be the case that spells are so central to out of combat agency.

5e D&D didn't really do it though...

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused. Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.

So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure, but it's just pushing what 'magic' means. It's like the origin of life. If life originated somewhere else in the universe, and life on earth was seeded by a rogue comet - that doesn't actually answer the question on the origin of life.

Well, my two thoughts on this are I don't think "magic" is a bad thing that shouldn't be a part of the equation, and maybe we need to push the concept of what "magic" is in the game. I tend to agree with you that it's simply too easy and without real cost. Maybe widening that access to magic is one step in the right direction. Third edition had locations that, if you did something while there, would grant you some extraordinary or supernatural ability.

I just don't really see the difference between an action hero using a gun, getting a better gun, riding a car, etc. and a fantasy knight using a magic sword and riding a fantasy mount.

Giving other archetypes strong out of combat options that are as definite and determined as spells would be a great idea (IMO), and would definitely make it not be the case that spells are so central to out of combat agency.

5e D&D didn't really do it though...

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused. Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.

I think expanding out of combat options would be great. I don't see anything wrong with high level fighters having tremendous social/political/military pull in game, that makes sense to me.

The "hunt across space and time" stuff is not a foregone conclusion for me, so I wouldn't mind it as an option for people, as opposed to the end state for all hunters, as an example. Honestly, the point for me is that we just need more options, and let people choose what they want to play. Fourth edition had a great Epic Destiny in which you knew the shortest route to your quarry, and could travel across space/time to reach them within 24 hours, no matter where they were, even on other planes (IIRC). Pretty sweet concept. But it was a choice. We need more options to choose from.

So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.

Yeah this sounds about right. That said... I always just wonder about stuff like this.

How do you solve for a drought with spells that isn't simply "I cast this spell"? I suppose that using combinations of spells to do stuff that will solve for the drought in a way that isn't merely "I pushed the button and solved this problem" is going to require DM buy in. In which case, anyone can do it. Unless it requires magic.

[Rukelnikov]

Also, there is a contingent of people who, when this comes up, insist that 'no, Fighters should basically be Bruce Willis in Die Hard, that's the class fantasy' which means that things like 'Well, what if high level Fighters have the built-in ability to requisition gear from a country's military? Deploy squads of engineers? Gain access to national installations that would let them do these things?' end up being refused.

The problem with these kinds of features is again setting implications, I've had settings where the largest settlement known to anyone was about 250 ppl, and the highest lvl person there was lvl 7. And even in a more standard setting, what happens if the party are branded enemies of the realm? There are systems where these kinds of features are commonplace (most WoD systems), but I think adding them to 5e would require a pretty big rework of how interactions with NPCs work.

Or things where 'spells' are only a subset of the fantastical things that can be done again tend to trigger the 'but a mundane guy can't do something like chase their quarry through any terrain, planar boundaries, conceptual spaces, or time itself just because they're that good of a hunter!'.

OTOH I think more stuff like this would be awesome, a thief so good they can steal someone's scent, or an even better one that can steal a memory or a feeling.

So I think there's a bit of a deeper, and honestly somewhat irreconcilable issue here. Different people at the table may want the game to be about fundamentally different scopes. There are character options - largely, but not exclusively spells - which let a player unilaterally choose to expand the scope (as long as the DM does not aggressively quash this, which is generally bad form anyhow). But there are not character options which let someone unilaterally narrow the scope or fix it on a specific thing. E.g. if someone doesn't want the game to be about combat they have lots of ways within the system to bypass combats; if someone doesn't want the game to be about roleplay they have lots of ways within the system to bypass roleplay; etc - but its harder to say 'I'm going to force combat to be the way we solve this drought!'.

I largely disagree with this, if you want combat to be the only solution to a diplomatic dinner, the only thing you need to do is declare an attack against someone.

[NichG]

Yeah this sounds about right. That said... I always just wonder about stuff like this.

How do you solve for a drought with spells that isn't simply "I cast this spell"? I suppose that using combinations of spells to do stuff that will solve for the drought in a way that isn't merely "I pushed the button and solved this problem" is going to require DM buy in. In which case, anyone can do it. Unless it requires magic.

As a DM, push-button solutions can be okay too if they have consequences, or if they're very expressive, or both.

But, for a drought scenario, the sorts of things I'd do to resolve it with magic would be...

- Short term, you care about the consequences of the drought (are people starving because of crop failures? dying of dehydration? losing their land to forest fires?). Those are all things which there are push-button interventions using magic. People are starving or dying of thirst? Create Food and Water! Doesn't permanently resolve the situation, but its a powerful move - it buys time more or less indefinitely. Forest fires? All sorts of fun with Move Earth to make fire breaks quickly, dig channels to nearby water sources if any exist, etc. Control Weather to direct the wind so the fire doesn't spread towards settlements (and hey, maybe even make some rain!). At lower levels, even stuff like Ice Storm, Sleet Storm, Wind Wall, even Create or Destroy Water for spot treatments.

- Long term, two paths occur to me - change the weather patterns or change the dependence of people on the weather. Move Earth to make giant cisterns and do a Dune? Cut some channels in mountains that are casting a rain shadow on the area? Invite (or enslave) some water elementals to move in using Planar Binding/Contact Other Plane/Planeshift/Gate? Is magic item crafting on the table? Then make some Decanters of Endless Water. Some of these things are kind of push-button, others are more extended. A lot of the push-button ones still have side-effects that make for interesting play - is the party really willing to part with the resources to make 10 decanters of endless water? If the party enslaves a bunch of water elementals, are they going to piss of the marids or something?

Could a fighter do these things? Some of them, eventually, sure. But to the same kind of extent that, say, the mayor of the town could do it.

[Skrum]

- snip -

Well lemme tell you my skill challenge journey

The table I play at attempted to bring skills to a more central role in the game. So, DMs started doing simple skill challenges: the DM would describe a scenario, and then each player would get the opportunity to narrate how they contribute. The DC would be set at some number (+/- 15 usually), and each character could use a skill of their choice. And the object of it was to get X successes before Y failures. It was fun enough, at first, but the fact that people can choose any skill they want led to some narrative contortions (we'd joke about Athletics being used to "set the pace, power ahead, blaze a trail...).

DMs got fancier and more complicated with it over time; some would dictate more specific scenarios where the party had to use 1 of maybe 3 specific skills, so players couldn't just constantly use their best skill. That was an improvement IMO, but there's still a "funny time" quality to it; like the game was pausing to do this little skill challenge mini game.

And that brings me to my complaint about skills that I haven't thought of a good way to fix: skills are dumb luck. There's almost no satisfaction is rolling a good skill check, and no particular agency in their use. Classes like barb might be notoriously limited in what they can do, even in combat, but even a barb gets to decide things round to round - movement, grapples, using GWM, shoving, etc etc etc. Yes, heinous rolls can ruin even the best-laid plans but there's still a good deal of agency involved. Skills just don't have that. Getting the "option" to use athletics to jump a river or persuasion to convince the toll collector to let you use the bridge isn't much of a choice if your athletics is +9 and persuasion is -1. There's hardly ever meaningful choice in skill checks, as one of a couple things happens

1) The DM calls for a check you're good at. Yay!
2) The DM calls for a check you're bad at. Oh noes!
3) The DM describes a scenario and asks what you want to do. You narrate how you can use the skill you're good at.
3) A) The DM buys it. Yay!
3) B) The DM says that's dumb. Oh noes!

None of that to me is being tactical, or expressing real choice, not in the way combat choices are a choice.

And like, skill checks don't have to be literally as complicated with as robust a system as combat. But some way to bring actual agency to the skill system would be awesome.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, skills drive me crazy too. I think it's the bounded accuracy aspect - where the roll of the die has far more meaning than the bonuses you bring to it, without a decent amount of specialization for the particular skill... which vastly limits how specialized you can get with other skills.

I'm toying with the 'every skill DC is 15', if you fail by 5 or less, you succeed with a drawback. If you succeed by 5 or more, you have a critical success. But I'm also thinking of using 3rd Ed style Skill Points, maximizing 1 per character level. If your Skill Points equal your current level, you don't have to roll for that skill, you just succeed as normal. But you can roll if you'd like, for the chance at a critical success. Skill points probably wouldn't provide a bonus to the roll, just determine your ability to even make the attempt, and if you can auto succeed or not. Rolling will always just be d20+Mod+PB.

I'm also looking at incorporating a Luck stat, but I think I'm gonna drop that on the homebrew forum, looking for feedback.

[NichG]

Well lemme tell you my skill challenge journey

The table I play at attempted to bring skills to a more central role in the game. So, DMs started doing simple skill challenges: the DM would describe a scenario, and then each player would get the opportunity to narrate how they contribute. The DC would be set at some number (+/- 15 usually), and each character could use a skill of their choice. And the object of it was to get X successes before Y failures. It was fun enough, at first, but the fact that people can choose any skill they want led to some narrative contortions (we'd joke about Athletics being used to "set the pace, power ahead, blaze a trail...).

DMs got fancier and more complicated with it over time; some would dictate more specific scenarios where the party had to use 1 of maybe 3 specific skills, so players couldn't just constantly use their best skill. That was an improvement IMO, but there's still a "funny time" quality to it; like the game was pausing to do this little skill challenge mini game.

And that brings me to my complaint about skills that I haven't thought of a good way to fix: skills are dumb luck. There's almost no satisfaction is rolling a good skill check, and no particular agency in their use. Classes like barb might be notoriously limited in what they can do, even in combat, but even a barb gets to decide things round to round - movement, grapples, using GWM, shoving, etc etc etc. Yes, heinous rolls can ruin even the best-laid plans but there's still a good deal of agency involved. Skills just don't have that. Getting the "option" to use athletics to jump a river or persuasion to convince the toll collector to let you use the bridge isn't much of a choice if your athletics is +9 and persuasion is -1. There's hardly ever meaningful choice in skill checks, as one of a couple things happens

1) The DM calls for a check you're good at. Yay!
2) The DM calls for a check you're bad at. Oh noes!
3) The DM describes a scenario and asks what you want to do. You narrate how you can use the skill you're good at.
3) A) The DM buys it. Yay!
3) B) The DM says that's dumb. Oh noes!

None of that to me is being tactical, or expressing real choice, not in the way combat choices are a choice.

And like, skill checks don't have to be literally as complicated with as robust a system as combat. But some way to bring actual agency to the skill system would be awesome.

Going back to the 'factor set' thing I mentioned before, imagine setting up the drought scenario within that framing.

The initial factor cards are:
- Crop Failure: If this card is still in play in two weeks, it converts to the Food Shortage card. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Wildfires: While this card is in play, each week 10% of the population will need to evacuate the area or die, and a major building will be destroyed. Fires may also strike at random, preventing any plans that involve construction. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Water Shortage: While this card is in play, 10% of the population will die of thirst each week. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Heatwave: While this card is in play, any actions taken by PCs or locals incur one level of Exhaustion per hour unless the character is protected from extreme heat. So long as this card is in play, the Wildfires and Water Shortage cards return each week if otherwise temporarily dealt with. Reduces local labor power by 2 levels.

- Rainshadow: Local weather patterns mean that air coming down off of the nearby mountain is dry and hot. Heatwave Factor - if there are at least three Heatwave Factor cards present, the Heatwave card returns each week.
- Summer Weather: It is currently the hot and dry time of year. As long as this persists, this card is a Heatwave Factor
- Pyromancer Enclave: A group of pyromancers are doing large-scale fire magic nearby, amplifying the hot and dry circumstances. This card is a Heatwave Factor
- Vanishing Snowmelt: Permafrost in the nearby mountains has reduced over past years, and snowmelt is not providing enough water for the old riverways to run. This card is a Heatwave Factor.

Other relevant factor cards:
- Food Shortage: While this card is in play, 5% of the population will die of hunger each week. Furthermore, this card reduces the degree to which the locals are willing to cooperate with any plans by 1 level.
- Rampant Disease: If over 100 people die and are not properly buried or cremated, this card appears. Reduces local labor power by 2 levels.

Scenario Goal:
- Remove the Heatwave card.

Then you have resource pools:

- Local cooperativity: 0 is neutral, modified down to -2 by Crop Failure and Water Shortage. Must be positive for any plan involving local participation. Must be 3+ for any plan involving local sacrifices.
- Local labor: 3 baseline, reduced 2 due to Heatwave to 1. Determines the manpower (and therefore speed of completion) for projects involving locals working to help. At 1, you might get a local to guide you around. A small work crew of 10 people could be spared at 2, a large work crew of 100 at 3, etc.

Then, you can have a number of skillful actions that interact with these states. Morale-boosting or diplomatic acts can increase Cooperativity in mechanically specified ways. Sourcing supplies of food or water could temporarily remove those shortages and free people up for larger plans. Building permanent lines of trade or diverting a river could permanently remove shortages. An individual character might not be able to do things like make fire breaks to remove the Wildfires danger (but maybe a high enough level/stat/etc character could?) but if you can hit the minimum local labor rating required you can just have a work crew do it - at 2 it might take a month but at 3 it could be done in 3 days, so it matters a lot as far as how much damage the wildfires will do in the end.

Some actions might convert one card into another. Setting up lines of trade to transport water over might create a card Water Trade - As long as the town has wealth, the Water Shortage card is suppressed. Maybe there's something you can do to redirect a river towards the town, effectively converting the Vanishing Snowmelt card into Flash Flooding. Etc.

Yes, its still going to be the DM adjudicating what sorts of transformations happen. But there's a bit more of a framework saying 'why is this situation happening', 'what does movement through the space of situations look like?', etc. You could make it more quantitative, focusing on general rules for things like local labor that will apply across all scenarios, or you could drop or abstract those elements into a single card like 'Local Panic - as long as there are immediate threats to life and limb, the locals will not lend aid to your plans' or just leave it to narration and table discussion.

5e skills aren't really quite the right skills for this kind of thing though. Honestly, just having lots of examples of big things you can do - organize a trade route; construct a building, a channel, a bridge; determine the causes of a natural phenomenon and how it could be interferred with; etc, would help. With those bigger scope examples, you wouldn't necessarily need to be so detailed with the factor cards and their transformations because it would be implied by the more expansive text. Yes, your character with proficiency in Survival can redirect a river or cause a landslide with a week's labor. Or is it Strength + Architecture? ...

[Skrum]

I'm toying with the 'every skill DC is 15', if you fail by 5 or less, you succeed with a drawback. If you succeed by 5 or more, you have a critical success.

I've thought of this too, but every time I've considered it in practice it becomes a massive headache. What the drawback is, what super-success is, like that's specific to not only the skill being used but even the particular context. The social skills are relatively easy to imagine in this regard, but what does it mean to "crit success" jumping over a ravine? Or sneaking? And then there's knowledge skills: now the DM has to come up with 2, 3, 4 layers of info to correspond to varying levels of success. TBC, I've done this before (esp. for knowledge checks), but it's time consuming and only easily works for some skills.

But I'm also thinking of using 3rd Ed style Skill Points, maximizing 1 per character level. If your Skill Points equal your current level, you don't have to roll for that skill, you just succeed as normal. But you can roll if you'd like, for the chance at a critical success. Skill points probably wouldn't provide a bonus to the roll, just determine your ability to even make the attempt, and if you can auto succeed or not. Rolling will always just be d20+Mod+PB.

Some things I've toyed around with (but never play tested)

1) Untrained skills have a DC cap of 8 + proficiency bonus. DC's above that cannot be attempted by someone without proficiency in that skill
2) Expertise grants a "take 10" feature; instead of rolling, the character may count the check like the rolled a 10. This cannot be used in combat or other hostile situation
3) Not really a mechanical change but a table of DC's to use as a reference is really needed. My general opinion is skills tend to be too high of a DC; someone who is trained in something should probably be succeeding at that thing like 75% of the time. The norm DC should be in the 10-12 range; higher is notably hard things to do
4) Yeah, something like total fail, partial fail, success, and total success would be nice (but see above comments)

But - none of this addresses what might be my core problem. There's no agency in skill checks. It's just use the obviously best, highest check you possibly can. I guess something like the Varying Success system could address some of this? Have poorly matched skills have terrible downside risk? But again, that's just a lot of DM time to make it feel right.