Do caster out of combat options matter?

[Sorinth]

I can say that because I have seen it? I've played the game multiple times and have seen options that require certain builds. Some were available to me in one playthrough but not in another. Easy example is the holes that require you to be tiny size. Druids and halflings (with potion/spell of dimunition) can go through the hole. A party of medium sized characters that have no means of becoming tiny have no chance of going through the hole.

Let me clarify here: I am not saying I know why they put bridges where they put bridges. I make no claim on that area. I have never made claims about that subject. And when I design dungeons I put bridges where I think there should be bridges.

I AM saying that they do not put bridges into the game while I am playing as a response to me not being able to cross a gap. If I can't cross a gap because of my character building choices then Larian is not going to add a bridge just for me. Do I need to have been to their board meetings to know that? Can't I just have played the game and seen it for myself?

When I design an adventure and add a ravine, I don't then look at the player's sheets and think "wow they are not going to be able to cross this! I better add a bridge". Because A) they might surprise me, B) that would invalidate their choices.

You said that there are sections of BG3 that are unplayable because of build-choices and your example is those small holes that only tiny creatures can use. That's false, none of the areas those holes go to are areas that are unplayable unless you can use the hole. So no BG3 doesn't add a bridge on the fly, but they very much planned out multiple paths to get to the same area in order to ensure that every area is playable regardless of the player's build choices. They placed climbable rocks or vines or ladders or yes even a bridge to ensure that you can walk the long way around to the same location and that all areas are playable.

[Blatant Beast]

But, yes, I agree with your premise, OP.
The story your DM wants to tell will accommodate the party as it needs to. If "do you know this spell?" is going to be a wall, the game just grinds to an immediate halt and no one has fun when that happens.

That is a big presumption, it is also a prime example of metagaming/deus machina/formulaic style thought . If I wanted to write a novel, I would, as a DM, I am not writing a novel. Many DM's I know, approach running a game as having a script of events that would play out, without player intervention: and then the rest of the campaign is essentially the player foiling, and altering those events.

One can also be an Elden Ring style DM. If the players have made decisions that has ground the game to a halt, then the players also bear the responsibility to make decisions that renders them unstuck, if they so chose.

Finding a long forgotten Teleportation Circle formula to Moil, is it's own special reward.
Quality of life wise, it is cooler if the party can use this directly. If the party can not, then perhaps, they can find a spellcaster that would be willing to cast the spell for them.

If the party killed the only spell caster capable of casting the spell, and getting to Moil is essential, well I guess that is how the story proceeds.....some of the best games I have been involved in, have been games where the Player Characters have made choices that had less than optimal results.

[Aimeryan]

I am skeptical of the claim that you need to DM by proxy if you don't have certain spells, and I'm afraid the only solution we have here is to start throwing out examples and arguing over those examples.

I'm also skeptical that players don't have agency without certain spells.

Not no agency, less. I acknowledge your skepticism, however, the fact of the matter is that the skill system - as well as exploration in general - is highly DM fiat. Something the player may think will work can fall down at a dozen points with a casual remark from the DM. Spells, on the other hand, do what they say they do.

[LudicSavant]

The more you can predict and control the outcome of your choice, the more agency you have.

[stoutstien]

The more you can predict and control the outcome of your choice, the more agency you have.

There is a point when having control of the outcomes starts reducing agency due to elimination of risk and costs. It's why we use dice in the first place.

[NichG]

Risk and costs don't contribute to agency. They can contribute to other aesthetics.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not no agency, less. I acknowledge your skepticism, however, the fact of the matter is that the skill system - as well as exploration in general - is highly DM fiat. Something the player may think will work can fall down at a dozen points with a casual remark from the DM. Spells, on the other hand, do what they say they do.

Well, if we're complaining about how much the skill system is up to DM fiat, I'll build the bandwagon myself and we can all hop on.

But that doesn't remove agency.

Players without a Fly spell don't approach a ravine and then slump down into unthinking and un-moving lumps that the DM then places around the map. And I think it's uncharitable to call it "co-DMing" because the DM has to adjudicate the actions the player is choosing to take. That's just the DM running the game.

If you cast Speak with Dead, the DM has to adjudicate how that corpse answers those questions. I wouldn't consider that as the spellcaster "co-DMing" because the DM now has to "entertain" your idea that this corpse might have some useful information.

[Segev]

Thinking about the example of traveling to the plane if fire, it isn't that it lets you go where the plot is. It is that it lets you go where the fiery enemy's boss is to try to go over his head. Maybe the DM meant for you to go there; maybe not. But when you can just do it, then you can do it on your own terms and when it is use full to you.

[Unoriginal]

Thinking about the example of traveling to the plane if fire, it isn't that it lets you go where the plot is. It is that it lets you go where the fiery enemy's boss is to try to go over his head. Maybe the DM meant for you to go there; maybe not. But when you can just do it, then you can do it on your own terms and when it is use full to you.

Being able to go in the Plane of Fire and talk to your enemy's boss requires more than "on your own term", whether you can cast a spell or find a portal.

Spells like Plane Shift requires you to have a plane-attuned tuning fork, and you need to know where the boss is pretty precisely. And the boss needs to exist in the first place, of course.

The dynamic is different, between "I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.

[Telok]

"I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help. They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

By comparison a party of people unable to cast plane shift is also much more likely to lack the intelligence modifiers, knowledge proficencies, and divinations for the basic information. That's in addition to not knowing if there's a conveniently nearby portal, not knowing how to activate it, and then fighting for or negotiating accesd to that portal.

The caster player is in a position to ask the GM a few questions, maybe cast some divinations and make a couple rolls, and (setting & GM dependent) make/buy/quest a tuning fork. The non-caster gets to ask similar questions, but then if the answer is yes (setting & GM dependent) the GM is far more likely to have to come up with the npcs, monsters, encounters, battle maps, and treasure that goes into the "find a sage to find a portal to travel to it to go through it" quest.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.

[clash]

I mean the portal and it's defenses seen like something that would already be prepared in a campaign that involves traveling to the plane of fire. Things like divination and knowledge dcs would likely have to be improvised on the spot (ie DM fiat) or over prepared in advance (also dm fiat) unless the dm is specifically catering to pc abilities when designing the campaign (very much DM fiat). I think the dm goes much more or of their way to accommodate the players with plane shift spell than those without.

[NichG]

The DM being involved is different than the DM planning something in advance.

With options like Plane Shift, the campaign may end up going to the Plane of Fire only because one of the players was interested in going there. Run the same campaign with a different player, and the party never goes to the Plane of Fire at all.

Spells certainly aren't the only way this can happen, but they're notable in that they're a bit of the game system that tells DMs 'hey, if a character casts this spell, this thing is gonna happen!'. A player could say 'hey, I'm a scholarly type, I go to the local library and research portals to the Plane of Fire' and the DM can say 'uh, why would you think that would work, there's no such things on record...'. They might even think that that's what they *should* do, what the game expects them to do in order to keep the group on track. Having something that says 'basically at this point, plane hopping is on the table as no big deal' establishes something about the kind of gameplay that players could expect at those levels.

In that sense, the 'it just works!' aspect establishes something about the sorts of games D&D supports in a way that something technically being possible if the player thinks to use a skill that way and if the DM agrees it should work doesn't.

[Aimeryan]

But that doesn't remove agency.

Theorectically? You're correct - the DM could rule in your favour every time, and the dice could roll in your favour every time.
Practically? Odds are it does. If spells were as wishy-washy as 'mother may I' and 'hope I roll well' then this would be different - thankfully, they aren't.

[Unoriginal]

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help.

Which divination spells are you saying will help with that task?

Locate Object doesn't have that big a range, and that's the only relevant spell I can think of.

They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

Indeed. And that is a DM intervention.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like Plane Shift, is using a setting without it, or is using a setting where tuning forks aren't conveniently located, then the casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do.

That's what I mean when I say both requires DM intervention.

Again, it is true that "we need to find a portal" is a very different dynamic/plot line than "I have a spell that can do the job". But that doesn't make one less DM-interventiony.

[Mastikator]

That is my point. The DM is always reacting to the players and having to run the world in response to their actions.

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.

[Unoriginal]

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.

Casting Fly, Teleport of Speak with Animals is an action at the table, though. And the DM will have to react to it.

If the DM wishes to ban Fly, Teleport or Speak With Animals, it is also up to them, but it is poor form to not inform players of that during session 0/during the campaign pitch.

[Mastikator]

Casting Fly, Teleport of Speak with Animals is an action at the table, though. And the DM will have to react to it.

If the DM wishes to ban Fly, Teleport or Speak With Animals, it is also up to them, but it is poor form to not inform players of that during session 0/during the campaign pitch.

So you agree with me. DM reacts to actions player take at the table.

Completely separate from DM preps as response to player having option on character sheet.

[Dr.Samurai]

Being able to go in the Plane of Fire and talk to your enemy's boss requires more than "on your own term", whether you can cast a spell or find a portal.

Spells like Plane Shift requires you to have a plane-attuned tuning fork, and you need to know where the boss is pretty precisely. And the boss needs to exist in the first place, of course.

The dynamic is different, between "I have a spell for that" and "there is a portal for that", but both requires just as much DM-intervention.

Yes, this is a better example than my Speak with Dead example.

It isn't "more work" or "catering" or "co-DMing" with a party with a lack of spells. Unless of course... we just ignore things like spell components. Or we assume things like "this spell component will be easy to get".

We do a fair amount of assuming things will just work out for casters so maybe that's the point being made .

Not really. A character with Plane Shift run by a player who intends to use the spell is likely to have already have tried sourcing some tuning forks, much more likely to have a 14+ int and appropriate knowledge proficencies, and almost certainly has divination spells that can help. They may be in a great position to ask the GM what their character knows, cast a few divinations, and have or already know how to get the tuning fork.

By comparison a party of people unable to cast plane shift is also much more likely to lack the intelligence modifiers, knowledge proficencies, and divinations for the basic information. That's in addition to not knowing if there's a conveniently nearby portal, not knowing how to activate it, and then fighting for or negotiating accesd to that portal.

The caster player is in a position to ask the GM a few questions, maybe cast some divinations and make a couple rolls, and (setting & GM dependent) make/buy/quest a tuning fork. The non-caster gets to ask similar questions, but then if the answer is yes (setting & GM dependent) the GM is far more likely to have to come up with the npcs, monsters, encounters, battle maps, and treasure that goes into the "find a sage to find a portal to travel to it to go through it" quest.

If the GM OKs the planar travel but doesn't like portals, is using a setting without them, or us using a setting where they aren't conveniently located, then the non-casters get a nope or the GM has a lot of work to do. Whether or not those things are true the caster has a faster, easier, and rules enabled method to do the same thing that will be less work and less intervention for the GM unless they decide to make a big involved quest out of getting the tuning fork.

Yeah see... this assumes like the tuning fork is a nonissue, but the portal will be an issue.

Theorectically? You're correct - the DM could rule in your favour every time, and the dice could roll in your favour every time.
Practically? Odds are it does. If spells were as wishy-washy as 'mother may I' and 'hope I roll well' then this would be different - thankfully, they aren't.

It's the other way around actually. This forum discussion is theoretical, and practical experience at the table is a party of non-spellcasters will get by just fine. And not because the DM is puppeteering them either.

In response to their actions at the table? Yes.
In response to their backgrounds, personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws? Also yes.
In response to whether they can fly, or teleport, or speak with animals? Hard no.

I think we're arguing two different points.

I'm arguing against the reply that a DM has to cater/work more/share DMing responsibilities with players that can't cast spells. So if we bullet point your reply there, point 3 will always lead back to point 1, whether they can cast spells or not. No difference.

[Aimeryan]

It's the other way around actually. This forum discussion is theoretical, and practical experience at the table is a party of non-spellcasters will get by just fine. And not because the DM is puppeteering them either.

Viability and agency are two completely different things.

I think we're arguing two different points.

I know this part was aimed at Mastikator, but yeah... yeah we are.

[Mastikator]

I'm arguing against the reply that a DM has to cater/work more/share DMing responsibilities with players that can't cast spells. So if we bullet point your reply there, point 3 will always lead back to point 1, whether they can cast spells or not. No difference.

I was trying to stay on topic. "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."
- clash

Whether they have the capacity to do out of combat stuff was to my understanding the subject of this thread. Whether they choose to use those options is off topic.

When you design an adventure that takes place in the City of Brass, do you look at the player character sheets to see if they have plane shift, and do you add a portal/NPC/item to plane shift them if they can't. Or do you just add the portal/NPC/item anyway, regardless of their ability. If you add it anyway, is the option to cast the spell actually matter. Or do you look at their ability to do out of combat options, and make an adventure based on those.

These are all decisions that happen before the adventure starts.

I think option 3 is too fragile, players can miss a session and leave the other players unable to go.
I think option 1 is too arbitrary and too much work.
So I always go for option 2. Make an adventure that any party can finish (and add multiple paths and outcomes that depend on out of combat options. But don't go crazy, just add enough details that the players can get creative, and they'll always surprise you, but again, off topic)

[Segev]

Well, if your position is not only that the DM will enable (for example) planar travel to the planes he has determined the plot will take the players to, but also that he will actively forbid spells that would allow them to get to planes he didn't specifically plan for non-spell ways to get to them, then yes, the caster abilities that enable the thing he DM will ensure do not work don't matter.

However, if the players tell the DM, "We would like to go the Plane of Fire," he may ask "why" but he also almost certainly will ask "how." And if the players say they are going to do research into planar portals, the DM decides whether they can find anything at all, and also where the portals are on both ends and how they are activated.

Sure, he can do a lot of the same if the players' answer is, "Wizmadoo will cast plane shift to get there," because he can make some of thise hoops they must jump through be to get the tuning fork. However, once Wizmadoo has the fork, he can cast the spell every day. Moreover, with a portal, Wizmadoo and party can get cut off from that portal, and have to find their way back, fighting or sneaking or whatever. If the party is stuck on the Plane if Fire with Wizmadoo, he can just cast the spell to go back home at any point he has a spell slot of the appropriate level available.

The DM's freedom to put them anywhere on the plane he likes is like the ability to set the portal location, but even that is unlikely to go to the same (undesirable) place every time. (A teleportation circle to target is a choice on the players' part whether to use or not, especially if they can create their own!)

These spells just put much more in the hands of the players, giving them more agency. Unless the DM essentially bans them.

[Rukelnikov]

There's a difference between the two examples being talked here.

One requires DM intervention to work, the other requires DM intervention to NOT work.

[clash]

There's a difference between the two examples being talked here.

One requires DM intervention to work, the other requires DM intervention to NOT work.

I would argue the spells require more dm intervention to work because as I've stated before the dm had likely accounted for the non spell route when creating the campaign. If the players require a tuning fork instead of using a portal chances are the dm needs to go out of his way to enable that alternate route.

Either way I don't think DM fiat is the measuring stick for if your spells actually have an impact.

[JNAProductions]

I would argue the spells require more dm intervention to work because as I've stated before the dm had likely accounted for the non spell route when creating the campaign. If the players require a tuning fork instead of using a portal chances are the dm needs to go out of his way to enable that alternate route.

Either way I don't think DM fiat is the measuring stick for if your spells actually have an impact.

What if the DM doesn't have a plot planned out?
What if the DM is reactive to what the players do, instead of having a set path in mind?

[clash]

What if the DM doesn't have a plot planned out?
What if the DM is reactive to what the players do, instead of having a set path in mind?

Then speaking as a DM it would be the same amount of work either way but would likely provide me more time to prepare for the planar adventure in the case where they are looking for a portal first. If the players want to get to the plane of fire in but going to say yes you can plane shift there but no one else in the world can help you get there if you don't know the spell.

I fail to see how getting there without the spell is requiring me to be more permissive

[Dr.Samurai]

Viability and agency are two completely different things.

I know this part was aimed at Mastikator, but yeah... yeah we are.

Seems clear to me that the OP is asking about viability, not agency.

And insofar as there is wealth to spend and NPC spellcasters, we're talking about an added step between the agency you allege to have, and the agency nonspellcasters have.

I was trying to stay on topic. "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."
- clash

Whether they have the capacity to do out of combat stuff was to my understanding the subject of this thread. Whether they choose to use those options is off topic.

You're confusing me, sorry to say.

The OP is saying that there is much made about how casters have these utility spells that let them overcome stuff that others can't. And the OP is saying "yeah but... you would just overcome it some other way without the spells, so does it really matter?"

When you design an adventure that takes place in the City of Brass, do you look at the player character sheets to see if they have plane shift, and do you add a portal/NPC/item to plane shift them if they can't. Or do you just add the portal/NPC/item anyway, regardless of their ability. If you add it anyway, is the option to cast the spell actually matter. Or do you look at their ability to do out of combat options, and make an adventure based on those.

These are all decisions that happen before the adventure starts.

I think option 3 is too fragile, players can miss a session and leave the other players unable to go.
I think option 1 is too arbitrary and too much work.
So I always go for option 2. Make an adventure that any party can finish (and add multiple paths and outcomes that depend on out of combat options. But don't go crazy, just add enough details that the players can get creative, and they'll always surprise you, but again, off topic)

I generally agree with this, as before.

The OP reads to my as if coming from the place where people assume that if the party doesn't have Plane Shift, they can't get to other planes, and this therefore adds a level of superiority and utility to those spellcasters that can access Plane Shift. But we, and the OP, are saying that Plane Shift is not the only way to the other planes, and the party will figure it out. And if the DM designed an adventure with no way to resolve unless a member of the party was:

1. a specific class
2. a specific level
3. and knew a specific spell

Then the DM set everyone up to fail when the party shows up and that specific character isn't in it.

Then speaking as a DM it would be the same amount of work either way but would likely provide me more time to prepare for the planar adventure in the case where they are looking for a portal first. If the players want to get to the plane of fire in but going to say yes you can plane shift there but no one else in the world can help you get there if you don't know the spell.

I fail to see how getting there without the spell is requiring me to be more permissive

Because it's common to view the game through "what can spellcasters do" lenses and think that everything revolves around casters. So this idea that the DM will have to react to the party not having a spell to do something as "burdensome" or "more work" and "co-DMing", but the DM reacting to an impromptu jaunt to another plane of existence, or casting Divination spells all the time, or reading people's thoughts, or speaking with every corpse, etc. is NOT more work for the DM is just a bias.

There is no difference between "We'd like to find a portal to the Plane of Fire" and "We'd like to find a tuning fork attuned to the Plane of Fire" as far as DM burden. The difference will be that the portal will take the players wherever the DM decides, whereas Plane Shift will take the players generally to the location they want to go to. This is the "agency" others are speaking of, but not, what I think, the OP was referring to.

Generally, I would agree with the other side that it matters insofar as timing and precision. But that's not how people talk about it online, and so it's not what the OP is referring to. We all have read countless posts about this and how martials can't do things because they don't have spells, and that's where this is coming from.

[Telok]

Yeah see... this assumes like the tuning fork is a nonissue, but the portal will be an issue.'

No, it assumes that the character with Plane Shift wants to use the spell and likely would have looked into getting tuning forks, thus starting with more than zero information. Also the bit I was responding to was about a game where the party decided to try going to another plane to solve something, not a preplanned off-plane adventure. Without people moving goal posts, yes it does need more GM work & intervention to add in the typical non-caster enabling portal mini adventure and travel than just finding a tuning fork.

If the GM wants to go totally off into "no you can't" or "yes and scene change you're there now" they can do so with equal ease for either case. They can demand that you have to have a tuning fork made of metal from the plane of fire and there are none on the prime just, as easily as they can have the party fall down a random hole through a portal to the plane of fire. But most won't do that level of absolute yes/no.

The question wasn't about whether the GM can be equally railroading scuzz or total floormat in either case. It was about if the GM had to do more to enable some party traveling to the planes. The GM when faced with "the party wants to travel to plane X" has two cases here; the party has the core PH rulebook spell that says yes and the GM decides how hard they want to make it, or the party has no inherent means and the GM uses an optional bit from the DMG including possibly having to change worldbuilding & setting before they decide how hard they want to make it.

I'm not interested in shuffling through every possible detail of someone else's hypothetic goal shifting scenario. The game's default by the core rules is that there's a Plane Shift spell and tuning forks that can be bought, found, or made. The optional stuff for portals is not an assumed default always on option and involves more work & intervention bt the GM to enable the party to go off into the planes. If I were running a game where I didn't pre-plan extraplanar stuff and the players got a bug to go off to the plane of whatever then if they have Plane Shift all I have to do it OK finding the tuning fork. If they don't then I have work to do just to enable them to get to another plane before they can do anything else.

This applies to pretty much everything beyond being able to just walk/sail to a location. If there are flying castles the GM adds extra stuff so the noncaster party can adventure there. If there is an underwater kingdom the GM adds extra stuff so the noncaster party can adventure there. Even if some adventure point is just far away the GM has to deal with the noncaster party possibly taking months just to get from point A to B and possibly never completing the trip at all. Its not better, or worse, or right, or wrong. Its just that the party with casters has more and better travel, investigation, social manipulation, and infiltration options by default of the PH being packed with spells to do that stuff.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, it assumes that the character with Plane Shift wants to use the spell and likely would have looked into getting tuning forks, thus starting with more than zero information. Also the bit I was responding to was about a game where the party decided to try going to another plane to solve something, not a preplanned off-plane adventure. Without people moving goal posts, yes it does need more GM work & intervention to add in the typical non-caster enabling portal mini adventure and travel than just finding a tuning fork.

Says who though? Where does it tell us in the books how difficult it is to source a tuning fork attuned to another plane? Or what the process of attuning that tuning fork is? That's all up to the DM. It's as difficult or easy as the DM wants it to be.

The question wasn't about whether the GM can be equally railroading scuzz or total floormat in either case.

When people are making claims that the DM has to do more and work harder, while ignoring that the DM also has to do more in the case of wizards, the question is relevant.

You mention changing the worldbuilding and setting... and yet you are assuming something akin to items shops, where a wizard can waltz in and request a tuning fork attuned to specific planes. "Sure sir, let me just check my bin of tuning forks, hang on, I'm pretty sure I have one that gets you to Gehenna somewhere around here. Hmm, where did it go? Planar Pete just stopped by and dropped off a new shipment just the other day, gave me three tuning forks for each plane of existence. That's right, I get 15th level spellcasters in here all the time looking for tuning forks hehehe!"

I'm not interested in shuffling through every possible detail of someone else's hypothetic goal shifting scenario. The game's default by the core rules is that there's a Plane Shift spell and tuning forks that can be bought, found, or made.

No, the game has a spell and it tells you what that spell requires. It has absolutely NO text about whether you can buy that tuning fork, find it, or make it. That the DM will have to determine if/when you decide to use that spell.

The optional stuff for portals is not an assumed default always on option and involves more work & intervention bt the GM to enable the party to go off into the planes.

Telok, you don't level up to 15 and suddenly find a nifty tuning fork in your pocket. You have to acquire it.

If we're talking about extraplanar jaunts that aren't pre-planned, then chances are you don't have the tuning fork. So the very first step in your wizard's journey is "DM, I'd like to locate a tuning fork attuned to XYZ plane".

This is no different to a fighter saying "DM, I'd like to locate a portal attuned to XYZ plane".

The DM has to provide input in both cases, it's not simply up to the player.

If I were running a game where I didn't pre-plan extraplanar stuff and the players got a bug to go off to the plane of whatever then if they have Plane Shift all I have to do it OK finding the tuning fork. If they don't then I have work to do just to enable them to get to another plane before they can do anything else.

This is the case if this same group of players get this bug at any time before level 15 though. I mean... does this happen often?

Its not better, or worse, or right, or wrong.

I agree, but that's not how everyone sees it.

Its just that the party with casters has more and better travel, investigation, social manipulation, and infiltration options by default of the PH being packed with spells to do that stuff.

Only at the point that they select those spells.

[InvisibleBison]

If we're talking about extraplanar jaunts that aren't pre-planned, then chances are you don't have the tuning fork. So the very first step in your wizard's journey is "DM, I'd like to locate a tuning fork attuned to XYZ plane".

This is no different to a fighter saying "DM, I'd like to locate a portal attuned to XYZ plane".

No, it is different. If the DM says no to the wizard, she's negating one of the character's class features. If the DM says no to the fighter, she's not negating one of the character's class features. And while the DM is technically allowed to negate a character's class features, it's a far bigger violation of the game's social contract than not letting a character do something that isn't on their character sheet, so much so that it's generally accepted that it can only be done if the DM has said ahead of time (ideally ahead of the game even starting!) that it's going to happen.

[Segev]

You know, all PCs' non-combat abilities are entirely superfluous. After all, if the DM wants them to be able to do something the PCs can't, he will just give them an NPC, magic item, or other plot coupon to do it for them!