Author Topic: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard  (Read 51159 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bozwevial

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Developing a relaxed attitude to danger.
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2010, 02:38:38 AM »
Because I read that wrong and would have sworn that he said that he prefers 4E over 3.5?

 :embarrassed
Heh, no worries. I had to reread it to figure out what he meant by 'it.'

oslecamo

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2010, 11:26:51 AM »
I must point out that there's another double standard whitin the double standard.

A-In mytholology magic can do pretty much everything.
B-However, that magic also has several limitations, like preparation time, special components, heavy personal sacrifice, ect.

Most players I know want A, but they don't want B. They want magic that does everything and has little if no drawbacks/limitation. Even if the system has drawbacks, players will seek every loophole they can get to bypass said drawbacks. This includes stuff like claiming your wizard can just blast away his spells into an ecounter, retreat into his portable hole and the rest of the world will wait for him to recover his spells.

Main "balancing" factors for magic and the way to bypass them include:
-Spell points/slots, countered by going nova and going into a safehouse.
-Nonlethal damage/fatigue, countered also by resting in a safehouse.
-Rare components, countered by the player twisting the rules for some way to mass produce them.
-Feedback, aka magic can turn back on you when you use it. Countered by the players finding immunities to those problems.

All of the above can (and should) be counter-countered by the DM.
-Time is short. You can't just stop to rest and recover after every ecounter or the BBEG will finish his plans.
-No, that trick to mass produce stuff doesn't work. You'll have to do the special hard sidequest to get more.
-If you become immune to the feedback, then you can't use the spell at all!

Of course, the problem is finding the balancing point for your group. Some people will cry their class is completely useless if they can't go full power in every battle. Others are fine with one-shot tricks that demand long preparation. And others are fine with wizards being uber if they randomly explode their own heads (ciugh Dark Heresy cough).

It boils down a lot to the group's tastes. Because like pointed by the OP, some people indeed want magic to be stronger. I've also met the oposite side of the spectrum, who make wizards weaklings that can barely do anything in combat.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2010, 10:00:39 PM »
Oslecamo: Your posts summarizes a lot of the balance arugments on this topic.

Part of any game is the metagame.  To Earth's humans, being so capable that an enemy can't touch you is seen as admirable, even enviable.  In D&D, "loopholes" as you called them- also known as workarounds- are ways of telling your DM, "I'm not playing by your terms," or "I'm too smart for this game or you as DM."

Consider this example.  Two nations are on the brink of war because their powerful rulers can't agree on terms.  The DM expects you to attend a peace conference and familitate diplomacy between these leaders.  You instead kill them, animate their corpses, and threaten this upon anyone who tries to make war.

Either way, the leaders are pacified.  In the "out-of-the-box thinking" scenario, you probably drastically alter the DM's plans.
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2010, 06:49:24 AM »
While there are ways to counter the casters using the drawbacks in the game, I think throwing the monkey wrench every day will just make the player grumpy. What should just happen is giving the non-casters some shiny stuff, too. We all know that the balance the game designers had in mind doesn't work - being able to do something all the time vs. in slots is worthless if you either have enough slots all the time, or if the effects you get from slots are so much stronger, that it really doesn't matter. That and cheating the system via retreating to the safe-house. Mind you, in campaigns where you can't retreat, can hardly rest, etc, magic is suddenly a lot weaker. There was that super-solo-dungeon that went around a while, where it was quite apparent that casters weren't able to beat it - simply because they had to do too much before resting. But that's still a rare example.

So, basically, on a per-encounter scale, non-casters need stuff to do. And I think the ToB is almost there, but not quite. Incarnum is a kind of magic, but has a different feel, it's also almost there, just because you can also kick major ass with it. A combination of the two still can't change the world, but at least can kick major ass, which might be enough to make those people happy who don't want to cast spells.

I would say give that a prestige class to combine the two would be rather nice. It will still not be able to break above Tier 3.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2010, 07:26:01 AM »
It wasn't just situational - that dungeon had a ton of houserules laden on as well, and even then IIRC a cleric was the dude who made it farthest.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

oslecamo

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2010, 07:34:16 AM »
  In the "out-of-the-box thinking" scenario, you probably drastically alter the DM's plans.

Well, screwing with the DM's plan is more than expected, even if the players aren't trying to work around the rules.

If the player tries to say "I'm smarter than you!", then the DM can and should simply answer "I acept the challenge!" and escalate things acordingly. And then a proper conclusion that satisfies all parties can be reached.

[spoiler] :p[/spoiler]

Of course, like Brainpiercing said, throwing monkey wrenches at every corner will make the players grumpy. But if the player in question is trying to prove he's smarter than everybody else on the table and refuses to play by the rules,  I would say he deserves it.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2010, 09:15:19 AM »
While there are ways to counter the casters using the drawbacks in the game, I think throwing the monkey wrench every day will just make the player grumpy. What should just happen is giving the non-casters some shiny stuff, too. We all know that the balance the game designers had in mind doesn't work - being able to do something all the time vs. in slots is worthless if you either have enough slots all the time, or if the effects you get from slots are so much stronger, that it really doesn't matter. That and cheating the system via retreating to the safe-house. Mind you, in campaigns where you can't retreat, can hardly rest, etc, magic is suddenly a lot weaker. There was that super-solo-dungeon that went around a while, where it was quite apparent that casters weren't able to beat it - simply because they had to do too much before resting. But that's still a rare example.

So, basically, on a per-encounter scale, non-casters need stuff to do. And I think the ToB is almost there, but not quite. Incarnum is a kind of magic, but has a different feel, it's also almost there, just because you can also kick major ass with it. A combination of the two still can't change the world, but at least can kick major ass, which might be enough to make those people happy who don't want to cast spells.

I would say give that a prestige class to combine the two would be rather nice. It will still not be able to break above Tier 3.

Actually, you can solve all of those reset button spells by just saying "All dimensional spells do not work because there is NO other dimensions than the ones specified." Suddenly, all rope tricks, dimension doors, teleports, etc., goes splat. Even bags of holding and other such items goes splat, which starts making usually ignored spells like Tenser's Floating Disk look more attractive.

That is when you introduce a LIVING dungeon. Stay too long at one place and you might get a few creatures stumbling over you. Go too far too fast, alert the dungeon and you suddenly get a horde of bad guys on you.

Take the players out of their usual paradigm of "fight, rest, fight, rest" and watch the sweat flow.

That said, this is where primary melee DMM Clerics really shine...

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2010, 01:02:32 PM »
Eh, your living dungeon doesn't seem to make much sense.  Staying in one place is a great way to get attacked in a mass.

And you can always use pitons to seal yourself behind a secret door or something.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2010, 02:05:14 PM »
AndyJames: I think you're throwing the monkey wrench. Nerfing people will always make them angry, and I LIKE the mage toys, too. The trouble is, they mean the mundanes no longer play, which is why we at least have to make what they do fun, and borderline effective.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2010, 10:47:04 PM »
The main problem in closing the gap between magic and mundanes is fun.

Giving people more bookkeeping or 'work' to do while gaming isn't fun.  Forcing them to play stupid to be balanced isn't fun.  Saying, "You can't use this seemingly OK ability as written because I say so," isn't fun.

Nearly everything you do to nerf casters also hurts non-casters.  Remember, D&D is a game about magic.  If casters can't buff or heal the non-casters, or if the party can't carry things they should, or if they can't get where they want to be when they want to be there, you've made life more difficult for everyone.
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2010, 02:22:55 AM »
Eh, your living dungeon doesn't seem to make much sense.  Staying in one place is a great way to get attacked in a mass.

And you can always use pitons to seal yourself behind a secret door or something.
Only if they are planning the attack. If they are a few wandering monsters, then you can't get a horde on you. But a few wandering monsters is still enough to disrupt the 8 hours sleep. You are right in that if the enemy is intelligent and are the cooperative type, you are more likely to get the entire tribe on you just as you are settling down for that bit of prayer or reading the spellbook.

Going too far too fast means you have alerted half the complex, who are converging on you to see what's the problem. For example, idiots who trigger Shrieker mushrooms and then continue on happily to trigger a few more. Suddenly, they get attacked by predators who keep popping up every other round or so.



Brainpiercing - I generally have that "no planar" rule in effect in my homebrews. The main reason is that knowledge of other planes doesn't exist insofar as the characters are concerned. The other reason is that teleport of any sort really irks me, for some reason (as do wizards in general, but that is another story)...

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2010, 05:56:51 AM »
Player: "But my character has a +58 in Knowledge: The Planes."

DM: "No he doesn't."

Player: *Holds up character sheet.* "Yeah, he does. See?"

DM: *Nerfbat*

Player: *Aluminum bat*
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2010, 06:24:36 AM »
Player: "But my character has a +58 in Knowledge: The Planes."

DM: "No he doesn't."

Player: *Holds up character sheet.* "Yeah, he does. See?"

DM: *Nerfbat*

Player: *Aluminum bat*
If the player puts in ranks into knowledge the planes when he is TOLD that it doesn't exist, then he deserves to be nerfed. I don't have sympathy for idiots who does exactly what he is told not to do.

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #73 on: November 30, 2010, 06:36:11 AM »
Player: "But my character has a +58 in Knowledge: The Planes."

DM: "No he doesn't."

Player: *Holds up character sheet.* "Yeah, he does. See?"

DM: *Nerfbat*

Player: *Aluminum bat*
If the player puts in ranks into knowledge the planes when he is TOLD that it doesn't exist, then he deserves to be nerfed. I don't have sympathy for idiots who does exactly what he is told not to do.
I'm far too used to Bad DMs who pull this in the middle of games with no forewarning.
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2010, 06:53:12 AM »
I'm far too used to Bad DMs who pull this in the middle of games with no forewarning.
I think you are. Might want to do something about those DMs.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2010, 02:17:42 PM »
It's funny when on this board EVERYONE immediately jumps when the first hint of GM fiat approaches, whereas on other boards I am frequenting at the moment, GM fiat is just the done thing, and people even think it's good and right...

Andy: Teleport and the likes make GMing quite hard. IF you wish to keep PCs on a track. If you are content with just letting things happen, then I think it will be far less of a problem. The way to approach GMing in that case is more of a "stuff happens", what do you do about it?", than "you walk into a room with a puzzle". Basically I just make stuff, and don't think too much about how the PCs will solve the problem. You can assume a PC of level 9+ to be resourceful. Right now I think I would have more trouble if the group could not teleport. Oh wait, I have just such a group... hmmm.
Of course, PCs must also expect their enemies to teleport around. If you're assaulting the stronghold of a powerful wizard he would be stupid to not just hop away and return with a gang of additional defenders. At that point knowing what the spells can do is pretty important, and especially at the table some leeway must be given to inaccuracies, on either sides.

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2010, 02:57:11 PM »
I'm far too used to Bad DMs who pull this in the middle of games with no forewarning.
I think you are. Might want to do something about those DMs.
Wonder if there is a separate layer of hell for bad DMs...

Handy Links

Benly

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2010, 03:00:38 PM »
It's funny when on this board EVERYONE immediately jumps when the first hint of GM fiat approaches, whereas on other boards I am frequenting at the moment, GM fiat is just the done thing, and people even think it's good and right...

I suspect that this is because, when posting builds or a guidebook, it's impossible to take into account every possible combination of house rules and homebrew elements, so it's most practical to start from something close to RAW and specifically call out exceptions for common house rules when necessary. The problem is that people get used to thinking in that abstract mode and carry it over into actual gameplay discussion, becoming very hostile to the idea of DMs disallowing material or introducing houserules that interfere with their builds even if the DM has reasons for doing so. It's depressingly common to see a situation where the response to "my DM's rules don't allow for (suggested build/exploit)" is "your DM is wrong and you should convince him to change it".

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #78 on: November 30, 2010, 05:06:47 PM »
It's depressingly common to see a situation where the response to "my DM's rules don't allow for (suggested build/exploit)" is "your DM is wrong and you should convince him to change it".
Well, yes, but KV's dms are getting better.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Benly

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • Email
Re: Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard
« Reply #79 on: November 30, 2010, 05:19:46 PM »
It's depressingly common to see a situation where the response to "my DM's rules don't allow for (suggested build/exploit)" is "your DM is wrong and you should convince him to change it".
Well, yes, but KV's dms are getting better.

I'm not even talking about lunatic DMs - even "my DM doesn't use this book" is often enough met with "well, you should tell your DM to let you use it". Maybe it seems disproportionately to be the case because of how frustrating it is to me when that happens.