Underpowered Mundanes or Overpowered Magic - Which is worse?

[Mixster]

And then you remember both that you need characters actually able to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

The above sentence is circular logic.

If what you meant to write was:

And then you remember that you need characters who can deal damage to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

I can simply answer: Summons, Druids, Animal Companions, Shivering Touch and similar spells are all fair game for Tier 1 classes. Tier 1 classes deals well with almost any encounter.

Tome rules buffing everything to 2-3 is exactly what mid tier means, so you've just contradicted yourself.

Tier 2 ain't mid-tier IMO. Tier 3-4 is.
But, just to get this straight, your response to my logic that Tier 1 and 2 classes laugh at "level aproppriate encounters" is that if they are nerfed, no-one will be able to deal with "level appropriate encounters"?
So show me a level appropriate encounter a party of Tier 3-4 classes can't deal with, while using about 25% of their resources, because I for one, can't think of any such encounters

I'm not commenting on the guess what most enemies use, because well, I didn't say you had to nerf spells. So I'm not even sure that was directed at me.

[Senevri]

Fear! Fear the dimension of great wyrm swarms, only interspersed by wild CoDZillas!

[Sunic_Flames]

Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves, and guess what most enemies use?

Melee attacks, in my experience.

Those tear you apart too, and you're still wrong.

And then you remember both that you need characters actually able to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

The above sentence is circular logic.

No, it's not. Either you have the ability to deal with encounters or you do not. That means casters. If casting = yes, ability to deal with encounters = yes. If casting = no, expect to fail a lot. Nerfing the only guys who can deal with encounters just means no one can do so.

If what you meant to write was:

And then you remember that you need characters who can deal damage to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

I can simply answer: Summons, Druids, Animal Companions, Shivering Touch and similar spells are all fair game for Tier 1 classes. Tier 1 classes deals well with almost any encounter.

No shit. Except you were talking about nerfing those, remember?

Tier 2 ain't mid-tier IMO. Tier 3-4 is.
But, just to get this straight, your response to my logic that Tier 1 and 2 classes laugh at "level aproppriate encounters" is that if they are nerfed, no-one will be able to deal with "level appropriate encounters"?
So show me a level appropriate encounter a party of Tier 3-4 classes can't deal with, while using about 25% of their resources, because I for one, can't think of any such encounters

*stare* And what did you just say? By the way, it's not 25%, it's 20%. 25% means you die at the end of the day every day.

Also, Senevri is being a fucktard again. Because apparently it takes that degree of extremes to slaughter low tiers. Low tiers are lucky not to die when they wake up in the morning.

[ProfessorCirno]

To clarify a bit on why overpowered magic - not just wizards, but magic as a whole - is problematic.  Yes, overpowered magic owns encoutners.  But encounters don't just mean fights.

Want to set up a mystery?  Nope.  "Someone's been murdered!  We need to find out who - "  "I'll just ask him lol!"

Want to set up a dangerous land where the group needs to bind together and survive horrifying environments?  Nope.  Summoning water isn't even a level 1 spell, it's level zero.  Endure Elements means you never have to worry about a harsh environment, ever.

Already some of you are probably getting ready to point out that disintegrated men tell no tales, or that a harsh environment could include an anti-magic sphere, but that's just it - the solution lies in just having more magic.

At the end of the day, there is no situation in which a spell caster cannot respond with "I don't think so.  I cast a spell."  At that point there's no game.  It's just freeform where you occasionally read a sheet of spells that lets you freeform.

Spellcaster.avi.

[Lycanthromancer]

If what you meant to write was:

And then you remember that you need characters who can deal damage to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

Not all encounters require damage, even fights.

[wotmaniac]

Sunic -- you seem to think that this is a purely binary issue ... but it isn't.
There is a whole lot of middle ground between "totally laugh a any/all level-appropriate encounters" and "get regularly destroyed by level-appropriate encounters" ... you seem to be ignoring that fact.

Likewise, just because you nerf something doesn't automatically make it totally worthless -- it's a matter of degree.  Maybe you close abusable loopholes; maybe you adjust the level of the worst-offending spells; etc.


Also:

Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves, and guess what most enemies use?

Melee attacks, in my experience.

Those tear you apart too, and you're still wrong.

I'm a little lost on this one -- unless you have been present for the entirety of his gaming experience, then you can't really make this statement .... it assumes that every game is run the way that you have experienced it.


Sunic = logic fail

[SorO_Lost]

Spells are actually rather balanced with themselves, and guess what most enemies use?

Sunic = logic fail

I agree due to the red text. I suppose Sunic can find enough lame spells to support his idea, akin to trying to include all 18+ illegal immigrants towards high school drop out figures, no one acknowledges those.

If what you meant to write was:

And then you remember that you need characters who can deal damage to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

Not all encounters require damage, even fights.

Mass Charm Monster! ...Theres others as well.

[Mixster]

And then you remember both that you need characters actually able to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

The above sentence is circular logic.

No, it's not. Either you have the ability to deal with encounters or you do not. That means casters. If casting = yes, ability to deal with encounters = yes. If casting = no, expect to fail a lot. Nerfing the only guys who can deal with encounters just means no one can do so.

Ah, then it was put in the wrong context.

Ok so we agree, that as the system is, Tier 1 and 2 guys can deal with encounters fine by themselves and don't need help from the lower tiers. So the lower tiers feel terribly left out on anything they can do. Great.

Now my sentiment is: If Tier 1s did need the help of lower tiers, and they couldn't handle things on their own all the time, Encounter might get more level appropriate.

Tier 3 and 4 classes can handle many level appropriate encounters just fine. It just gets boring when they don't need to due to captain Tier 1 doing all the work. To speak within the Circular logic. Tier 3 and 4 classes have many of the tools to deal with level appropriate encounters, especially if you include magic items.

*stare* And what did you just say? By the way, it's not 25%, it's 20%. 25% means you die at the end of the day every day.

Ok I'll repeat:
But, just to get this straight, your response to my logic that Tier 1 and 2 classes laugh at "level aproppriate encounters" is that if they are nerfed, no-one will be able to deal with "level appropriate encounters"?

Oh and FYI, I'm not telling you you can't make Tier 5 and 6 classes more powerful, that can be useful, but it does nothing for game balance. And neither am I discussing the specifics of the CR system, because arguing something already written in a book is meaningless.

[Unbeliever]

To clarify a bit on why overpowered magic - not just wizards, but magic as a whole - is problematic.  Yes, overpowered magic owns encoutners.  But encounters don't just mean fights.

Want to set up a mystery?  Nope.  "Someone's been murdered!  We need to find out who - "  "I'll just ask him lol!"

Want to set up a dangerous land where the group needs to bind together and survive horrifying environments?  Nope.  Summoning water isn't even a level 1 spell, it's level zero.  Endure Elements means you never have to worry about a harsh environment, ever.

Already some of you are probably getting ready to point out that disintegrated men tell no tales, or that a harsh environment could include an anti-magic sphere, but that's just it - the solution lies in just having more magic.

At the end of the day, there is no situation in which a spell caster cannot respond with "I don't think so.  I cast a spell."  At that point there's no game.  It's just freeform where you occasionally read a sheet of spells that lets you freeform.

Spellcaster.avi.

It seems here that you want D&D to do things that it's not well-suited towards.  Without some changes, it won't.  At its heart, D&D is a strategic combat game w/ a funky exponential power progression (there are other elements to it, but those are the relevant ones here).  It's not a game oriented towards mysteries or contending w/ the environment, especially once characters have a few levels.  Hell, in the Epic Level Handbook they warn DMs that the barbarian has the hp to just wade across the pool of lava and batter down the adamantine door.

If you want more mysteries, you are going to need to ban certain spells -- e.g., "I wish I knew who killed him" -- or make allowances for things like Speak w/ Dead -- e.g., the corpse didn't get a good look at who corpsified him.  Likewise, if you want a harsh environment you're going to have to do what they did way back in Dark Sun and edit out spells that would counteract that.  All of these seem like fine things to do, and my group does them w/ some regularity depending on campaign. 

[Senevri]

Also, Senevri is being a fucktard again. Because apparently it takes that degree of extremes to slaughter low tiers. Low tiers are lucky not to die when they wake up in the morning.

If you mean facetious, then, yes. But so are you. Or does your gaming group actually need to roll vs. death at the start of a day?
I just don't get this win or die thing you advocate. A tier 1 party won't just beat an equal CR encounter - they'll CRUSH it. If you use weaker, or even non-magical classes, they don't AUTOMATICALLY lose. They _might_ die, certainly they wont' do _as_ well, but a risk of failure doesn't invalidate them, except in a number crunching world championship sense.
In other words, I really don't agree that one must have a 95% chance of success to be not-worthless.

[LordBlades]

Unless you can't fly.

But, to answer the OP, and hopefully bring this topic remotely back to track:

I think overpowered Magic is worse.
Why? Well, let's start with the reason to make mundanes stronger (here-after mundanes will be known as low-tier classes, and magic-users known as high-tier classes):
Low-tier classes could get buffed, which would make your players happy, but it would in turn make the party as a whole more powerful. It stands to logic that if one part of a group that works closely together gets more self-reliant, or simply better at their task, the group as a whole will benefit.

You assume here that people play Tier 1 casters and low-tier melee together. In my experience at least, in most high optimization groups that include powerful tier 1-2 builds people that want to play melee, would pick something like CoDzilla or the like, stuff that actually can keep the pace. So making non-casting melee not upderpowered would actually offer more valid options, not increase the overall pwoer level.

Also, IMHO it's much easier to challenge a group made of 2 powerful chars than one made of 1 powerful char and 1 weak char (where what's challenging for the weak one is trivial for the powerful to solve, and what's challenging for the pwoerful one is downright deadly for the weak one).

[Mixster]

Unless you can't fly.

But, to answer the OP, and hopefully bring this topic remotely back to track:

I think overpowered Magic is worse.
Why? Well, let's start with the reason to make mundanes stronger (here-after mundanes will be known as low-tier classes, and magic-users known as high-tier classes):
Low-tier classes could get buffed, which would make your players happy, but it would in turn make the party as a whole more powerful. It stands to logic that if one part of a group that works closely together gets more self-reliant, or simply better at their task, the group as a whole will benefit.

You assume here that people play Tier 1 casters and low-tier melee together. In my experience at least, in most high optimization groups that include powerful tier 1-2 builds people that want to play melee, would pick something like CoDzilla or the like, stuff that actually can keep the pace. So making non-casting melee not upderpowered would actually offer more valid options, not increase the overall pwoer level.

Also, IMHO it's much easier to challenge a group made of 2 powerful chars than one made of 1 powerful char and 1 weak char (where what's challenging for the weak one is trivial for the powerful to solve, and what's challenging for the pwoerful one is downright deadly for the weak one).

But then, you are still ignoring my point.

My point is that Tier 1 classes deals with threats to easily, I can't remember whenever I've played a wizard and thought a level appropriate encounter was taxing on my abilities, or even four of them a day.
ToB classes, Rogues, Bards and Factotums have decent chances against most level appropriate encounters while also losing about 20% of their resources. A level 10 Wizard using 2 spells has not used 20% of his resources.

Also, in groups that are mixed (which are still common), you increase the overall power level, further screwing team monster. Which just screws over the CR system even more.

I hate that DnD is filled with traps just as much as the next man, but I find it worse that there are also easter eggs.

IMHO it's much harder to challenge a group made of 2 powerful characters than one made of 2 weak characters, because if the challenge for the powerful guys was a little too powerful, then both of them will likely get screwed and die, if the challenge against the weak characters were to hard, then they probably can still flee the scene.

[LordBlades]

But then, you are still ignoring my point.

My point is that Tier 1 classes deals with threats to easily, I can't remember whenever I've played a wizard and thought a level appropriate encounter was taxing on my abilities, or even four of them a day.
ToB classes, Rogues, Bards and Factotums have decent chances against most level appropriate encounters while also losing about 20% of their resources. A level 10 Wizard using 2 spells has not used 20% of his resources.

Also, in groups that are mixed (which are still common), you increase the overall power level, further screwing team monster. Which just screws over the CR system even more.

CR is screwed anyway. It merely shows what designers thoguht it would be balanced vs. a lvl X party. The same designers that thought Monk is balanced vs. Wizard. As a DM, if you just throw stuff at your players based on CR table without a careful read and understanding of game mechanics, sooner or later you will run into something overly powerful, and if you realize that mid combat, it's many times too late.

I do agree however that tier 1-2 deals with lvl. appropriate threats with great ease, tier 5-6(that's what I consdier 'underpowered') however can't deal with with lvl appropriate threats except with great difficulties, so that still screws the CR system.

I hate that DnD is filled with traps just as much as the next man, but I find it worse that there are also easter eggs.

IMHO it's much harder to challenge a group made of 2 powerful characters than one made of 2 weak characters, because if the challenge for the powerful guys was a little too powerful, then both of them will likely get screwed and die, if the challenge against the weak characters were to hard, then they probably can still flee the scene.

I agree with your conclusion here, but not necessarely with the reasoning behind it.

I find planning challenging encounters for weaker characters easier because they're much more predictable. It's much easier to anticipate how an encounter will go if character's X options are 'swing the sword' and 'shoot the bow' than when having to account for the whatever many ways a Tier 1 character can act in a given situation.

Too challenging can mean equally deadly for the weak chars as well. Sometimes even more deadly since they usually lack many of the escape means casters have access to.  For example, once I happened to be around for 1 session a friend of mine was DM-ing for some newer players (they were lvl 5 or 6 at that point). They enter the first encoutner of a goblin den: Couple regular goblins and a 3rd level wizard(was something around CR 4 total for 5 characters). Wizard casts web, gets them all. DM then finds out in shock that they had no dispel magic prepared, no ranged weapons whatsoever, and also no source of fire to burn the webs. So all that was left for him to do was pick the idiot ball, and have the glbins burn the web themselves, raqtehr than just stand there and pepper them with arrows until they were all dead. 

[veekie]

I do agree however that tier 1-2 deals with lvl. appropriate threats with great ease, tier 5-6(that's what I consdier 'underpowered') however can't deal with with lvl appropriate threats except with great difficulties, so that still screws the CR system.

To be precise, low tier classes(barring monk level malfunctions) can deal with SOME level appropriate encounters, but experience great difficulty with a greater number of level appropriate encounters. 2H fighters geared for damage are after all, well suited to dealing with 'straight' melee threats, provided they hit. A good DM can reduce the rate of encounters where players are useless, but for parties spanning a gap of more than 2 tiers and who are used by players aware of their capabilities, this will tax even the best.

A T2-T4 party is probably best, as far as performing well without having a "Steamroller" button for every fight goes. Just most fights.

[Sunic_Flames]

Sunic -- you seem to think that this is a purely binary issue ... but it isn't.
There is a whole lot of middle ground between "totally laugh a any/all level-appropriate encounters" and "get regularly destroyed by level-appropriate encounters" ... you seem to be ignoring that fact.

Hi Welcome

No I'm not. The game is balanced around spells. As such, spells are the only things that can be considered mandatory. You take away the only means of dealing with encounters and you are left with no means of dealing with encounters.

I'm a little lost on this one -- unless you have been present for the entirety of his gaming experience, then you can't really make this statement .... it assumes that every game is run the way that you have experienced it.


Sunic = logic fail

No, actually I can. Because you see, it's very obvious from talking to him he suffers from all the same problems as any other Paizil. So your retardation aside, you still fail. And you can still be casually dismissed as fail, because your logic, unlike mine is unsound.

And then you remember both that you need characters actually able to deal with encounters or you cannot deal with encounters

The above sentence is circular logic.

No, it's not. Either you have the ability to deal with encounters or you do not. That means casters. If casting = yes, ability to deal with encounters = yes. If casting = no, expect to fail a lot. Nerfing the only guys who can deal with encounters just means no one can do so.

Ah, then it was put in the wrong context.

Ok so we agree, that as the system is, Tier 1 and 2 guys can deal with encounters fine by themselves and don't need help from the lower tiers. So the lower tiers feel terribly left out on anything they can do. Great.

Now my sentiment is: If Tier 1s did need the help of lower tiers, and they couldn't handle things on their own all the time, Encounter might get more level appropriate.

Then you buff 3s and 4s so they can help more. Problem solved. By your own logic, the very Tome you try and dismiss is the solution to your problem.

Also, Senevri is being a fucktard again. Because apparently it takes that degree of extremes to slaughter low tiers. Low tiers are lucky not to die when they wake up in the morning.

If you mean facetious, then, yes. But so are you. Or does your gaming group actually need to roll vs. death at the start of a day?
I just don't get this win or die thing you advocate. A tier 1 party won't just beat an equal CR encounter - they'll CRUSH it. If you use weaker, or even non-magical classes, they don't AUTOMATICALLY lose. They _might_ die, certainly they wont' do _as_ well, but a risk of failure doesn't invalidate them, except in a number crunching world championship sense.
In other words, I really don't agree that one must have a 95% chance of success to be not-worthless.

That was a slight exaggeration, but only slight. Also, RLT. Win or loss, it's very quick and very decisive. Low tiers do get automatically slaughtered, because enemies are spellcasters, or are just Better Than Them. This isn't merely some small risk of failure, and even if it were the Shadzar Smiting Logic proves that still makes you die all the time. No matter how much you keep playing that fail card.

By the way, if you DO have a 95% chance of success you have a 50% chance of dropping dead a level every level. So, who wants to play in a party where 2 levels from now only one original member is still alive? And remember, the ability to raise the dead is eight levels away, and costs a level each time. So you see, it's worse than that. It's not that you must have a 95% success rate to be not worthless. It's that if you have a 95% success rate you still are worthless because Iterative Probability annihilates you. Even a 99% success rate puts your half life at 5.2 levels - as in, 5.2 levels from now, there is a greater than 50/50 shot you have dropped dead at least once. Hint: There's 20 levels in the game. Even if your campaign does not cover all of them, you still must have a near perfect success rate on any given encounter in order to survive even a short campaign.

[Kuroimaken]

Sunic -- you seem to think that this is a purely binary issue ... but it isn't.
There is a whole lot of middle ground between "totally laugh a any/all level-appropriate encounters" and "get regularly destroyed by level-appropriate encounters" ... you seem to be ignoring that fact.

Hi Welcome

No I'm not. The game is balanced around spells. As such, spells are the only things that can be considered mandatory. You take away the only means of dealing with encounters and you are left with no means of dealing with encounters.

Conversely, you make everything have spells and you have 4.fail.

[dark_samuari]

By the way, if you DO have a 95% chance of success you have a 50% chance of dropping dead a level every level. So, who wants to play in a party where 2 levels from now only one original member is still alive? And remember, the ability to raise the dead is eight levels away, and costs a level each time. So you see, it's worse than that. It's not that you must have a 95% success rate to be not worthless. It's that if you have a 95% success rate you still are worthless because Iterative Probability annihilates you. Even a 99% success rate puts your half life at 5.2 levels - as in, 5.2 levels from now, there is a greater than 50/50 shot you have dropped dead at least once. Hint: There's 20 levels in the game. Even if your campaign does not cover all of them, you still must have a near perfect success rate on any given encounter in order to survive even a short campaign.

Is this seriously your perspective of DnD? Is this how you play or run games? I just need you to clarify because I doubt anyone on these boards runs their games like this. In fact I doubt you even run your games like this because there is no way that you expect an adventuring party to be able to handle a situation with a 99% success rate.

From the sounds of it you can't actually build worthwhile and meaningful encounters at all, so I don't know why you are even in this conversation. 

[Kuroimaken]

He's merely dragging numbers into the situation. Numbers have a little problem: they're absolutely inflexible. Unless you're using imaginary numbers.

So anyhow.

I've actually played a number of campaigns with characters running the gamut of Tier 4 to Tier 1. My Tier 1 characters died a LOT less often than the remaining tier characters. (Ironically, my Tier 1 characters rarely got hit with a nerfbat, whereas a good deal of my beatsticks did, but this was a variable, not a constant.)

I can't seem to recall a single instance where my Tier 1 characters died, versus several instances where my Tier 3 and below characters did.

What does that tell me?

Seriously, though the numbers show a pretty darned harsh reality, remember that character death is a chance, it's just law of probability that screws it over. This is a reality that relies on several different factors, including but not limited to die rolls, which are notoriously fickle. However, as far as the constants are involved, one SHOULD work so that the die rolls are less of a determinant factor.

[Sunic_Flames]

Sunic -- you seem to think that this is a purely binary issue ... but it isn't.
There is a whole lot of middle ground between "totally laugh a any/all level-appropriate encounters" and "get regularly destroyed by level-appropriate encounters" ... you seem to be ignoring that fact.

Hi Welcome

No I'm not. The game is balanced around spells. As such, spells are the only things that can be considered mandatory. You take away the only means of dealing with encounters and you are left with no means of dealing with encounters.

Conversely, you make everything have spells and you have 4.fail.

Nah, if everything had spells 4.Fail would actually be interesting. Instead they made everyone like 3.5 Monks = minor, random, and inconsequential abilities.

By the way, if you DO have a 95% chance of success you have a 50% chance of dropping dead a level every level. So, who wants to play in a party where 2 levels from now only one original member is still alive? And remember, the ability to raise the dead is eight levels away, and costs a level each time. So you see, it's worse than that. It's not that you must have a 95% success rate to be not worthless. It's that if you have a 95% success rate you still are worthless because Iterative Probability annihilates you. Even a 99% success rate puts your half life at 5.2 levels - as in, 5.2 levels from now, there is a greater than 50/50 shot you have dropped dead at least once. Hint: There's 20 levels in the game. Even if your campaign does not cover all of them, you still must have a near perfect success rate on any given encounter in order to survive even a short campaign.

Is this seriously your perspective of DnD? Is this how you play or run games? I just need you to clarify because I doubt anyone on these boards runs their games like this. In fact I doubt you even run your games like this because there is no way that you expect an adventuring party to be able to handle a situation with a 99% success rate.

From the sounds of it you can't actually build worthwhile and meaningful encounters at all, so I don't know why you are even in this conversation. 

Hi Welcome

What do you think "20% of resources" means? Hint: It's something like "This isn't meant to be a real threat at all, not even slightly, just use a little resources."

And it's called Iterative Probability, where you remember PCs only need to fail once, and therefore 95% success rate per encounter drops to 50% once you've fought enough encounters to gain a single level, and 99% success rate per encounter drops to below 50% 5.2 levels in. Therefore, anyone remotely serious about optimization must IP proof themselves by making their failure rate as low as it possibly can be, that way it doesn't approach 1 so quickly over the course of the campaign.

And you think I can't build good encounters? Bitch please. Why don't you go say that to someone that's actually played with me as the MC, hear the peals of laughter at your expense. Fact of the matter is even good encounters can be > 99%ed. It just requires IP proofing measures.

Here are a few examples:

Saves. Pass these on a 2 or better. It's not possible at low levels, but at mid levels it is doable and at high levels it is easy. Immunities are great too. Get as many as you can. No auto fail on a 1 + pass on a 2 or better can mostly substitute for an immunity. Watch the no saves though.

Real defenses. Get them. AC is not a real defense.

Anti full attacks. If it takes 2 to kill you, you're fine. If it only takes one, you have serious problems. Good fucking luck making it take more than 2. Things like Abrupt Jaunt, to avoid being full attacked in the first place are even better.

Init. Win init or die is a double edged sword. Do make sure you're the winner, as there are harsh consequences for losing Rocket Tag. And even with the previous measures to somewhat let yourself be able to withstand an attack, it's better not to risk it.

Good offense. Winning init alone is useless, you have to do something with that first strike. If you are a beatstick, you must be able to win the DPS race or you are worthless. Not to mention dead. If a caster, good save or loses, or lose or loses are the way to go.

There's plenty of other ways to IP proof yourself, and if it weren't for the fact you have already proven yourself to be an idiot I'd question why I have to explain basic optimization techniques to someone on an optimization board.

[dark_samuari]

Hi Welcome

We've already addressed this, I was here before you.

Deal with it.

And you think I can't build good encounters? Bitch please. Why don't you go say that to someone that's actually played with me as the MC, hear the peals of laughter at your expense. Fact of the matter is even good encounters can be > 99%ed. It just requires IP proofing measures.

I do not think you can deal good encounters. I think you couldn't be capable of building memorable or exciting encounters either because you are in such infatuation with math that the you'll just keep looking at numbers rather than the thematic elements of building any encounter.

Sunic, I could build a better encounter than you. This right here is a challenge. I'd love for you to take me up on it. Have a third member give us a sample group of four players and have us construct an encounter.

I'll build a better one because I understand the literary & thematic elements and how they work in conjunction with the mechanical aspects of of Dungeons and Dragons better than you.