"A Wizard Did It" for noncasters

[RobbyPants]

why can't people just accept the fact that noncasters die at level 6?

Because a lot of DMs run low-level adventures with the numbers scaled up at high levels, so people get the impression that non-casters can still contribute past that point.

If you're stabbing rats at 1st level, orcs at 3rd, ogres at 7th, hill giants at 11th, and frost giants at 13th, and storm giants at 17th, then you're effectively playing the same adventure; the numbers just got bigger. If you're not Plane Shifting, Scrying, Teleporting, flying, etc, chances are, the adventure could simply be scaled back to low level if you simply lowered the numbers and re-skinned the monsters.

[ImperatorK]

If you're stabbing rats at 1st level, orcs at 3rd, ogres at 7th, hill giants at 11th, and frost giants at 13th, and storm giants at 17th, then you're effectively playing the same adventure; the numbers just got bigger. If you're not Plane Shifting, Scrying, Teleporting, flying, etc, chances are, the adventure could simply be scaled back to low level if you simply lowered the numbers and re-skinned the monsters.

Is there something wrong with that?

[veekie]

It wouldn't fit in the same game as players stretching their magical wings.

[RobbyPants]

If you're stabbing rats at 1st level, orcs at 3rd, ogres at 7th, hill giants at 11th, and frost giants at 13th, and storm giants at 17th, then you're effectively playing the same adventure; the numbers just got bigger. If you're not Plane Shifting, Scrying, Teleporting, flying, etc, chances are, the adventure could simply be scaled back to low level if you simply lowered the numbers and re-skinned the monsters.

Is there something wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it at all, but it's disingenuous to pretend that stabbing groups of four storm giants is the same as completing plots that require casting Gate and Astral Projection, despite both happening at level 17.

Throwing around the term "high level" because your character level is 17 can be exceptionally misleading if one person is thinking of the former and the other is thinking of the latter.

[ImperatorK]

If I can't say "high level" when we are a team of 15th level Fighters fighting storm giants then what should I say? And is it my fault that someone is misinterpreting when I literally mean high level and not "high level"?

[FlaminCows]

Imperator, there's no fault in it. Nobody is to blame. However, the person who is invited into a high level campaign and comes with what is normal and expected in high level campaigns isn't at fault either. This isn't referring to you, but often when people make high-level campaigns like low-level campaigns they blame the player when the plot they wrote becomes completely lost due to the character's abilities, when the player in that case did nothing wrong or even game-breaking and all he did was prepare for the campaign implied by high level D&D and went into something else.

What you would need to say, if you wrote a campaign about stabbing storm giants, is that most of the things high-level players tend to do are not appropriate for this campaign. You can still call it a "high level campaign", but you would have to stipulate that this isn't a normal high level campaign and explain how. Either that or prepare for the campaign not being about stabbing storm giants much longer.

Not every problem has a person to pin the blame on, but the problem is still there. You may just call that campaign high level, and you would have done nothing wrong. The people who misinterpreted it did nothing wrong either because the term used, even though it is technically correct, does not make clear your intentions.

[ImperatorK]

Situations like this are foreign to me, because in my circles such things are generally laid out beforehand, DMs make it fairly clear what type of game they're intending, or it is clear from what the DM is saying about his game. More often than not DMs make both high level and "high level" games, but still, it is rather hard to misunderstand what the game is about. AND players tend to ask about it, just to be sure.
Whatever. Robby saying "Pretending", "disingenuous" and "misleading" sounded accusatory to me.

[Libertad]

RobbyPants was not singling you out as part of his example.  He was saying that the dynamics of typical non-magical combat exists on an entirely different spectrum than a no-holds-barred party with all manner of spells.  Summoning, scrying, and teleportation add a whole new dimension to adventure plots that you wouldn't get with "my attack now deals more damage!"

In your example, the group clearly communicates what they want out of the game and confront things which might be problems before they arise.  This is a very good way of handling high-magic shenanigans, but many players are not this way.  They either play the game right out of the box, view certain things as problems or non-problems, or have a different genre in mind than the group.  One guy might want to play Conan the Barbarian, another might want to play The Slayers.

[ImperatorK]

RobbyPants was not singling you out as part of his example.

Umm, yeah, I know.

He was saying that the dynamics of typical non-magical combat exists on an entirely different spectrum than a no-holds-barred party with all manner of spells.  Summoning, scrying, and teleportation add a whole new dimension to adventure plots that you wouldn't get with "my attack now deals more damage!"

In your example, the group clearly communicates what they want out of the game and confront things which might be problems before they arise.  This is a very good way of handling high-magic shenanigans, but many players are not this way.  They either play the game right out of the box, view certain things as problems or non-problems, or have a different genre in mind than the group.  One guy might want to play Conan the Barbarian, another might want to play The Slayers.

I get that. It doesn't change the fact that he used accusatory words which implied that someone is at fault.

[FlaminCows]

I get that. It doesn't change the fact that he used accusatory words which implied that someone is at fault.

Which words are you referring to? I'm really not seeing it.

[ImperatorK]

"Pretending", "disingenuous" and "misleading". Somone has to pretend, be disingenuous and misleading, no?

[Libertad]

I get that. It doesn't change the fact that he used accusatory words which implied that someone is at fault.

Is it anybody in the thread?  If not, then I don't see the problem.

I think that RobbyPants is referring more to the misconception of many players, who believe that a 15th-level Fighter is equal to a 15th-level Wizard.  Then there are the players who insist that the Fighter be relegated to "physics" or "realism" and get angry when people try to "boost" the noncasters.

[ImperatorK]

It can be anybody in this thread. I did use myself as an example, didn't I?

I think that RobbyPants is referring more to the misconception of many players, who believe that a 15th-level Fighter is equal to a 15th-level Wizard.  Then there are the players who insist that the Fighter be relegated to "physics" or "realism" and get angry when people try to "boost" the noncasters.

Never saw someone like that, probably because I never saw a DM give a Fighter freebies because he's a Fighter. At least not in-game. Some houserules before the game, sure.
I saw people play a Fighter BECAUSE he's "realistic", though, and they would refuse anything that looks too magical.

[Unbeliever]

RobbyPants was not singling you out as part of his example.  He was saying that the dynamics of typical non-magical combat exists on an entirely different spectrum than a no-holds-barred party with all manner of spells.  Summoning, scrying, and teleportation add a whole new dimension to adventure plots that you wouldn't get with "my attack now deals more damage!"

In your example, the group clearly communicates what they want out of the game and confront things which might be problems before they arise.  This is a very good way of handling high-magic shenanigans, but many players are not this way.  They either play the game right out of the box, view certain things as problems or non-problems, or have a different genre in mind than the group.  One guy might want to play Conan the Barbarian, another might want to play The Slayers.

My criticism was that this thread was just moving the default to Slayers, whereas the baseline assumption is closer to Conan (to use the exemplars previously described).  And, that the argument was based on a kind of mana approach, which is present in some settings but not ubiquitous.

We've gone around this topic numerous times, and I don't think there's much value to doing it again here.  I just want to say that in a game like D&D, where stabbing in one way or another is a huge part of it, just getting really good at stabbing can often be a relevant (arguably critical) niche. 

[GenghisDon]

I think the problem is that magic is simply too easy & too powerful in most games. It's more like super powers in a comic book or video game than stuff from myth or legend.

"They are that good" is fine & dandy, but the easiest answers are to be found by things like: rearranging spells by levels, reducing the number of spells possible per day/time period, making magic costly, making magic inefficient (or less so) in combat, etc.

If casting a spell takes a full combat round or longer, spells are going to be much more limited. Teleportation is pretty awesome even if it takes 10 minutes to cast, but it's a whole other animal than D&D teleport spells, let alone swift action teleports ala nightcrawler. Spells, not super powers (unless the genre IS superheros, then by all means have 3.5e style magic).

Flight, at least without an item or shapechanging into a bird, is pretty rare in myth/fantasy. Fly &/or overland flight could be tossed outright, or else made higher level spells (6 & 8 perhaps).

D&D spells are way too easy, too versatile, usable too often, etc. They always have been a problem, but d20 kicked them into orbit.

Just a few examples there, but magic/spells are the easiest thing in the world to "bring down to earth". I believe  one is better off designing a game with that in mind, rather than boosting non-magic types up to anime or comic book proportions by default. The problem with "ordinary" folks leaping tall buildings, running faster than a speeding bullet, walking on water or flying, etc, is a complete loss of verisimilitude that kills many genres (not that genres with such expectations are bad, but they ought not be considered universal). I'm not saying to make casters unplayable, either, but toning them down is a better answer by far, IMHO.

[Amechra]

I've actually been considering for a while a little bit of a "solution" (not even hardly) for the "magical supremacy" thing.

The idea is that magic is really, really obvious.

Knock doesn't open locks quietly, it blasts them open with a very, very audible bang. It could even possibly break the lock.

Mind Blank gives you penalties to social skills and sense motive as well, since you are defending yourself from mind-affecting abilities by essentially imitating being mindless.

And so on and so forth.

Then, mundane capabilities would be more "natural", if that could even be said.

[Rakoa]

Never saw someone like that, probably because I never saw a DM give a Fighter freebies because he's a Fighter. At least not in-game. Some houserules before the game, sure.
I saw people play a Fighter BECAUSE he's "realistic", though, and they would refuse anything that looks too magical.

If a player wants to play a Fighter because the class is "realistic", that is dandy for the player. D&D isn't exactly known for realism, though. It is a fantasy game. And the "fantasy" part should not be reserved for only the casters. A Fighter character being able to pull off fantastical stunts is something that is very much a part of fantasy and very much not present in 3.5. "He's Just That Good" addresses the issue and let's the Fighter be more fun to play, more interesting of a character, more powerful and more versatile.

[Arturick]

The problems with "He's Just That Good" abilities are:  determining when they become appropriate, what is the effective upper level for them, and do they infringe on other character concepts.  If a Fighter get's a Dimension Door-like ability at the same level that a Wizard gets Dimension Door as a spell, then what is the Wizard getting that makes being a Wizard special?  If a Fighter gets D-Door at a significantly later level, what have the past few levels been like without it?  Has it not been needed, or has it been Caster Supremacy?  (D-Door is kind of a "Gish" spell, so maybe it's not the best example, but I see a lot of "I want to sword reality open" suggestions around the web.)

It seems like the system falls apart at high levels if you get into a habit of slapping caster powers on physically powerful "mundanes," because eventually you have a bunch of characters with nearly identical "magic" powers and radically different martial prowess.

"I shoot eye lasers and fly."

"I shoot sword lasers, jump as if to fly, and have double your hit points and mad Kung Fu."

[ImperatorK]

D&D isn't exactly known for realism, though. It is a fantasy game.

Ya, but that doesn't really stop people from playing it differently.

And the "fantasy" part should not be reserved for only the casters.

Yeah.

A Fighter character being able to pull off fantastical stunts is something that is very much a part of fantasy and very much not present in 3.5.

Actually not true, Fighters do pull off fantastical stunts, they're just not as spectacular as spells and they're not very obvious.

"He's Just That Good" addresses the issue and let's the Fighter be more fun to play, more interesting of a character, more powerful and more versatile.

Never said it doesn't.

[Rakoa]

D&D isn't exactly known for realism, though. It is a fantasy game.

Ya, but that doesn't really stop people from playing it differently.

Sure, they can play differently if they want to. The point of this thread, though, is to let others play differently still. If a player has no problem with the Fighter as it is, that's great. That doesn't mean that is true for everyone. This is never going to be WotC official, just an option for players and DMs to use if they feel the need, not something to irrevocably replace the core Fighter forever. If it isn't to the liking of a player, there is no rule saying they have to play it.

A Fighter character being able to pull off fantastical stunts is something that is very much a part of fantasy and very much not present in 3.5.

Actually not true, Fighters do pull off fantastical stunts, they're just not as spectacular as spells and they're not very obvious.

You're right, I should have specified that while they can pull of fantastical stunts, they aren't as effective as those of their spellcasting counterparts. The abilities of a Fighter to use a greatsword to do enough damage to destroy stone walls and rip through dragonscales are certainly impressive when taken out of context, but at their basest form the only thing a Fighter can do is damage, and damage to a degree that it could be certainly considered fantastical. But again, they lack the versatility and effectiveness that comes with spells.

"He's Just That Good" addresses the issue and let's the Fighter be more fun to play, more interesting of a character, more powerful and more versatile.

Never said it doesn't.

Never said you did.

The problems with "He's Just That Good" abilities are:  determining when they become appropriate, what is the effective upper level for them, and do they infringe on other character concepts.  If a Fighter get's a Dimension Door-like ability at the same level that a Wizard gets Dimension Door as a spell, then what is the Wizard getting that makes being a Wizard special?  If a Fighter gets D-Door at a significantly later level, what have the past few levels been like without it?  Has it not been needed, or has it been Caster Supremacy?  (D-Door is kind of a "Gish" spell, so maybe it's not the best example, but I see a lot of "I want to sword reality open" suggestions around the web.)

It seems like the system falls apart at high levels if you get into a habit of slapping caster powers on physically powerful "mundanes," because eventually you have a bunch of characters with nearly identical "magic" powers and radically different martial prowess.

"I shoot eye lasers and fly."

"I shoot sword lasers, jump as if to fly, and have double your hit points and mad Kung Fu."

You raise a good point, and those issues definitely need to be addressed. Now, I wouldn't fluff a Dimension Door ability as "swording reality open", something more along the lines of just being able to move ridiculously fast for short bursts. The fairest way to address it, I think, would be to give these spell-like abilities to martial characters, but of course they would not have a full selection of spells like a fullcaster. To use your example, it would probably look something like "I shoot sword lasers, jump as if to fly, have double your hit points and mad kung fu" compared to "I shoot eye lasers, fly, can summon extradimensional servants to destroy my enemies, raise the dead, teleport across the planet and into other planes of existence, shoot fire out of my fingertips and enslave the minds of mortal men."

Their selection would be much more limited than that of any fullcaster. At least, they would be if I was designing the system, and this is the suggestion I would make in that respect. Others may have different ideas on the matter, and probably better than mine.