D&D has always had "world breaking" spells as you describe from day 1.  However, there was also always the assumption that PCs were pretty rare, and if you did ever run into that high level mage, he had a lot better things to do than go around creating walls of iron.

Sometimes I get the impression that 3e players played where there was a level 10 magic user on every block

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759794D&D has always had "world breaking" spells as you describe from day 1.  However, there was also always the assumption that PCs were pretty rare, and if you did ever run into that high level mage, he had a lot better things to do than go around creating walls of iron.

Sometimes I get the impression that 3e players played where there was a level 10 magic user on every block

I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

Its your business what kind of world you want, and that high level casters are so common that really powerful spells become mundane. I prefer worlds in which high level casters are rare. That's why I play older editions with caster restrictions and XP tables that reflect that.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

Once again, you choose the world assumptions by which you play. Just because casters are uber and the crafting rules are completely borked by RAW doesn't mean it has to be that way in YOUR game. Authority begins and ends with those at the table. This is what you fail to understand, repeatedly.
 

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

Then simply make it so.

ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

Quote from: jibbajibba;759797I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

In the modules there were a lot of crazy high level NPC'S so it does give off the wrong impression because it makes it seem like that's just a normal kingdom or whatever.

Quote from: Marleycat;759800In the modules there were a lot of crazy high level NPC'S so it does give off the wrong impression because it makes it seem like that's just a normal kingdom or whatever.

True, but the DMG is pretty clear as to how often you can expect to run into higher level NPCs in a game world.  MOdules are a bit of an exception because they are catered to that particular adventure.  I.e., you  might have two level 12 NPCs in the same town in a module when the DMG says they are much less frequent, but all that means is that it's a rare town, and not the expectation for every town.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

I only brought up the SGT because people were talking about white room testing, which isn't a useful measure of combat effectiveness. Just because I approve of the SGT doesn't mean I consider it the be-all end-all of game balance; it's a tool, and like most tools, it has its uses. But it's not the only tool in the box.

I actually agree with a lot of the detail here but not the outcome.

Yes there is a large disparity between a high level fighter and a high level caster. However, it doesn't matter. The game isn't about winning and its not even about getting time in the spotlight. Sometimes its fun to play the hobbit, Malvolio is a great character, Oberyn Martell will live in your mind a long time.
The game is about roleplaying the character.
This doesn't mean I am balance agnostic I want to try and tweak some of the things I see as big breakers.
So take Hit points they are a major resource for fighters but they recover incredibly slowly in 1e. Whereas the casters main resource, spells, all recover daily.
Like I said I would modify the 1e spell slot progression to make low level wizards better but curtail the excesses of multiple powerful spells.

However, these tweaks won't give you a "fix" they might curb excess. At the end of the day D&D is a game in which you all roleplay characters of mixed abilities and skills. You have to live with that or pick another game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759801True, but the DMG is pretty clear as to how often you can expect to run into higher level NPCs in a game world.  MOdules are a bit of an exception because they are catered to that particular adventure.  I.e., you  might have two level 12 NPCs in the same town in a module when the DMG says they are much less frequent, but all that means is that it's a rare town, and not the expectation for every town.

trouble is the showing doesn't match the talking

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759799ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

No hypocrisy. I see 3E and 5E in the same light, hell you can toss 4E in there too. All games I will happily play but have no desire to run.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759805No hypocrisy. I see 3E and 5E in the same light, hell you can toss 4E in there too. All games I will happily play but have no desire to run.

Yet you toss down every post about how you could cut out at will cantrips in your campaign if you want to as irrelevant.

The same advice you are giving here.

Hmmmm...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759799ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

The whole past month or so has been wonky like that.  For years we had people saying how you don't need unique options when creating PCs because what defines your PC is how you play him or her during the actual game play.  We've had tons of arguments about how 2 B/X fighters can be completely different in the game despite being mechanically the same.  As soon as the starter set didn't include chargen, then you had the same people get very upset about not having enough options to create your own character.  If two B/X fighters are mechanically the same, what's the big difference between one you rolled stats for, and one that was already made?  The actual difference between the two on paper is nearly nonexistent.  I thought it was about how you played him during play that mattered?*

So it doesn't surprise me at all to see someone who said/implied/agreed that 5e is broken because houseruling something like at will cantrips is too major of a change, to now say that completely changing the foundation of how 3e plays isn't a big deal.

doesn't make any sense at all, but doesn't surprise me.

*Before someone strawmans me with this, I am NOT saying chargen isn't important or key part of D&D.  Just pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments made.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759806Yet you toss down every post about how you could cut out at will cantrips in your campaign if you want to as irrelevant.

The same advice you are giving here.

Hmmmm...

At will cantrips won't keep me from playing the game. Why would I make more work for myself by choosing a system to run that needs so much tinkering when I'm happy with what I have?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759808The whole past month or so has been wonky like that.  For years we had people saying how you don't need unique options when creating PCs because what defines your PC is how you play him or her during the actual game play.  We've had tons of arguments about how 2 B/X fighters can be completely different in the game despite being mechanically the same.  As soon as the starter set didn't include chargen, then you had the same people get very upset about not having enough options to create your own character.  If two B/X fighters are mechanically the same, what's the big difference between one you rolled stats for, and one that was already made?  The actual difference between the two on paper is nearly nonexistent.  I thought it was about how you played him during play that mattered?*

So it doesn't surprise me at all to see someone who said/implied/agreed that 5e is broken because houseruling something like at will cantrips is too major of a change, to now say that completely changing the foundation of how 3e plays isn't a big deal.

doesn't make any sense at all, but doesn't surprise me.

*Before someone strawmans me with this, I am NOT saying chargen isn't important or key part of D&D.  Just pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments made.

Some people can't separate the concept of chargen from charop or even from mechanical capability in any capacity.

If you handcraft an object and it performs the same as another object made by someone else its still special to you because YOU created it.

Quote from: Fiasco;759698Holy fuck! Is that shit for real?

It's a favorite at the Den.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720Don't really give a fuck what happens at your table. A given instance of the game does not change the fact that the system is 90% combat driven. Exploration and social rules pretty much do not exist; you cannot objectively measure things that don't exist.

The weird thing about Denners is they're so locked into the 3.x mentality, when apparently they hate 3.x because it's a "bad game".  They seem to judge all games by the criteria of doing the things 3.x does.  It's like some kind of bizarro Stockholm Syndrome.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720It's not like you can have social encounters on the list. There's no rules for them, and no class is particularly focused on them; as I said, you can't measure what doesn't exist.

In D&D 3.x.  As well as the fact that most of the language is directed specifically at D&D 3.x.  The default answer to "are we playing the same game" if using the SGT is "yes", because you're clearly all playing 3.x.

Quote from: The Butcher;759775It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

The important thing, I find, is setting up appropriate expectations.  Warn 'em first that death may be on the line, and give 'em ways of avoiding it.

It's when they walk in with the expectation "the GM will give us balanced encounters, and we have no choice, so we may as well just charge" that things often go to shit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759797I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

Yeah, in a lot of cases what you're seeing is a private campaign that got published, and those "everyday folks" are retired PCs.  Forgotten Realms, especially.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

The problem with this line of thought is that while you are right in the ramfication of the impact of magic, you are wrong in that it applies to where the typical D&D settings is at socially and economically.

Wizards can create food, water, metal and all that. But the wizard is also a scholarly class. The wizard is a person that was born, raised, and had to be TAUGHT to be a wizard. Until he reached the point where he can learn the spells to create food & water and create hunks of metal he had to have his food, clothing and shelter provided for. In a society that doesn't have much surplus to use for this sort of thing.

Moreso the economic development is rooted in a time before the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Not only they are missing key pieces that went into figure out mass production they missing the pieces of the foundation of the pieces of the industrial revolution. I am not talking material or machine tech but the very idea of production lines and automation. This is world where everything is done by hand by craftsmen with secrets passed from master to apprentices.

Along with all the other cultural and intellectual diversity that piled up through the centuries to make our modern age possible. They are non-existent in the typical D&D 3.X setting.

Eventually a D&D setting will go through their equivalent of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and it will be far out crazy because of magic.


But until then it is world with little surplus to waste on people studying books where knowledge is handed down through rigid and traditional channel from master to apprentice. Where said knowledge is crufted with useless shit that has no basis in reality but present because that tradition and they have no equivalent of the scientific method to pare it away. No peer review to allow people to compare notes at least.

In our own history, while the powerful had better food and more wealth their lives were not qualitatively better than the peasants they lorded over. No amount of gold or power could cure a king of cancer, or save him from the infection of a severely broken limb. The King's entertainment were those of his peasant but on a grander scale.

However with D&D Magic that changes. With highly skill craftsmen of magic known as wizards pockets of luxury that are close to modern day standard can exist. While the lack of the concept of mass production and the inability of society to train more than a few wizards a year would preclude wall of iron spells to supply the King's Army. It would allow for the Kings Guard to be equipped with the finest.

In the absence of other factors, any high magic system that require book learning would result in a world that 20% better than a comparable time in history up to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

That overall progress would be retarded due the fact that elites would enjoy a quality of life several order of magnitude better than the peasantry. There would fewer chances for the disruptions that accelerated human progress and diversity. Near immortal elves, long lived dwarves, and the incredible utility of magic (once learned) would also act as brakes.

Quote from: estar;759819The problem with this line of thought is that while you are right in the ramfication of the impact of magic, you are wrong in that it applies to where the typical D&D settings is at socially and economically.

Wizards can create food, water, metal and all that. But the wizard is also a scholarly class. The wizard is a person that was born, raised, and had to be TAUGHT to be a wizard. Until he reached the point where he can learn the spells to create food & water and create hunks of metal he had to have his food, clothing and shelter provided for. In a society that doesn't have much surplus to use for this sort of thing.

Moreso the economic development is rooted in a time before the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Not only they are missing key pieces that went into figure out mass production they missing the pieces of the foundation of the pieces of the industrial revolution. I am not talking material or machine tech but the very idea of production lines and automation. This is world where everything is done by hand by craftsmen with secrets passed from master to apprentices.

Along with all the other cultural and intellectual diversity that piled up through the centuries to make our modern age possible. They are non-existent in the typical D&D 3.X setting.

Eventually a D&D setting will go through their equivalent of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and it will be far out crazy because of magic.


But until then it is world with little surplus to waste on people studying books where knowledge is handed down through rigid and traditional channel from master to apprentice. Where said knowledge is crufted with useless shit that has no basis in reality but present because that tradition and they have no equivalent of the scientific method to pare it away. No peer review to allow people to compare notes at least.

In our own history, while the powerful had better food and more wealth their lives were not qualitatively better than the peasants they lorded over. No amount of gold or power could cure a king of cancer, or save him from the infection of a severely broken limb. The King's entertainment were those of his peasant but on a grander scale.

However with D&D Magic that changes. With highly skill craftsmen of magic known as wizards pockets of luxury that are close to modern day standard can exist. While the lack of the concept of mass production and the inability of society to train more than a few wizards a year would preclude wall of iron spells to supply the King's Army. It would allow for the Kings Guard to be equipped with the finest.

In the absence of other factors, any high magic system that require book learning would result in a world that 20% better than a comparable time in history up to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

That overall progress would be retarded due the fact that elites would enjoy a quality of life several order of magnitude better than the peasantry. There would fewer chances for the disruptions that accelerated human progress and diversity. Near immortal elves, long lived dwarves, and the incredible utility of magic (once learned) would also act as brakes.

In theory you are right but in actual play D&D is nothing like that.

A bloke walks into a random tavern on the road to blah blah and he expects to find a couple of fighting men, a wizard or two and a holy man capable of miracles. When those guys die looting some tomb or other the survivors expect to stumble across another couple of like minded adventurers. There appears to be a constant unending supply of wizards available at every hostlery and injured adventurers expect to be able to walk into the local temple and receive miraculous healing.

The description of the default game world in no way matches the reality of the game as played.
Now if we had some more rigorous entry requirements, give wizards entry requirements more like paladins, min 17 intelligence say or you have to roll your class randomly and casters were one in 50 PCs or something then you would have a position as it stands casters are 2 a penny.
You can't compare casters to say savants at medieval courts because the regularity with with they appear makes them close to a skilled craftsman, a mason, metal worker or carpenter, or more like an artist you offer patronage to.