264
Because of some comments I got under my last post… (ttrpg.network)
submitted 11 months ago* by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 11 months ago (23 children)

Ah, the fallacy of overly literal reading of rules.

Which is why I hate the "spells only do what they say they do" argument. There's a lot of things that should logically happen when you cast certain spells that aren't specifically written in the rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 11 months ago (19 children)

    I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I think that the best thing about tabletop games is that you are not bound by someone else's rules and can decide on the spot what works and what doesn't. It makes for more interesting plays that just adhere to the words written on the page.

    A few years ago, me and my party were stuck in the sewers with giant invisible spiders stalking us. When they attacked us, the Paladin threw some water around so that the water hitting the invisible bodies would make them visible. There's no specific rule for that, but it made for a cool moment.

    At the same time, even if Firebolt explicitly states that it sets objects on fire and Investiture of Flame doesn't, if the Sorcerer wants to burn stuff with it, I'll allow it.

    From experience, the only way to somewhat balance martials and casters is to either give the martials broken stuff, or play homebrew classes that actually care about giving them interesting features to play with.
    Allowing the players to interact with the environment using their tools (as long as they don't specifically infringe on established rules) doesn't change the power dynamics between casters and non-casters. Sure, it technically increases the utility of casters a bit more, but chances are that they have countless tools for the job anyway. The martials are still eating dirt miles behind them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago

    I think that’s a big strength of tabletops too, but I sometimes wish people would adhere a bit more to the rules, because while some things are not covered by them, changing the things that are is a good way to get me to be very hesitant to do anything because I can’t rely on achieving anything close to the intended outcome if I can’t rely on the rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    So just buff the martials! Easy peasy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Properly buffing martials without creating different problems in the process is actually far harder than it seems I'd say.

    But yes other than that it’s a good solution as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    it would require a pretty comprehensive rework, yes. You'd need to (as an example):

    • give martials something really cool that they can do to compete with the "cool factor" spells offer (I think having a large variety of weapon options would help, especially if the weapons all feel different and have different mechanical effects)

    • Let martials use their physical prowess to dynamically interact with the battle (They can already do things like shoving enemies, but a really robust list of tricks that characters can do with their athletics, acrobatics, stealth, medicine, etc. skills could really help level the playing field. After all, spells are mostly useful for their utility and not just raw damage.)

    • Make spells less all-or-nothing using multiple saving throws or varying levels of success (this lets you nerf the "top end" of spells while keeping their overall power the same)

    • give martials more ways to cheat the action economy, like more actions per turn on average than casters get

    • make more enemies resist magic but weak to normal weapons, or make more enemies weak to certain kinds of physical damage (slashing, piercing, silver, etc.)

    • give martial characters "backdoors" into magical skill (for example, maybe characters with a high arcana skill can do magic as long as they have time to prepare - like rituals instead of combat magic - or they could use arcana and a satchel full of scrolls/wands to cast magic even as a martial)

    • give characters more access to ability score increases on their weaker ability scores so they don't have to optimize as heavily around only one ability score

    ... just to name a few I'd have in mind

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    I think the last one is not really necessary. Characters having flaws is part of the design philosophy. Martials actually have a small advantage here as it is easier for them to build around their most important abilitiescores.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Don't knock it till you try it. Making MAD builds more viable is really great for the game. Obviously characters will still have a couple low scores, but it's nice not to suck at everything except one thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago (6 children)

    Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    You could just give players multiple ASIs, but they can't be applied to the same stat

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Of course, but it favors the RPer who just wants to be decent more than the minmaxer, since it encourages breadth not depth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Definetly. Though some role-players might find it annoying that it creates the impression that your character just eventually becomes decent at everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    In 5e, yes. You would eventually become good at everything since DCs aren't all that high. There are things you could do to combat that, but at that point you'd be homebrewing your own rpg system :P

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago

    Pretty much, yes. I also think it’s not necessary for characters not to become better in all abilities even as the game goes on, but I generally like that characters typically continue to have weaknesses as they level up. Th unfortunate part is that those weaknesses are a lot less punishing for some classes then for other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    worrying about balance is another literalism imo. You can make anything fun and enjoyable with the right story, items, and creativity

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    "Balance" gets abused a lot, as a term. It means multiple things, and it results in people talking past each other.

    Intra-party balance -- that is, everyone in the party being approximately equally capable -- is important for most tables because most people resent getting clowned on by their so-called allies.

    Creature/encounter balance is not about forcing the fights players get into to be fair, but about having a reliable way of telling how hard the fight will be. That knowledge is not an obligation to make the fights fair.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    What I want to know is, if the gap between casters and non-casters is truly that big, why are players still picking non-caster classes? Might as well use one of the half-/third-caster classes and reflavor the magic to make them superpowered martials if you just really want to play a character that only makes narrative sense as a non-caster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Taking thing literally (especially in an RP game) just shows a lake of creativity. Table top books like DND have always been a framework to give you ideas. everything else is between you and the players

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •