Does anyone else feel as though D&D has gotten too easy since

>My campaigns are too easy

Get a better DM that can pose you an actual challenge.

Or stop fucking minmaxing and try and make a fun build for a change that doesn't revolve around killing X Monsters as fast as possible.

Either works, really.

>>53188292
>Get a better DM that can pose you an actual challenge.
Literally impossible in a mixed party.
>Or stop fucking minmaxing and try and make a fun build for a change that doesn't revolve around killing X Monsters as fast as possible.
Literally impossible when the game assumes that everyone is min-maxed and people read into how to get better at the game.

File: 1337511331754.jpg (181KB, 363x321px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 363x321px

Every time someone poses a question like this I get really confused.
I mean...it's D&D. Literally ANYTHING can be changed in the adventure. Even if every single asshole at the table from GM to newest PC is an Expert Rule Lawyer hellbent on taking to the letter every single word in the manual, if there's too many HP, what's stopping the GM from spawning enemies with better gear?
If mages have too many hax spells, what's stopping the GM from bringing in things that force them to choose between taking the easy way out now, and keeping their daily spells for later danger?
If single skill rolls are too determinant, what's stopping the DM from making a single action into multiple rolls over different skills depending on what part of the objective you're doing?
If the PCs are minmaxing with munchkin builds off the net, what's stopping the GM from scaling the challenge to the characters?

It's D&D
The only limit is your imagination EVEN while you follow the rules
You just have (or are) a shitty GM

>>53188044
My CoS players would disagree.

Mostly because the players of today are little bitches who throw tantrums when their original characters donut steel get killed by a kobold ambush instead of an epin clash with dragons in the clouds.
And many GMs are enablers of this shitty behaviour.

>>53188429
>if there's too many HP, what's stopping the GM from spawning enemies with better gear?
It doesn't really solve the problem, it only puts more stress on the DM to create balanced parties and can either swing between "eh, that wasn't so bad" to "HOLY FUCK HALF THE PARTY IS DEAD!"
>what's stopping the GM from bringing in things that force them to choose between taking the easy way out now, and keeping their daily spells for later danger?
Because generally that'll never happen. The martials in the group will call for a long rest before any mage, and the reason being is because HP drains much faster than spells.
>what's stopping the DM from making a single action into multiple rolls over different skills depending on what part of the objective you're doing?
D20 is too swingy for this to work in practice unless the bonuses outstrip the die.
>If the PCs are minmaxing with munchkin builds off the net, what's stopping the GM from scaling the challenge to the characters?
see above

>>53188475
Neat.

>>53188498

If you put it like that, then every single edition of D&D since the first has been unplayable.

Fudge dice, manipulate encounters, force the party's hand. Being a good GM often means being able to direct the party while still making them feel like they're the ones making choices.

>>53188479
^^this


A few kobolds, a couple spiders on a string, and a few traps can gut open an experienced party.

Too many DM's know their players are retarded little twats, and make their setting to enable the little retarded twats. Instead of working to get their players better.

>>53188044
>D&D has gotten too easy
When my 5e group doesn't properly coordinate, we reliably get our shit slapped.

Also, the combat engine isn't the main source of difficulty. You ripped an OP build off the internet and followed the advice of people who actually know the rules so you can faceroll most fights, big fucking whoop. The real difficulty is when you actually have to use your head to plan accomplish things instead of just remembering how to set up your powers.

And it is "Role Play". Roleplaying games are a subset of role play.

>>53188529
There's a difference between doing that and making so that the players are so powerful that DM fiat becomes a legacy mechanic.

If the average PC in the group has 50-70 HP and some of them have access to spells that can defeat most encounters in 1-3 turns, why the fuck is the DM still stepping in to save them?

>>53188529
>every single edition of D&D since the first has been unplayable
Congratulations, you've figured it out. Why anyone still willingly plays this clusterfuck of a system is a mystery.

>>53188540
Well when you're incompetent and/or limiting yourself to sub-optimum choices, of course things are going to be harder for you.

Also, why would anyone bother using their head when the game gives you a small battalion of precise strike nukes that will end every encounter you across through no fault of your own?

>>53188571
>If the average PC in the group has 50-70 HP and some of them have access to spells that can defeat most encounters in 1-3 turns
If wizards are that deadly, then expect NPCs and monsters to focus on them. Or kill them in their sleep at night...or send 1 goblin waves every ten minutes to keep the mage from memorizing spells before the big battle.

>>53188619
> Nukes

First thing an enemy would target.

>>53188623
>>53188643
>If wizards are that deadly, then expect NPCs and monsters to focus on them.
But then, by focusing on the wizard, you've funneled all your resources into taking down the strongest members of the party while putting everyone else in a position where they have no chance of beating the enemy in front of them.
>Or kill them in their sleep at night
But then, why not kill everyone else who's asleep? Besides, modern D&D gives multiple ways to thwart a potential assassination attempt so it's like, whatever.
>send 1 goblin waves every ten minutes to keep the mage from memorizing spells before the big battle.
Again, the martials will run out of HP long before the mage runs out of spells.

>>53188619
>Well when you're incompetent and/or limiting yourself to sub-optimum choices, of course things are going to be harder for you.
I mean, in most of those cases everyone built reasonably well, we just didn't coordinate the whole party to cover all the roles perfectly.


People do tend to use their heads in games that are good and actually require thought instead of just spamming the same few combos forever.

>>53188725
>People do tend to use their heads in games that are good and actually require thought instead of just spamming the same few combos forever.
you say that, but then you wrote
>I mean, in most of those cases everyone built reasonably well, we just didn't coordinate the whole party to cover all the roles perfectly.
so I'm not 100% sure that I can trust your opinion.

I mean, how incompetent are you that you haven't filled in every role in the game? It's actually impressive.

>>53188663
>But then, by focusing on the wizard, you've funneled all your resources into taking down the strongest members of the party while putting everyone else in a position where they have no chance of beating the enemy in front of them.

Nah.
It's logical that bad guys target the most dangerous first. Then pick off the rest. Why wouldn't they? I'm sorry your dm doesn't play bad guys as smart.

>>53188663
>Again, the martials will run out of HP long before the mage runs out of spells.
Wrong. 1 goblin doesn't bother martials. But it will disrupt the mages study time. Who's out of spells now? The fighter or the mage? Hmmm

>>53188796
>I mean, how incompetent are you that you haven't filled in every role in the game?

I felt tired of wrangling all the players to coordinate their builds. I was beginning my metamorphosis into a normie and had real stuff to spend my time on.

A few party wipes and beloved character deaths later, they seem a little more pliable.

Also, "party wipe" is starting to sound like some freaky wet-wipe variant.

>>53188663
Nonsense. You just have to know HOW to target them.

99% of /tg/ thinks they know how to use and build wizards, and less than 10% ever play in a game using them, and when they do, they try and break the game using /tg/ recommendations - which almost never work because white room theorycraft=/=actual in game play. Sure, your automatic +20 initiative is great -if you ever get to the level where it is usable. See invisibility is wonderful an all, but it doesn't work on stealthy critters. Freedom of movement doesn't make you immune to poison. Teleportation is wonderful - assuming you actually arrive on target (sure, recast it, you'll have a good chance of ending up further away!). Plane shift on an enemy is wonderful - if it's you're highest level spell, because everything that you fight at that level has high fort and will saves alike, and anything that isn't your highest level spull is losing 5% success per level (meaning your glitterdust anbd blindness spells don't actually work on anything instantly and perfectly after 8th level).

Math and mechanical ideal rarely work out in real play, and the worst enemies a wizard ever fights are combat monsters or magical creatures, but skill monkey monsters that they never see coming and that anyone BUT a full caster can kill easily.

>>53188824
>It's logical that bad guys target the most dangerous first. Then pick off the rest. Why wouldn't they?
See >>53188498
>It doesn't really solve the problem, it only puts more stress on the DM to create balanced parties and can either swing between "eh, that wasn't so bad" to "HOLY FUCK HALF THE PARTY IS DEAD!"

If the enemy is strong enough to kill the wizard, there's nothing stopping them from killing the rest of the party, turning it into a TPK

Have you tried not playing 3.5?

>>53188847
>1 goblin doesn't bother martials.
1 goblin isn't even going to bother anyone because mages have cantrips that will easily kill off that one goblin. Also, are we just assuming that nobody else in the party is doing anything about the random goblin roaming in to fuck with the mage?

You're stupid.

>>53188888
Not everything is 3.5. In 5th a wizard is never going to be as tough as a properly built fighter, even less so if said fighter is specifically built for defenses. The wizard having one million buffs up to make himself invincible just isn't a thing anymore thanks to Concentration making it impossible

4th has actual mechanics for fighters to be "tanks", so even less so. Out of the WotC editions that only leaves 3.5

>>53188876
>I felt tired of wrangling all the players to coordinate their builds.
I'm saying though, most mages can fill in the role of skill monkey, healer, damage-dealer, caster fairly easily without losing their niche, so how was the party unable to fulfill all their party roles?

Fuck, a Bard fulfills all the major roles easily as a class in 5e, so how are they that fucking stupid?

>>53188887
>Math and mechanical ideal rarely work out in real play, and the worst enemies a wizard ever fights are combat monsters or magical creatures, but skill monkey monsters that they never see coming and that anyone BUT a full caster can kill easily.
Yeah, I've yet to see these mythical skill monkey monsters but I'd like to hear an example from you.

>>53188945
>In 5th a wizard is never going to be as tough as a properly built fighter, even less so if said fighter is specifically built for defenses.
False!

Even if you can't stack multiple buffs on yourself, concentration only prevents you from stacking multiple spells with a duration of "concentration." If you have something like fireball or can strike, say, a held person with a melee attack, you can still do so without breaking concentration.

>>53188952
Bards can fill a role and also be adequate replacements for most others, but they're not going to be remotely as good as a character built for that role. And having a wizard damage-dealer or healer is a waste when a cleric or bard can heal better and a warlock or fighter can do damage more consistently, with a sorcerer being roughly matched for blasting if you really wanted to do it (which is about the only thing where they can compete with wizards)

>>53188999
So? Spending resources to stall things from hitting you is not the same as just being able to take more punishment

>>53189008
But that's my point, so many classes in 5e can fulfill multiple roles in the party by default thanks to their class features, yet this party of morons still couldn't create a party that ticks all the recommendations?

>>53189044
When you can potentially shut down multiple threats with one spell, while giving anyone who is a melee fighter advantage and auto-crit on them, it doesn't matter if I can only take one hit because they aren't going to fucking hit me.

>>53188619
>Well when you're incompetent and/or limiting yourself to sub-optimum choices, of course things are going to be harder for you
Compensating for this, ie, building adventures around the party you have, not some mythical super-optimized party, is the DM's job.

>>53189125
The DM is certainly free to try but it's all for naught if the game assumes an optimized party.

>>53188952
Because that's not how it actually works.

Having a bard and a druid with cure wounds does not do the same work a life cleric can. I know this because we got ground down by the standard 6-8 encounters.

Just having the potential for classes to cover things doesn't mean it will always work that way. If a group of players completely fails to coordinate, they can easily wind up not adequately covering their bases.

>>53189078
>while giving anyone who is a melee fighter advantage
> it doesn't matter if I can only take one hit
Which goes back to "a wizard is never going to be as tough as a properly built fighter". Everyone knows wizards are still OP in 5e, but nowhere near the extent of their 3.5 selves. They actually NEED the rest of the party because they can't do everything by themselves. Wizards are extremely strong only when they're used to complement their party and not because they're inherently one man armies who need to purposefully not try to break every encounter they're involved in

I have noticed that the mentality players and DMs alike should have is numbers are just there to fall back on when you can't roleplay a situation. Or to guide the flow, not necessarily determine an outcome.

You rolled a 20 on charisma when trying to talk your way into a guarded area? That just means there is something about that puts the guard at ease. You still better have a decent excuse and disguise to get in. Wizard casts Charm Person to force your way in? Welp, you have until the spell's duration to get shit done because the guard will know and raise the alarm.

The point is, not everything is possible, no matter how powerful you are, and everything has consequences. This is supposed to be a living world. You aren't the first adventurers to walk through this city or dungeon, and there are always bigger fish out there. Think of the wizard police in Baldur's Gate.

If a player insists on an action after the potential consequences are explained, make them suffer those consequences. Characters can be rerolled, or a new adventure line can be made to resurrect a beloved character.

Also, don't be afraid to just say no. Doesn't matter if the only reason is because you don't feel like writing a new adventure around their actions. Drop the veil a bit and let them know you'd rather stick to the main story already written. That's not railroading, it's asking them to play WITH you, rather than AGAINST.

DMs are always in demand. If they don't like it they can find another game.

Tl;dr OPs basic assumption is flat out wrong. Systems only bring a particular flavor to a roleplay. DMs and players are everything.

>>53189155
>Having a bard and a druid with cure wounds does not do the same work a life cleric can.
No, but if you have multiple persons who can reliably heal, it'll eventually even out because the load isn't on one person.
>If a group of players completely fails to coordinate, they can easily wind up not adequately covering their bases.
Yes, being stupid does make things more difficult.

>>53189078
>because they aren't going to fucking hit me.
What are ranged weapons?
>When you can potentially shut down multiple threats with one spell
What is loose formation?

>>53188044
Everything in DnD has bloated health, have you seen high level enemies? Magic users are just substituting basic rules for their own rules, nothing wrong with classes doing that. How many fucking rolls do you want to have to do each action? Do you want to roll dice pools multiple times like in OWOD? Back in the 2e days I just asked the party for build advice and they were generally helpful, so how is Internet bad?
Your real problem isn't the system, you just don't like other people having more fun than you.

>>53189150
No.

>>53189266
>What are ranged weapons?
Useless while they're under the effects of "hold person."
>What is loose formation?
Hold Person has a range of 90 ft. and can affect an additional creature so long as they're within 30 ft. of each other.

>>53189304
Calm down.

>>53188964
As an example, take the lowly choker.

Now, everyone knows a caster has all the metamagic and all the spells, but a 5th level caster literally dies if faced with one choker, because chances are he doesn't have a silent spell memorized that can defeat a choker, freedom of moment is eight levels away, and see invisibility - assuming he has it in use through one of his millions of wands or scrolls - doesn't work on stealth checks. At +13 on a stealth check, a choker will still often defeat a 5th level wizard's average of +10 to Perception, and that's assuming he has either a really high wisdom or a trait to give him perception as a class skill, as well as a familiar, and that they're both awake to notice the damn thing. With constriction, it does damage every round, and unless the xaster has friends who are awake, he's in trouble, since the choker's Ac of 17 (remember, grappled creatures still get dex bonuses to one another) means he's going to have a hard time killing it with a dagger.

The only response /tg/ has is "Schrodinger's Wizard", where you say he has umpteen million prepared ways to deal with it even though he's only 5th level.

And this is a CR 2 critter we're discussing here.

Take another Skill role monster: The intellect Devourer. Here is a monster with very high spell resistance, detects magic at will, cannot be blinded or mind effected (blind, sleep, daze, color spray, and other instant game over spells failing to work on it), casts inflict serious wounds at will, can be invisible (and even at 8th level constant see invisibility is unlikely), and all it has to do is crawl inside any sleeping person's mouth and then kill them and take over their body.

The thing is, they don't have to do this to the wizard - they do it to NPCs who are associated with the wizard. with a massive bluff check it can pretend to be dead with the caster kills that body...only to try again later.

>>53189171
If I can shut down most threats before they can adequately threaten me, does it really matter if the Fighter has more HP/AC than me?

>>53189329
We just keep making these idiotic threads for some reason and it doesn't increase board quality.

>>53189345
Bringing in the busted ass CR system does nothing to aid in your argument because a) that choker would likely kill anyone in the party since most people aren't going to waste feats on grappling, b) most martials aren't going to have high WIS and won't spend they're comparably few skill slots on high perception, and c) grappling targets touch attack, which a lot of martials will have at a low number.

Also, mages can activate wands and the like while grappled as well.

Anything that can kill a mage WILL destroy a martial, which is why you never see these creatures in actual play for the most part.

>>53189315
>Hold Person has a range of 90
Short bow, Sling Crossbow, light : 80/320
Heavy Crossbow 100/400
Longbow 150/600
You aren't going to cast that spell at that distance, more likely wizard might get killed before he reaches casting range.
And if enemies decide to flank him, then they will be far outside of 30ft range

>>53189456
If people are replying, you might as well reply too to help the thread hit bump limit faster.

>>53189518
If they're that far away to where it's not feasible to hold person them, I'll just cast wind wall.
>Inb4 NO BUH MUH /TG/ SHROEDINGER WIZARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
If my wizard can see that one spell doesn't work, it'd make no sense for him not to use another spell that would make more sense to use, given the scenario. I mean, it'd certainly make killing them a lot easier since the party can still hit them while they can't hit us.

>>53189587
You gained 1/round level and lost 3rd level spell when enemy lost nothing.
You are currently loosing in a war of attrition.
Archers can come back in few minutes or hours, wizard will get his spell back next day.

>>53188916
Which qualifies as combat you stupid fuck. And means the wizards hasn't had his "quiet and uninterrupted' study time.

Holy shit, you're fucking retarded.

>>53189676
>You gained 1/round level and lost 3rd level spell when enemy lost nothing.
More like, I made their ranged attacks completely useless against me for at least 1 minute/concentration and I'm still free to launch a counterattack with any of my other spells that don't have a duration of (concentration) on them.
>Archers can come back in few minutes or hours, wizard will get his spell back next day.
Archers will either leave to recover from their wounds and/or tend their allies while I GTFO the moment they stop fighting.

OP stop treating D&D like it's a videogame. Go play something where fiction is more important than numbers, become a better roleplayer, and only then come back.

>>53188498
>The martials in the group will call for a long rest before any mage, and the reason being is because HP drains much faster than spells.
Are you actually retarded
That's what wands with healing scrolls are for. The only thing stopping martials is how much the party has spent on healing items

>>53189696
1 goblin isn't combat, it's at most one cantrip spent and if the goblin prevents me from resting then that goblin (should) prevent the martials from regaining any of their HP as well.

But I guess you didn't think about that did you?

>>53189719
>Go play something where fiction is more important than numbers
So like some faggoty narrativist bullshit? Then why are YOU playing D&D if you can't handle the dice and numbers?

>>53189587
You really haven't read what a shit spell wind wall is have you.

All the enemy has to do is literally walk around it. In fact, if two of them move in line with the wall, you literally have no defense agaisnt either of them, especially if they're on opposite sides of each other.

>>53189740
>1 goblin isn't combat, it's at most one cantrip spent

Holy shit........

>>53189728
>That's what wands with healing scrolls are for.
Where do you think those scrolls are coming from? Also, if the martials have scrolls of CLW, then the mage will have scrolls and be even less likely to use up their spells before the martial runs out of HP.
>The only thing stopping martials is how much the party has spent on healing items
And the fact that drinking potions or casting scrolls in melee provokes an AoO and money spent on healing is money that isn't spend on weapons and armors that the martial needs to stay active.

>>53189760
Most cantrips in the game deal enough damage to take out one single goblin anon, they're CR 1/4 creatures.

>>53189714
What wounds?
You can't shoot through your wind wall so it is defence for both sides.
You don't have spell range to cast spells as well

To take any offensive action you or your allies would have to cross the wall and loose all of its benefits.
You inflicted none damage so far.

Not to mention that enemy will not stay stationary for you and may move back or sideways so they may shoot around the wall.

>>53189785
Casting a spell to kill something, is in no way combat.

That's funny shit.

>>53189754
>So like some faggoty narrativist bullshit?
Are you telling me rpgs shouldn't have a narrative? Because if so you should just go play some wargames where you can minmax to your pleasure.

>Then why are YOU playing D&D if you can't handle the dice and numbers?
You're assuming that:
>I play D&D
>I can't handle the dice and numbers

I played D&D because that's how I got introduced to RPGs. At 3.5. With a very narrative leaning GM who refuses to learn anything past 3.5/PF. I can handle all the numbers and dice. What I can't handle is a minmaxer munchkin like you in the game who's unable to see past the dice and numbers and taking a look at what's actually happening. Or, you know, actually roleplaying a character or playing a story.

Taking the narrative away from a roleplaying game makes it a tactics game or a wargame. Nothing wrong with that, just look for a hobby that's better tailored to such ends.

>>53189756
Wind Wall can cover any area so long long as it's a continuous stream of wind along the ground, so you can make a wind wall that encircles the area you want to protect from ranged attacks.
>http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm

>>53189800
>Deals damage
>Not combat
Okay senpai, exercising that 10 INT will do something sooner or later.

>>53189771
>And the fact that drinking potions or casting scrolls in melee provokes an AoO
Ok, so you are admitting that you are retarded. You don't heal in combat (unless it will allow someone to definitely keep going/get up again to finish the fight). Healing with wands/scrolls/potions happens after the fight (unless you play 4e I guess, but even there you're often better advised to finish the fight than prolong it)

>money spent on healing is money that isn't spend on weapons and armors that the martial needs to stay active.
Aaaaand you clearly have never played a game of D&D. The relative cost of required gear to how much healing costs is no problem. Especially if the group pools gold for that kind of stuff (and even moreso if you're allowed to craft some of it yourself). Plus, how is gold spent on staying alive not spent on staying active

>>53189794
Ranged spells anon. I can guarentee you that a group of bandits will die long before either my wind wall ends or I run out of cantrips to shoot at them.

>>53189822
Hey, captain shitcock.....that was the point the other faggot was trying to make.

>killing a goblin with a spell is combat
>reeeee reeeee NO NO NO NO it's not

Can you not follow a fucking thread?

>>53189834
>Ranged spells
I'm not walking dnd encyclopedia so I may miss something but most of them are 120ft, enemy tries to stay at 400.
Sure they have disadvantage but on the other hand they are untouchable by you.

>>53189862

uh-huh....my wizard will cast Vlads Leaping Death Lizards of Explosive Acid, with a range of 50000 feet, and my wizard has 3 wands with it. Reee reeee reeeeee

>>53189862
Are you just trying to be retarded?
How does a party of PCs that can advance upon the enemy under the cover of windwall not have a definitive edge over a group of bandits who tried to rely on ranged attacks to win?

Like holy shit, this is so basic, I can't even begin to fathom how after more than 4 decades of D&D being around that there still people like you that argue against casters being deciding factors in as well as out of combat

>>53189836
Can you even follow your own logic at this point?

Take a breather and actually tell me what you're going on about.

>>53189935
>How does a party of PCs that can advance upon the enemy under the cover of windwall not have a definitive edge over a group of bandits who tried to rely on ranged attacks to win?

Wind wall is stationary.
Assuming that bandits stay in place like retards because moving back is for cowards that still leaves 280 feet of ground not covered by wind wall for you and your party to cross, under fire.

I think the OP was complaining D&D was "too easy". I guess the answer of the thread is to have a party without caster then?

>>53190045
>I think the OP was complaining D&D was "too easy". I guess the answer of the thread is to have a party without caster then?

The answer is to have a good DM.

>>53190045
>>53190056
The answer is to not play D&D.

>>53189862
Feats and class features can easily double that range in 5e, but at that point you're already moving the goalposts beyond the original argument.

The original argument you proposed is that bandits would have the range advantage if I tried to use hold person, I countered by stating that I'd just use wind wall instead, you then tried to claim some perceived fault in wind wall, I posted the page the listed what wind wall can and can't do, and now you're going on about enemies can just stay at 400 ft. even though it would make it much easier for the errant mage to escape without difficulties since they'd have disadvantage.

It's 2017 man, the game has been solved and you're fighting in a battle that has already been fought and lost.

>>53190066
>implying

>>53190038
Any ranged attack that tries to hit anyone behind the wall automatically misses. Also, at that distance, with disadvantage, the mage could easily just escape thanks to spells like misty step, dimension door, rope trick, etc.

>>53189515
Not him but you just asked for an example not an argument, and you're doing a poor job hiding the fact that you're moving the goalpost. It seems he's talking about Pathfinder and you're talking about 3.5.

> a) that choker would likely kill anyone in the party since most people aren't going to waste feats on grappling.

That's a retarded assumption to make, grappling shuts down anyone who isn't built to do so.

>b) most martials aren't going to have high WIS and won't spend they're comparably few skill slots on high perception

Most people max out their perception score for a reason. You would have a point if it were 3.5 but in Pathfinder it probably wouldn't be too hard to have a decent score.

c) grappling targets touch attack, which a lot of martials will have at a low number.

Martials have full bab and typically a good str or dex score so they can escape the grapple or use escape artist skill. It's not 100%, but they would probably fair better in a scenario where both martial and caster is grappled and unprepared.

>>53190071
The wizard had prepared Hold Person this morning! Since hold person won't work, the wizard had ALSO prepared wind wall. If neither of those would have worked, the wizard also would have prepared (x).

It's amusing as hell that these "wizards are gods" faggots, always try to argue that wizards always:
1) Able to cast the needed spell
2) Has that needed spell
3) had prepared that needed spell

Doesn't matter what the circumstance is, those 3 things remain.

I'm sorry you wizfags haven't ever played with a decent or good dm.

The easy answer to this conundrum of difficulty is simple. Go play Warhammer fantasy, specifically second Ed. I'd like to see you survive two weeks following the games rules.

>>53190136
>Not him but you just asked for an example not an argument
I asked him to provide an example BECAUSE he made the argument that a skill based creature could easily shut down a mage. It's not my fault that he was wrong in his assumptions.
>That's a retarded assumption to make, grappling shuts down anyone who isn't built to do so.
Which is practically everyone, because who the fuck wastes feats on grappling?
>Most people max out their perception score for a reason.
Yet if it's not a class skill, you're basically shit outta luck because your skill points won't be enough to close the gap between someone who does have it as a class skill.
>Martials have full bab
Wrong, see Rogues and Monks
>typically a good str or dex score
Depending on the martial, they'll either focus on STR or DEX but never both, primarily due to class features only allowing some classes to use armor and armor carrying both armor check penalties and a limit to how much DEX you can apply as well.

>>53190071
>>53190110
Of course he can run, by foot if he wanted.
But he was unable to move forward as enemy could stay behind his range and shoot at him.

So mage lost as he was unable to achieve his goal to move forward so did bandits if they wanted to kill him.

So if he could be stooped by punks with bows, then he is not unstoppable force, so it is possible to find a situation where wizard will be at disadvantage.

While of course it will be hard due to magic versatility but it is not impossible

>>53190038
And how are 120 ft, a little over one fourth of the whole way, of not getting peppered with arrows an advantage? This also allows other party members to create some makeshift cover or look for a way out.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore here. A party with casters will always have an advantage, simply because spells offer a wide array of tools to interact with different problems. 3.PF is called caster edition for a reason and that's because they can easily impact what's happening or not, they also warp the game around them (the often cited 5 minute adventuring day is a factor here) and they require more work on the GMs side to work around.
Even with a good GM, a caster will hold more power in his hands than a martial. Like, in these shroedinger wizards argument you rarely see a martial get mentioned, because guess what, that guy would also be super fucked

>>53189822
>>53189836
>>53189800
Honestly what I would do instead of having everyone roll initiative:
Is player rolls to attack goblin
If player hits, goblin is dead
If not, then the goblin runs away/sounds an alarm/does something to make everyone rolling initiative actually worth something

>>53190209
Hold Person is useful for shutting down single targets and spending a higher leveled slot allows me to shut down additional people.

Wind Wall is just a good defensive spell in general, because it allows us to not only become immune to ranged attacks but can also shut down gaseous creatures, small or smaller flying creatures, and fogs/gases/smogs as well.

Dimension door is a great emergency button because it allows me and one other person per slot to teleport up to 500 ft. away.

The problem with martialfags is that because they have no answers to most of the shit the game can throw at them, they believe that mages should be held under the same limitations. There's no reason why a mage wouldn't prepare the above spells just in case, but because it breaks down your argument, you throw a tantrum like a toddler who doesn't get their way.

Next time, balance around a player's best, rather than their worse.

>>53190244
>But he was unable to move forward as enemy could stay behind his range and shoot at him.
>So mage lost as he was unable to achieve his goal to move forward so did bandits if they wanted to kill him.
Who says the mage can't progress further though? Now that he knows what to expect, he can prepare his spells accordingly and beat out the threat without any major difficulty.

Assuming of course the wizard didn't prepare invisibility+fly that day and just avoiding the entire encounter entirely after regrouping for a bit.

>>53188847
Except someone else in the party will just keep one shotting the free exp you're sending at them in a really meta fashion.

>>53190316
>There's no reason why a mage wouldn't prepare the above spells just in case,

>>53190209
>1) Able to cast the needed spell
>2) Has that needed spell
>3) had prepared that needed spell

Every wizard. Every time. lulz

>>53190396
>one shotting the free exp
Hmm......and how much exp is 1 gobbie worth to a lv 8 party?

>>53190614
5 xp! It adds up, you know

>>53188044
>spells allowing mages to bypass huge swathes of the rules at no penalty
That has literally always been the case

>>53190600
Nah, as stupid as Schroedingers Wizard is, just pointing your finger and feeling smart accomplishes nothing (except getting sweet (You)s I guess)

Furthermore it makes you look quite stupid, because spells are powerful and the better ones are even versatile. So your one encounter you came up with proves, what? That you have to make up encounters specifically to challenge the wizard? Wow, thanks for that incredible insight, I couldn't have thought of that by myself after seeing the same arguments for years here!

>>53190600
Five spells anon. Five spells that can cover a wide array of situations. Why the fuck wouldn't the mage prepare them?

Oh right, because you didn't think that far ahead and are now just shitting in your diapers out of impotent rage, I gotcha senpai.

>>53190709
>Every wizard has the exact needed spell
>Every wizard can cast the exact spell
>Every wizard is assumed to be a high enough level to cast the exact spell, as needed
>If the wizard can't (but he always can), then the DM has specifically designed the encounter to fuck the wizard

Seriously, I'm sorry that you've not had the opportunity to play with a good DM, and good group.

>>53190614
If it's 1 goblin every 10 minutes for up to 8 hours, that'd come out to 240 xp for the party as a whole, at no risk of life and limb to anyone within the party.

It adds up.

>>53190752
>Good GM
>Goes out of his way to fuck with one specific member of the party just because they know what they're doing.
Pick one.

Also, while he's doing this, the martials have already checked out and are now looking through their news feed or playing solitaire on their phone.

>>53190734
Again, we assume that in every encounter, the wizard is :

1) high enough level to cast these 5 spells
2) hasn't already cast it that day
and on and on and on with the assumptions.

In short, whatever faggot. I'm sorry you've had shit DM's, and shit groups to play with.

>>53190752
>>53190782
>If I just keep baiting, I will get (You)s!
And it actually works! The absolute madman!

>>53188044
Agreed on all points, OP, but some people like that sort of thing.

I stopped trying to argue weather these elements are objectively good or bad, because that way lies madness and screaming at people for having "BADWRONGFUN"

>>53190752
>specifically fuck with a player so they can't use any of their abilities
Or you could play one of the many systems with fun, interesting and mechanically balanced magic and combat systems that add to the fun instead of actively detracting from it. D&D is cancer.

>>53190834
This guy knows what's up. There's more rules for denying or punishing actions than there are for rewarding exciting, smart or cool moves

Next, some guy is gonna jump down my throat and argue that 5e left it behind, but just one glance at the section about spells will tell you that that's wrong

>>53189515
>activating a wand
>command word item
>while being strangled
>martial can't kill something with a dagger when he outclasses it by a factor if 5 in every way while the wizard can't hit shit
And here we see proof that not only are you retarded, you are an idiot!

>>53191000
Or even:
>Pointing a wand and holding it steady at a target while being pinned/grappled/tossed to the ground

>>53191000
>>53191032
spell completion only applies to scrolls, not wands. Also, you can still cast spells while grappled if you make a DC (20+Spell Level) check, assuming the spell even cares for that sort of thing.

But who cares about rules in a RPG? Obviously the best course of action is to throw any conflicting information and just pretend that you know what you're doing.

I mean, it worked for the Vatican.

>>53191056
>Also, you can still cast spells while grappled
Point and activating a wand while being grappled isn't the same as casting a spell.

There are rules about being grappled faggot. Do you not care about the rules?

>>53191250
Never said it was, I'm just saying that there are rules that would allow a mage to cast a spell even though he's being grappled.

But I get it, why let a simple thing like logic get in the way of a snappy comeback like that?

>>53190911
D&D spells have always been terrible. 1% are cool, 1% are gamebreaking, 90% are complete garbage.

>>53188887
Half of this does not hold in 5e senpai. You also have to remember that a proper wizard needs to anticipate every feasible situation and normally has a spell for that (including for retreating).

Anyway, this whole thread turned to shit because it's now about how to kill the players, instead of how to challenge the players.

I hate that 5e casting is so safe.

You can be tripped, grappled, posioned in a hurricane on a leaking boat with a raging barbarian and his ancestral spirits on your ass and you still would cast a fireball just as well as any time.

Meanwhile, that loser who uses weapons has to care about things like "conditions" and "making rolls at disadvantage".

When the fuck did sharp pieces of metal get more reliable than spells.

>>53196044
>When the fuck did sharp pieces of metal get more reliable than spells.

LESS reliable, I meant LESS.

>>53196066
>>53196044
Concentration spells can be just stabbed off, with enough damage.

>>53196080
Concentration is a good mechanic.

I just don't like the caster has no real disadvantage while using save spells while in melee (save for mage slayer feat, but how many people have the mage slayer feat, especially enemies?).

>>53196044
Concentration spells can easily be shut off, unless the caster is built for them.
Also, COUNTERSPELL.

In the scenario you describe with the barbarian, would a fighter be able to swing his sword effectively? Yes? Then a wizard can cast just as well faggot, it's the same fucking thing.
>BUT MUH DISADVANTAGE
the wizard gets disadvantage on ranged attacks normally, and if your DM isn't total dogshit he's going to give either advantage or bonus to any save against spells.

>>53196129
>In the scenario you describe with the barbarian, would a fighter be able to swing his sword effectively? Yes?

No. That's the point. The raging barbarian spirits are a reference to the UA that gives them a pseudo mark... that has the wording "disadvantage on attack rolls". Just like 90% of the "hey, deal with the guys in your face!" shit.

Also, considering that spells are actually ranged, I'd think that a better example would be a fighter shooting a bow. Which , you know, he'd get disadvantage to.

>Also, COUNTERSPELL.
>You counter spells with MORE SPELLS
>This is FUN and ENGAGING
>Not like stupid things like positioning

>>53196216
Why isn't counterspell a legitimate tactic to shutdown 1-2 wizards spells? It's not fun, but it's definitely engaging cause now the wizard has to both think AND possibly coordinate with the party.

Yes the ranged fighter would get a disadvantage. So would the wizard. All ranged attacks get disadvantage in that situation. And you're free to give bonus to the save of any spells.

Positioning is largely irrelevant when you have huge area spells like fireball and hypnotic pattern.

>>53196293
>Why isn't counterspell a legitimate tactic to shutdown 1-2 wizards spells?

It is. My problem is that it's only available for casters and is sequestered off as a single spell, instead of an option anyone has. (also, if he's a caster, and knows counterspell, he can counterspell your counterspell by RAW)

>So would the wizard.
Except if it's a save.

>And you're free to give bonus to the save of any spells.

While that is true, you do understand my issue with it not being addressed at all, right? That, despite every single class having access to some kind of magic (except barbarian, let's be fair) the eventuality of casting a fireball while in melee or grappled doesn't even come up?

>>53196333
Yes you can counterspell a counterspell, silly as that may be, which means though you're wasting 2 spell slots to an enemies 1 spell slot to cast. For me it's a fair trade off, if you really need to cast that spell.

Yes I understand what you mean now. It's not stated in the rules (except for cover bonuses) that much is true. And by the last part I guess you mean that casting a save spell in melee or grappled doesn't have any disadvantage at all, correct? Yes that is indeed RAW and yes it is kind of stupid. I guess the intention was to streamline it and they went a bit too far. I'm not defending it desu, I don't like traditional DnD much anymore. I'm just saying, a GM should be able to moderate some of the rules to fit certain situations.

Honestly, even though I understand OPs problem and encounters seem a lot harder to manage in 5e (at least for me as an inexperienced GM), I don't feel like I need to challenge my players constantly in battle.

>>53196395
>Yes I understand what you mean now. It's not stated in the rules (except for cover bonuses) that much is true. And by the last part I guess you mean that casting a save spell in melee or grappled doesn't have any disadvantage at all, correct? Yes that is indeed RAW and yes it is kind of stupid. I guess the intention was to streamline it and they went a bit too far.

Yeah, thank you.

The only thing I'd add is that they already had a streamlined version with 4e's defenses that covered this eventuality (by simply treating any ranged spell the same as any ranged attack), and they went back to saves with 5e which fucked it all up.

>>53194006
>D&D rules have always been terrible. 1% are cool, 1% are gamebreaking, 90% are complete garbage.
FTFY

>>53196453
>>53196395
Oh and sorry if I came off as abrasive, I just got tired of explaining this to people (not on 4chan, elsewhere).

And I also don't agree with OP, gameplay being more consistent means I can add more of the type of challenge that doesn't, somewhat randomly, murder players.

>>53188887
And then there's people like you who talk about actual gameplay and act like the wizard is alone.
If you throw this skill monkey monster at the wizard, guess what, as you said yourself, there's the guys that have absolutely no problem with that monster.
If you really have played the game at all, you will know that Schroedingers Wizard is mostly hyperbole, but if you even remotely act like casters don't dominate or play much bigger roles in encounter and adventure design, you're talking out of your ass.
I've played games where we went without a full caster for some time and then some guys had to reroll and put a full caster in the group, and suddenly it feels like you're playing a completely different game

>>53188044
I used to play 2e AD&D. It's not that you're just "feeling" it OP, it is way easier, it's been like that ever since 2000 or so, that means ever since 3e AD&D came out. 3e honestly improved a lot of stuff, mostly rules and even a bit of roleplaying, but it just shat over the rest in a horrible, terrible way, especially the whole rest of roleplaying. It was like playing an MMO. Ugh. And don't even let me start on 4e or even 5e, pretty please.

>>53188377
>Literally impossible
>Literally impossible
Neither are, you're just a faggot

>>53196584
>Neither are
Yes they are.

Y'know what the problem is? The language.

3.PF and 5e keeps so much bullshit blank in a bid of giving the DM creative control over the rulings for some things, and yet spells have concrete rules that always work the way that it states it will, meaning that the good spells will always be good by default.

B/X, 2e, and 4e all used concrete language to describe the bulk of their rules, which means if there's a question, the answer's already defined and the DM has more time to spend on the campaign proper.

That's what the issue is, you're dealing with a ruleset that resembles swiss cheese more than an actual rulebook.

>>53188377
>Literally Impossible

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

>>53196109
>but how many people have the mage slayer feat, especially enemies?)

In a setting where mages are ending encounters in 1-2 turns with no help from other party members? ALL enemies will have that feat.

lv1 goblin? He's got Mage Slayer for goblins.
NPC guards? Oh yea.....they teach that feat at the academy.
The owlbear? Yup. He's mageslayer as a bonus feat, having adapted to this setting.

>>53196584
>Neither are, you're just a faggot

There's a lot of really bad DM's anon. And they've taught a bunch of players, a bunch of bad things. It's really not the players fault that they're retarded.

>>53198717
>In a setting where mages are ending encounters in 1-2 turns with no help from other party members? ALL enemies will have that feat.
Mage Slayer as a feat doesn't really work all that well, it only works if you're already in a position to threaten them in melee.

Also, if literally everything has mage slayer as a free feat, it only makes mages stronger because guess what? Polymorph exists and magic can only be beaten by other magic.

>>53198874
>mage slayer as a free feat, it only makes mages stronger because guess what? Polymorph exists and magic can only be beaten by other magic.

What? Explain that shit. You're holding up apples and oranges and then claiming that because of apples, oranges are good.

>>53198964
>What? Explain that shit.
Let's say that in this setting, I'm a high enough level to turn into a troll using polymorph. Most parties won't be prepared for it and any mages capable of shooting fire in that party will get shut down thanks to me having mage slayer by default. Because of this, this party is dead, and anyone who doesn't want to die will need to come up with ways to counter mage slayer to survive against melee focused mages in the future. However, by countering mage slayer, they give mages an edge, which mean that they'd need to come up with a counter to the counter that was made to counter the original counter.

It basically turns the entire setting into an arms race and, let me tell ya, mages will be more adept at utilizing those arms better than their martial counterparts by default.

>>53199223
>Most parties won't be prepared for it and any mages capable of shooting fire in that party will get shut down thanks to me having mage slayer by default

Oil and a torch.

But I get what you're saying now.

>>53198150
This. Spells are basically Fate points that get stronger. Casters operate on a completely different system than martials who have to roll for almost everything

>>53201150
>Casters operate on a completely different system than martials who have to roll for almost everything
This, and also they have to play "mother-may-I" just to do something more exciting than "I (full) attack."

>>53201150
Then just switch the rolls around. Rather than the target rolling a saving throw +their stat modifiers. Have them be static 10+stat modifiers like AC and have the mages roll a "casting roll" of d20+Casting Mod" Boom. Mages make just as many rolls as the fighters.Possibly more if you make them roll AoE spell targets individually.