like many things in D&D, it's only a problem if your DM is incompetent at problem solving skills.  I.e., rule#1 is that it's the DM's game.  If a spell (or anything) becomes problematic, the DM can simply make a ruling and there you go, problem fixed

Well magic is magic if you can work out clever ways to use it great.

these things have existed in D&D since the begining. We all recall casting enlarge on the guys armour using walls of iron cast in the air to crush opponents etc.

If we reduce spells to be "wall of force" creates a flat barrier that must be vertical and must touch the ground and all it does as act as a wall removes all creativity. We want spells that do something in the world "create an invisible wall this big" that is what is does how you can use that is up to you. the DM would need to decide if an invisible wall had any mass for example or if you could use it to crush things. One of my PCs created a spell that manipulated force constructs moving them etc. We all know how tough forcefields can be if they are 1 molecult thick and can be moved quickly.

As for polymorph. All the restriction pointed out show a lack of creativity. The hobbit thif sneaks into the giant camp then you turn him into a T-Rex.

As for worrying that a 9th level spell in True Polymorph is too powerful... its a 9th level spell of course its too powerful.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;783291like many things in D&D, it's only a problem if your DM is incompetent at problem solving skills.  I.e., rule#1 is that it's the DM's game.  If a spell (or anything) becomes problematic, the DM can simply make a ruling and there you go, problem fixed

Ah, the fine dividing line between "problematic" and "intelligent"... A smart player will use anything and everything at their disposal. You need to shut down obvious exploits, for sure, but shut down too much smart play and they'll stop trying to be creative.

Quote from: Ladybird;783335Ah, the fine dividing line between "problematic" and "intelligent"... A smart player will use anything and everything at their disposal. You need to shut down obvious exploits, for sure, but shut down too much smart play and they'll stop trying to be creative.

Yup totally agree.

Even the Term "Problematic" is an issue. problmeatic for who.

Take Scry, port, fry, port. That isn't problematic for the player that is perfect. Minimal risk maximum reward.

If a PC wizard always spams the same 4 spell combo because it always works you can nerf the spells, you can change the world or you can just man the fuck up and accept that the PC worked out a great way to beat the world.

 One thing that annoys me is when a DM decides his monsters have developed a counter to the party's standard attack strategy despite the fact that when its been used no monster has ever escaped to tell anyone about it.

Play the monsters appropriate to their skills ability and knowledge.

If you think a PC casting Heat metal on the opposing Cleric's holy symbol thus preventing them from casting any spells is an unfair so you make sure that the next cleric has a wooden holy symbol then you have to ask are you the one being a dick.

Quote from: jibbajibba;783341Take Scry, port, fry, port. That isn't problematic for the player that is perfect. Minimal risk maximum reward.

Yeah. If you create a class that is designed to appeal to smart, problem-solving players, state that characters have to be smart to be able to be in this class (So it's in character to be a problem-solver), and then let them get versatile problem-solving abilities... they are going to...



And that's clearly what the designer wanted to happen, because otherwise, why would they have done all of those things?

Quote from: Ladybird;783335Ah, the fine dividing line between "problematic" and "intelligent"... A smart player will use anything and everything at their disposal. You need to shut down obvious exploits, for sure, but shut down too much smart play and they'll stop trying to be creative.

It seems to be a fairly clear line though.

Clever tactic that makes the game fun for all = intelligent

Clever tactic that makes the game repetitive and boring = problematic

The only time it is an issue is either when one person (usually the person using the tactic) is still finding it fun but everyone else is sick of it; or when everyone is finding it boring but someone (usually a power gamer / optimiser) can't stop doing it because they can't bring themselves to do something that is "less effective".

In the former case an out of character chat with the group usually solves the issue and everyone agrees to stop using that tactic, but in the latter case that might not work and it might need a house rule to be established preventing the tactic from being useful (or preferably limiting its usefulness to certain situations so it doesn't get overused and boring).

I'd also guess that sometimes the optimiser might not be happy with the house rule or the pressure to not use the tactic and may go online to whinge about their character being "nerfed" or "gimped" by the unfair DM. In which case the only sensible course of action is to point and laugh.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;783344The only time it is an issue is either when one person (usually the person using the tactic) is still finding it fun but everyone else is sick of it; or when everyone is finding it boring but someone (usually a power gamer / optimiser) can't stop doing it because they can't bring themselves to do something that is "less effective".

The character will quickly realise that their tactic is highly effective. So why should the character do something less effective? And because they're adventuring with a party in potentially deadly situations, not acting to the best of their ability puts everybody else's lives in danger. My character wants their colleagues to be smart, my character is relying on them.

I mean, if I turned around and said to my boss "nah, I don't want to any any more automation, it's too efficient", he'd say "well, I don't want to employ you any more".

QuoteI'd also guess that sometimes the optimiser might not be happy with the house rule or the pressure to not use the tactic and may go online to whinge about their character being "nerfed" or "gimped" by the unfair DM. In which case the only sensible course of action is to point and laugh.

Sometimes you're right, but sometimes the GM is actually just being a dick, and punishing players for thinking outside the box.

Are there any in-game elements that are anti-magic? I suppose that a GM could introduce locations or foes where magical effects go haywire or even nullified, prompting the wizard to change their tactics.

Although I've been accused of GM tyranny for suggesting this, or even introducing fire-resistant monsters to a party with a Wizard who spams fireball all the time.

For the record, I don't mean taking away character abilities, just challenging them to pick and choose them based on the conditions of the conflict.

Quote from: Ladybird;783346The character will quickly realise that their tactic is highly effective. So why should the character do something less effective? And because they're adventuring with a party in potentially deadly situations, not acting to the best of their ability puts everybody else's lives in danger. My character wants their colleagues to be smart, my character is relying on them.

I mean, if I turned around and said to my boss "nah, I don't want to any any more automation, it's too efficient", he'd say "well, I don't want to employ you any more".

Ah... the old "I'm just playing my character" defence.

It's a game. The enjoyment of the players trumps character consistency every time.

If it's that important to you that you constantly use a particular tactic knowing that doing so is spoiling everyone else's fun "because it's what my character would do" then you need to retire that character and play a new character who wouldn't (or can't) do that thing.

Quote from: Necrozius;783349Are there any in-game elements that are anti-magic? I suppose that a GM could introduce locations or foes where magical effects go haywire or even nullified, prompting the wizard to change their tactics.

Anti-Magic Shell and Dispel Magic come to mind.

Thing is. There is no in game way to make these permanent area effects outside of spell research or something else to set it into a place.

Quote from: Necrozius;783349Are there any in-game elements that are anti-magic? I suppose that a GM could introduce locations or foes where magical effects go haywire or even nullified, prompting the wizard to change their tactics.

There is an "Antimagic Shell" spell that is centred around the caster (and is mobile) and nullifies all magic except for that from deities and artefacts.

Previous editions have almost all had similar anti-magic effects, either as creature abilities or simply as a natural phenomenon in certain areas. We'll have to wait for the MM and DMG to see how (and if) these are implemented in 5e.

Quote from: Necrozius;783349Although I've been accused of GM tyranny for suggesting this, or even introducing fire-resistant monsters to a party with a Wizard who spams fireball all the time.

Well, it varies. Any NPC wizard is going to be a smart problem-solver with a suite of problem-solving tools, so they're going to try and counteract anyone coming to kill them. Entirely legit. And if many people survive that fireball-fan wizzie, they're going to acquire a reputation, people will prepare.

But prep is expensive, and if every NPC they meet is suddenly immune to the wizard's exact strategy, though, and every room has an antimagic field, that's not really ideal.

I suppose you could use does this make sense in the context of the world as a guideline; if the NPC's prep makes sense given what they could know and do, it's fine.

Of course, as a player, if I suddenly started encountering random enemies prepared against my best strategy, I'd really want to know why, and who has acquired a grudge against me. As long as you can sell it well enough, I might not notice.

But I'd also really like to be playing a Triceratops, so make of that what you will.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;783352If it's that important to you that you constantly use a particular tactic knowing that doing so is spoiling everyone else's fun "because it's what my character would do" then you need to retire that character and play a new character who wouldn't (or can't) do that thing.

Even if I'm not playing the problem-solver, my character wants to make it home alive, and is relying on the rest of the party to do their parts. We are a team, everybody pulls their weight. My character wants the wizard to come up with a great solution, because then we have more chance to get back home; if the wizard can't be trusted to do that, they can stay home.

Quote from: Ladybird;783273Yeah, it clearly can't actually work, because otherwise, wizards would have used it to end every confrontation ever.

But it's legal and doesn't even bend any rules.

I would rule that the space the creature is pushed into must be large enough to accomodate the creature.

Much like the enlarge spell cannot be used to lock a creature in a tiny space and crush it-the creature will only grow to a maximum size that the space allows.

Quote from: Ladybird;783360Even if I'm not playing the problem-solver, my character wants to make it home alive, and is relying on the rest of the party to do their parts. We are a team, everybody pulls their weight. My character wants the wizard to come up with a great solution, because then we have more chance to get back home; if the wizard can't be trusted to do that, they can stay home.

Sure. And if everyone is happy with the same tactic being used every time because it's very effective due to a quirk of the rules then it's fine. Knock yourself out. Go Team!

But I was talking about - and you quoted - the case where the rest of the players (not the characters, the players) find the that the repeated use of the same tactic spoils their fun. If that's not the case then there's no problem. But if it is the case, then someone needs to compromise and change what they're doing in order to make it more fun for everyone - and in that situation whining about "but it's what my character would do" is the last resort of a scoundrel.