Everything in an RPG is Situational... Everything

There is, perhaps, no bigger argument when it comes to a game's mechanics than about what's more "powerful" when it comes time to roll the dice. While this is a discussion that can be had on a one-to-one comparison (discussing damage output, for example, or discussing the number of dice thrown for particular effects), the more general the discussion becomes the more likely it is you're comparing apples to pineapples.

That's tough enough to get good sense out of, but there is one, undeniable fact when it comes to RPGs pretty much across the board... every power, every ability, and every skill is going to be more "powerful" in certain situations than it is in others. And if you don't remember that, then all you and the person you're arguing with are doing is blowing hot air in each other's faces.

Look, I'm just saying, wizard trumps barbarian. Fight me!

And before we get into the meat of this, consider signing up for my weekly newsletter so you don't miss any of my new content!

Everything Has Its Strong Suit

I've said this several times before, but it bears repeating. Everything in an RPG has a situation where it's going to be more potent, and a situation where it's going to be useless. Even things we think of as obviously powerful are going to be rendered moot in some situations and games because there are simply too many variables for anything to be universally powerful across the board.

For an obvious example, consider the paladin.

This fight is almost totally one-sided.

Paladins are a perfect example of situational potency. Because if you're in a game chock full of evil dragons, undead, demons, and other nasties who rely largely on fear and disease to make them dangerous enemies, then a paladin almost feels like they're playing with cheat codes on. They're flat-out immune to a lot of the conditions coming their way, they get huge bonus damage from their smite, and they can call on potent divine powers to make them an even bigger threat against evil enemies.

You know the easiest way to kick them off the ladder? Put them in a situation where they aren't fighting evil enemies all the time.

Paladins are geared very specifically to stand against the forces of evil. Even if they aren't doing that (say they're fighting a construct, or dealing with magical beasts, or have an opposing force of neutral mercenaries who are just here for the money) they've still got a full base attack bonus, good armor, ability to heal themselves, and a lot of other tricks... but they are no longer a one-character-wrecking-ball.

Yeah, that checks out.

We see this with a lot of other classes and builds, as well. The two-weapon fighter who becomes a blender if they can take a full attack is rendered a lot less viable if they need to run all over the battlefield just to reach a target (or worse, the target is out of melee reach). The ranger who can utterly destroy their favored enemy (especially if they can grant their bonuses to the rest of the party) becomes a lot less effective when dealing with foes outside that specialty, and outside their favored terrain. Rogues and slayers who find themselves up against foes immune to precision damage suddenly find themselves nowhere near as useful as they would otherwise be.

And before all the spellcaster mains out there start preening, you're not immune to this either. While it's true that magic can give you a pretty deep bag of tricks, even those tricks are going to be situational... and when you aren't prepped for the right situation you're no more useful than the barbarian staring up at the flying dragon with their greatsword in-hand.

Easy examples are the evokers and blasters. Dropping a fireball might be impressive if it's on a large group of regular mooks, but if they all have evasion and your DC isn't up to snuff, then suddenly your big hammer didn't amount to a hill of beans. If your magus relies on the nova blast from a huge shocking grasp critical, and you suddenly stab an enemy that doesn't take that electricity damage (or worse, gets healed by it), then you've got a conundrum on your hands. If you're an enchanter, mindless enemies (or those protected by the right spells) can take your most potent whammies off the table. Illusionists have a similar issue, compounded by enemies that have senses that allow them to ignore illusions as fakes. Those who rely on conjured monsters can easily be countered by low-level protective spells that mean the creatures can't actually attack them. Necromancers often find their most debilitating powers are useless against those who are already undead. And if you specialized in utility spells, but you find yourself on an open battlefield where none of them are appropriate, you may suddenly find yourself wishing you'd prepped a few tactical strikes just to be safe.

And the list goes on.

This Applies To Every Aspect of a Game

A lot of folks out there have probably noticed that the last section focused largely on combat. The reason for that is that it's the most visibly crunchy part of the game, and it can be life and death for the PCs... but it's important to remember that situational ability is still applicable outside of the initiative order.

Especially then, you might say.

Say, for example, you wanted to play a rogue specialized in stealth and trap disarming. If your game is a dungeon crawl, or you're the point person on a heist, then you are in your element and doing exactly what you're made for. If you're in a situation that's largely about social maneuvering and mystery solving, then your skill set may not come into play as often (though it may be useful in certain spots, such as eavesdropping, or breaking into a location to try to find evidence).

Alternatively, the big bad bruiser who would be lord of the battlefield in a combat heavy game is going to be twiddling their thumbs in a campaign where problems can't be meaningfully solved through the application of violence. While the diviner, who may have been less than helpful during a siege or a run-and-gun style campaign, is going to be a magical Sherlock Holmes when it comes to solving a murder, or finding out what happened to stolen valuables.

Every ability, every skill, every spell, is going to have a situation where it is useful, and where it is less than useful. And if the situation where it's strong doesn't come up in a particular campaign, it's easy to think of it as useless. If the campaign is made up almost entirely of situations where a particular ability is strong, then it can seem far more potent than it really is.

Specify Your Parameters

Something that I think would make these discussions far more useful for all of us would be if we narrowed our parameters for what we're actually talking about. It would also stop us from comparing totally unrelated fruits to declare which is the best.

For example, if your parameters are, "What is the most powerful class for killing demons?" you now have a level playing field to compare abilities, feats, powers, etc. If the question is, "Who puts out the highest melee damage?" that's also something you can find an actual answer for using math instead of conflicting opinions.

This also works when you try to discuss character utility and breadth of usefulness over a vague "power" that can be hard to quantify. Comparing the spell lists for bards and wizards, for example, you could see which spells would allow you to overcome particular obstacles that would otherwise be quite hazardous to the party (things like endure elements or perhaps fly). This also stops conversations where one person feels that a bard is more flexible (and thus more powerful), and someone else feels that a barbarian has maximized damage output (and is thus more powerful), since neither of you are talking about the same thing.

Lastly, remember to specify in which situation these things are coming into play. Who is the enemy, how many are there, what is the environment, what is the task at hand, etc.? Because without these specifics we don't have anything to gauge the situation by, and you might be extolling the virtues of a sledgehammer at solving problems that instead call for a can of WD-40 and a Phillips head screwdriver.

Like, Share, and Follow For More!

That's all for this week's Crunch topic! For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio! Or if you'd like to read some of my books, like my alley cat noir novel Marked Territory, my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well! And if you'd like to help support me and my work, consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron! Even a little bit of help can go a long way, trust me on that one.

Can We Stop Making "The Batman Argument" For Wizards?

Character classes are designed so that they each have something to contribute to a game. The goal is for a party to be able to handle any challenge that comes its way, and for the members to combine their efforts in order to be more than just a bunch of individuals. A party should, ideally, be a team that works together like a well-oiled machine to defeat the cult, slay the dragon, or accomplish whatever other goal has been set before them.

No matter how unsettling that goal happens to be.

 

Despite our tacit agreement that every class has its place, and that in the hands of a skilled player any class or class combination can be used to make a good character, there is still this inane urge we have to talk about the "strongest" classes. In what boils down to a "my dad can beat up your dad" style debate, a faction of players will insist with absolute authority that wizards are the most powerful class. When asked why they feel this way, the players will say that it's because a 20th level wizard, given time to cast and the resources for necessary spell components, is an unstoppable force. They'll throw out the ability to teleport across the map, or the power to summon creatures from the ether, or the ability to create pocket dimensions, but no matter the lyrics, the tune being played is always the same.

I am now referring to this protestation as "The Batman Argument," and I would like to ask anyone tempted to make it to take a moment to look at why it's ridiculous.

What is The Batman Argument?

Batman is one of the most competent characters in the DC comics universe, if not in all of fiction. A master detective with a genius intellect, and perhaps the world's most accomplished martial artist, Batman's writers have also created a rule for the caped crusader's stories over the years. The rule says that no matter how powerful the foe, if given enough time and resources, Batman can craft a solution that lets him emerge victorious.

Because all I do is win.

 

This is the sort of logic that some players will use to justify their opinion about wizards being the most powerful character class. Because, they will argue, a sufficiently accomplished wizard can alter time, permanently alter his form, and create small armies of followers while guarding himself completely against any outside threat.

Which sounds great... until you realize the same sort of argument can be made for nearly any class.

 

Also, before we go any further, here's your reminder to check out my 5 Tips For Playing Better Wizards!

Every Class Is An Epic Threat At Level 20

If you set the same parameters for other classes that you do for a wizard (a huge budget, home turf advantage, and unlimited prep time), then you can create similarly difficult threats with any class, and a bit of creativity. A 20th level ranger claims a huge swath of forest, along with several strongholds inside it, and sets up traps to catch the unwary. Or a swath of desert, or a network of caverns, or even an entire neighborhood of a city. Within that area he can move like a ghost, springing deadly ambushes on anyone who enters his realm, and vanishing before his enemies can hit back.

Pick a class, and you can come up with similar arguments. A high-level rogue or ninja can ambush even the wariest of parties, picking them off in the night, or assassinating them in their beds, sneaking unseen past locked doors and booby traps. Give a 20th level fighter time to prepare for every contingency, and the equipment to handle it, and you'll find yourself hard-up against a master of war on her home turf. A 20th level barbarian is a storm of fury and frenzy, and even the lowly bard can create a deadly fun house that will have even competent adventurers jumping at shadows.

Of course a wizard that's allowed endless time to prepare, is given a huge budget, and is allowed to choose the place where the confrontation happens is going to be a gigantic threat. That's why so many end-of-campaign bad guys are wizards with a page and a half of precasts. But time and resources, put in the hands of any other class, can be just as dangerous.

Besides, how much harder is it to operate when you don't have the time and resources you need to prep? When you aren't given time to rest, and when you run out of fuel for your higher-level tricks? What then?

Everything Has A Weakness

Something that often gets overlooked in the pointless discussion of whose favorite class is better endowed than the other is this gaming truism; everything has a weakness.

Everything.

 

Paladins are an unstoppable force, when you put them up against evil creatures that rely on fear effects. If you have them fight creatures that aren't evil, though, they're fighting with their hands tied. Rangers are a deadly threat when they're in a familiar terrain and fighting a favored enemy... when they're out of their element, though, they lose a lot of their power. Rogues who can't get their sneak attack off aren't going to do a lot of damage, and fighters or barbarians who can't overcome damage reduction or escape a colossal foe's grapple, are going to be in quite the tight spot.

What about wizards? Well, wizards have weaknesses just like any other class. As I mentioned in How To Shut Down Spellcasters in Pathfinder, wizards' primary weaknesses are refreshing and preparing spells, required components, familiars and bonded items, and concentration checks. If you can keep a wizard from getting the time required to rest and re-prepare spells, disrupt the spellcasting process by planting an arrow in the caster's shoulder, stealing a bonded item, or snatching away necessary material components (particularly important for high-level spells where the components can't be ignored with Eschew Materials), then you have taken the bullets out of the gun.

The other weaknesses wizards have to deal with is that they have to choose spells for the day, and they can only cast so many of those spells. Choosing the wrong spells for a given situation is just as disastrous as firing off one spell after another, until you're shooting blanks. And, lastly, a wizard needs to be able to get their spells off. Sometimes all it takes is a good initiative check for you to cripple your foes before they can harm the party... and sometimes all it takes is a bad initiative check for you to find yourself on the ragged edge before you managed a single somatic component.

Everything Is Situational

None of this is to say that wizards, or any other spellcasters, are weak classes. They simply have different pressure points than other classes do. And, while you should plan for those blind spots so you know what to do if they come up in game, people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

No matter how badass your glass house is.

 

At the end of the day, though, how effective a character, or a party, is depends entirely on the campaign they're put in. For example, A brute squad made up of a front line of skull crushers, an archer, a battle caster, and a chaplain are going to decimate the enemy on the battlefield in a straight-up fight, but if they have to pursue a more subtle, political plot they'll be fish out of water. A powerful enchanter or illusionist might be able to defeat foes through trickery and domination, but if every enemy in a campaign is immune to their spells because their minds are beyond the reach of magic, these casters are completely out of their element.

At the end of the day, it's perfectly okay to have a favorite class. By all means, talk about the things you like, and why you like them. But if you ever feel the need to break out a ruler and start comparing sizes, just remember that you're not Batman.

I hope this week's Monday post didn't ruffle too many feathers! If you enjoyed it, and you'd like to help support Improved Initiative, then why not stop by The Literary Mercenary's Patreon Page to become a patron? As little as $1 a month will keep the content flowing. Also, if you haven't already, why not follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter?