site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25682 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

With D&D 5, there is no need to assign spells to slots any more. Instead, you have to decide which spells you want to be able to cast after rest, and are limited to a frankly ridiculously low number, I think on the order of a dozen or so in the BG3 endgame

It's based on level + int modifier, so yeah a dozen or so is about right. That said, the 5e magic changes are on the whole a breath of fresh air. Vancian magic in prior editions (my experience is with 3e, which itself was a softening of the system by including 0-level spells) is a terrible, actively un-fun system. It sucks ass to find yourself in a situation where it sure would be nice to cast (insert spell here), but you only prepared one copy and you already cast it so you're SOL.

The magic system envisioned by Jack Vance, where wizards cast world shattering spells that are so complex that you have to lay them down in your mind in advance, is very cool for a novel. It is not at all pleasant as a game mechanic, however. There are a lot of changes 5e made which are questionable but I disagree that this was one.

5e's equivalent problem is only having space on your preparation list for a very short list of spells. It also sucks to take Fireball and find out that you actually needed Lightning Bolt or something situational like Feather Fall.

I preferred the 3.5e system because in this situation it means I still got to use that ideal spell once, and the larger quantity of memorized spells gave more space to take something experimental or niche without leaving a massive gap in my spell list.

I suppose that's true to some extent. But I can't say I ever felt limited by it, 15 spells (assuming max int at level 10) is enough that you can have a pretty decent distribution of utility spells along with a couple of workhorses. YMMV of course, it depends greatly on the individual player and the game you're in.

I decided to try Sorcerer in 5e so it's possible some of the problem came from having to make changing my spell list a multi-session affair. I think they've since made the UA which let you change spells without levelling up official which is a positive change.

However, I did feel like 5e gave a much greater pressure to have something optimal if you want to to properly contribute to a fight. Preparing multiple options to diversify across different saves, different damage types, and single-target vs multi-target ate up that list quickly.

From what I remember of 5e, I think the "ritual" tag was supposed to handle a lot of the situational utility stuff.

Edit: I also prefer the 3.5e system, because I like my wizards strong and versatile. Pathfinder tried to balance them a bit by making the spells weaker (I think), but overall Pathfinder wizards are still acceptable to me (even if I don't care for the default Pathfinder setting all that much).

Spontaneous spell casting is more convenient and fun than prepared spell casting for most players, I believe. It's also more powerful, so it's not surprising that the game designers try to balance it in various ways. Originally with the Sorcerer, that was with fewer spells known. Pathfinder has an Arcanist class that instead tries to balance it with fewer spell casts. 5e's Wizard class tries to keep both the large number of known spells and the number of spells cast, instead reducing the number of spells prepared (and giving metamagic to Sorcerers).

Honestly, I think the concentration mechanic and spell nerfs that 5e did are the bigger sticking point for me.

Honestly, I think the concentration mechanic and spell nerfs that 5e did are the bigger sticking point for me.

They probably had more impact on my enjoyment when actually playing, but I have some sympathy for these two changes because they did at least partially solve issues that were widely complained about in 3.5e.

Spellcasters ignoring the recommended adventuring day to dump everything immediately made fighters feel irrelevant, which is less of a problem now that the spells are weaker. I also don't think anyone liked the pre-fight buff dance that happened whenever a party got to surprise their foes, which has been killed off entirely by concentration.

I disagree but I can see someone liking those changes enough to outweigh having less interesting and impactful spells.

On the other hand, the loss of proper prepared spellcasting feels like almost entirely downside since we went from having a choice between wizard and sorcerer to two flavors of sorcerer.

From what I remember of 5e, I think the "ritual" tag was supposed to handle a lot of the situational utility stuff.

I think they might have initially intended this, but most of the best utility spells got left off the ritual list. That was a good decision. Characters being able to cast Detect Magic and Leomund's Tiny Hut effectively at-will was enough of a problem. The idea of dealing with characters who get to cast Fly, Fabricate, or Clairvoyance any time you let them sit still for half an hour should fill any DM with dread.

Rituals were a mistake and if WotC ever gets tired of making slight iterations on 5e I hope the next edition removes or reworks them. At least make them limited by something other than just time!

Okay, I should add that I have mostly encountered D&D in single-player computer RPGs. There, the impact is much lessened. First, most of the focus is on combat even more than with pen and paper D&D. Either you win an encounter, in which case the fact that you were unable to cast the ideal spell for the situation is moot, or you get a TPK, so you reload and prepare differently. Outside combat, you are not on a timer and can rest whenever you like. Where a barbarian player would certainly have their character complain about having another rest despite the party being in good shape simply so that a spellcaster can prepare a utility spell, and a DM would be quick to point out the side effects of wasting another day, NPC party members typically are much more accommodating.

Vancian magic in prior editions (my experience is with 3e, which itself was a softening of the system by including 0-level spells) is a terrible, actively un-fun system. It sucks ass to find yourself in a situation where it sure would be nice to cast (insert spell here), but you only prepared one copy and you already cast it so you're SOL.

But 3e/3.5e also had more robust magic item buying/crafting rules, so it was easy to spend a little extra money to have your highly situational spells as scrolls or wands for when you need them, so you could reserve your spell slots for your more generally useful spells.

True. Though in fairness, you can craft scrolls in 5e just fine so the same would really apply to that (albeit the DMG gives almost zero guidance to the DM on how to implement magical item crafting, just hand waves a few broad guidelines). And in BG3 specifically you have scrolls coming out of your ears.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats