DM-dependent PC abilities

Driddle's latest poll got me thinking about PC ability design -- specifically, those PC abilities that are DM-dependent, rather than player dependent. That is, they come in to play only when the DM sets conditions that allow them to be used, rather than when the player wants them to be used. The quintessential example is Favored Enemy, which only comes in to play when a certain type of creature is encountered. Other examples might include Wild Empathy and Turn Undead. I don't consider abilities like Bardic Knowledge to fall into this category -- a player caqn always choose to make a bardic knowledge check, though the DM still adjuducates its results.

- What are some other DM-dependent abilities?

- Do DM-dependent abilities make for good design?

- Are character classes better off with more or fewer of these abilities? For example, is the ranger worse off with two of them, or are these good benefits that are more easily balanced.

- How might you create player-initiated substitutes for these types of abilities? A good example here might be the use of "Turn Undead" to power other feats or abilities when the player wants.

Discuss.

A certain DM dependence is, imho, an essential part of the game. This is not only true for class features, but also for skills (almost all skills are at least partially DM dependend), certain feats and spells.

It's also not only true on direct PC stuff, but the viability of certain monsters is heavily dependend on the DM. While a rust monster can be the end to a char under one, it's great under another.

Heck, even player enjoyment factors completely free of mechanics are heavily DM dependent.


Of course one could try to strip out as much DM dependance out of the game as possible, either by removing such effects altogether (which I'd say would strip out lots of variety out of the game) or by turning them into "redmage" abilities (just give me a minute to turn my favored enemy into dragon).


I think, unless you want to turn D&D into an utterly new game, there just have to be some DM dependencies. Which are no big problem as long as the DM is decend and DM and players actually communicate what they want out of the game/their PC.


I'd say DM dependant stuff can be an evil, but it's a neccesary evil, that gives more than it takes in the greater scheeme.

Of course we could have a game with charts for how often each monster type has to come up so favored enemy to be fair, but that wouldn't be my idea of fun in a tabletop RPG (works for computer RPG's/DM less systems I'd guess).

The steal spell / resistance / whatever from the spellthief is very DM-dependent. Other ranger / druid abilities (pass without trace, hide in plain sight, for instance) depends on the surroundings. Guess you could say skills can be DM-dependent like gather information, which isn't much use in an enemy-filled dungeon. Evasion even can be that way if you never face a dragon or area-effect damaging spells. As an extreme, you could say any feat that grants greater abilities with melee weapons is DM-dependent as the DM could give only encounters at range, ever. Yeah, it's a stretch, but it's just an example of how far this conversation can go without boundaries.

I don't believe DM-dependent abilities are real and are actually a misnomer. Yeah, a good DM will see a PC Ranger with Favored Enemy-Ooze and make sure to have a variety of oozes on hand just in case. What I don't understand is how the DM is dictating the monsters fought? Isn't that the purview of the players? They seek out what they want. A ranger is actually better at seeking monsters than any other class around. "Not fighting enough ------? Who's more qualified to find them?"

Another example: A druid is a powerhouse in the wilderness. Like a Diplomatic PC in the city, a Druid using Wild Empathy is befriending animals left and right in the wild lands - places normally thought of as more dangerous than settled lands.

I think situation-specific abilities only become a problem when the DM tries to dictate the goals or directions of the characters.

No argument -- everything in the game is DM dependent at some level. I'm interested in discussing those abilities that are reactive -- in that the DM must present a certain situation before the ability can be used -- versus those the player can use proactively. Spellcasting is highly proactive -- Galstaff, sorcerer of light, can choose to attack the darkness whenever his player wants. Some skills fall intoone category or the other. If the player never encounters a locked door, Open Locks is useless, but even without encountering a trap, Disable Device could be used proactively to set a trap.

Surrounding-dependent abilities can potentially be proactive -- assuming the players have the freedom to choose to explore the wilderness if that's what they want rather than adventuring into the dungeon. I'd consider many combat abilities to be proactive -- the player can choose to employ melee or ranged tactics, for example -- except in situations where the DM deliberately sets up an encounter to deny the use of a specific tactic (and whether that is just good tactics, bad design, railroading, etc is another discussion ...).

I don't believe DM-dependent abilities are real and are actually a misnomer. Yeah, a good DM will see a PC Ranger with Favored Enemy-Ooze and make sure to have a variety of oozes on hand just in case. What I don't understand is how the DM is dictating the monsters fought? Isn't that the purview of the players? They seek out what they want. A ranger is actually better at seeking monsters than any other class around. "Not fighting enough ------? Who's more qualified to find them?"

Click to expand...

So DM-dependence can be either the mark of a bad DM or an insufficiently proactive player? For example, with Favored Enemy: Ooze, I search out oozes -- but if the DM never provides any, good play/bad DM? I agree the good DM adapts the adventure to suit players and provides opportunities for PCs to use their abilities -- but doesn't that just highlight DM-dependent abilities, versus those that the player can employ whether the DM's scenario encourages it or not?

Information gathering/providing abilities are highly DM dependant. (Ask any Knowledge skill expert.)

Abilities that depend upon limited use are sometimes DM-dependant. The DM needs to give you the chance to use them if they have any value. Most function in combat, so that requirement is satisfied, but not all.

But isn't the entire game DM dependent? Even things that we take for granted -- there will be combat, there will be saving throws, etc. -- are not necessarily the case. So any attempt to optimize an aspect of your character -- indeed, any character in and of itself -- is dependent on the DM to function and to shine.

I would suggest sneak-attack is somewhat DM dependant, since so many creatures (including all undead) are immune to its effects. I disagree with Olgar that Bardic Knowledge isn't DM dependant. Yes, it's proactive in that the player can call for a check at any time, but the knowledge available to gain is so dependant on how well-prepared the DM is that it can often be useless. As Varianor pointed out, Gather Info and all the Knowledge skills also fall under the same category. Many a time some player has asked for a Knowledge: X check or Bardic Knowledge check, made a good roll, and I've had to just make something up on the fly.

I don't think DM-dependant abilities (a.k.a. mother-may-I abilities) are inherently bad design, but they do require a more competent DM than more straightforward abilities, like Power Attack or curative spells, to meet their full potential. There's nothing wrong with the occassional encounter where the rogue doesn't get to use sneak attack, but an undead heavy campaign gimps a rogue pretty badly in combat. A competent DM will communicate up-front that the campaign is going to be loaded with undead encounters, and will make sure to place plenty of traps or social encounters for the rogue to handle so he gets his moment in the sun. Likewise, the player of a ranger should sit-down with the DM and decide on Favored Enemies together so that the player's choice falls in line with the DM's vision for the campaign. That said, I don't think they make for good design, particularly either, which is how the question was phrased. The undead-heavy campaign is actually a reflection on a personal experience. In my first 3E game, shortly after release, the DM and other players asked me to play a rogue, so we could handle traps. During the entire course of the campaign, we never encountered a single trap but most encounters were with undead, and I felt useless. It wasn't that the DM was a jerk, he just wasn't experienced enough with the system to know any better. As such, I think DM-dependant abilities should be minimized where possible just to take the requirement of experience off novice DMs.

I don't really count Turn Undead since there are so many feat options for using it in other ways, such as Divine Might. I would like to see similar feats and/or class options for other classes. For example, you might allow the ranger to substitute Favored Enemy for Favored Terrain. Admittedly, it's still DM-dependant, but there are considerably fewer terrain types than there are creature types. You might also let the rogue substitute Sneak Attack for Precise Attack, which would allow him to deal +1 damage for every SA die he would normally have, but it works against all creature types.

The abilities that bother me more are the ones that look relatively generic and just fail to work out that way, like Animal Companion. It's a great ability, in theory, but how exactly do you get that Tyrannosaur down into the dungeon, and what do the locals think when you show up to buy supplies with a 20' tall carniverous lizard in tow?

Sneak Attack has a high DM dependance.

All abilities are DM dependent.