When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Benimoto]

Now once before the final battle may be ok, but many continued times of BBEG teleporting away to safety in the nick of time cheeses me off. Don't even put BBEG there if he is just going to run away. Leave any message from him in some other manner.

I tend to agree. I also think this is what I was trying to say and what Mouseferatu said a little better in terms of adventure design.

So IF there is not during combat a chance for BBEG to teleport away without using the teleport rules: LOS, etc, then the players should have options also to be able to violate those rules when not in combat as well.

During most games, I think these sorts of things happen. The players may encounter teleporting (or other) effects, even in combat, that don't follow the rules of any published ritual or power. Encounters with the strange and unusual are a cornerstone of the exploration parts of the game. Nobody playing the game, either players or DM, should expect that every strange effect is modeled by an existing rule, and neither should they expect that only effects that exist in the published rules should appear.

The dividing line here is, in today's gaming jargon, who has narrative control over these sort of non-rules-arbitrated effects. In a game like D&D, it's problematic to give players unlimited control over these sorts of things. Most adventures are presented as a series of problems or obstacles, and giving players unlimited control of the plot usually does not lead to a satisfying resolution. (Although DMG p. 28 gives a counter-example where it does.) Giving the DM control of these things is, I've always thought, one of the assumed rules of the game, and I'm a little disappointed that the 4e DMG doesn't directly address it. As Mouseferatu mentioned though, the DM using his narrative control to make the obstacles of the adventure insurmountable is not good adventure design either.

Consistency is important to me during the game from both perspectives. When something seems to violate known concept, and answer is needed as to why. That reason being so BBEG can just get away "this time" isn't always enough and sometimes offensive. So the DM needs to use caution when breaking from standard conventions.

I agree with the principle here, if not the details. To me the key is not "consistency" precisely, but believability. It's believable that a demon lord would have a way to move around his realms, beyond his listed teleportation speed. In fact, it's unbelievable that he does not, which is what sparked this whole thing.

I'm not a fan of the attitude that if an enemy can do it, so should the players be able to. I agree with the posters who have said that 3e tended to foster such an attitude, and that 4e was right to attempt to dispel it. The players should not be able to do everything that the monsters can. As an example in the RAW, there's several enemies that can dominate their foes (as in inflict the "dominated" condition), and yet no player power to do so. Is this a problem?

You say that you have trouble coming up with a spell or ritual to have Graz'zt teleport away as the adventure demands. May I suggest that you simply treat it as if that were one of his listed powers? Perhaps even insert it into his statblock:

Infernal Escape (standard, when Graz'zt is in mortal peril but the DM wants him to live, and when the PCs have not invested enough in negating this power; encounter) Teleportation

Graz'zt teleports to anywhere within his domain.​

There, is that an unbelievable power for a demon lord to have? Is it inconsistent, aside from with his published stat block?

 

[Halivar]

The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.

They term they used back then was "Class".

I got a string of 3E and 3.x fighter character sheets that would like to disagree with you.

Fortunately, all you have to do is hide behind a lamp post, or something, and they'll never find you.

 

[justanobody]

There, is that an unbelievable power for a demon lord to have? Is it inconsistent, aside from with his published stat block?

The problem would arise when it happens of popping in and out of battle from one location to another, which makes you wonder then where in initiative order he comes, does he get surprise on his side when returning since he was effectively removed from battle, etc.

This is the problems I was having with it.

I don't see it far fetched to think that a PC could not do anything with magic that a DM controlled persona can do. It is magic after all, and a big reason why it should be open or close-ended within the system to have the restraints set for all or none.

I also don't think it has anything to do with narrative, or the story, but fairness of the game and what the player can be able to affect through the characters actions. I don't consider that narrative.

The dividing line is when the story needs outweigh the player needs. Those being can you believe it to be so without some arbitrary reason for the player and the character.

Should on the plane of fire a fire creature be able to move around his own area, sure. Can the players learn to do so? Sure, if they have some way of living in the flames to do so. Do it need to be the exact same way it is done, maybe not, but the option for players to perform magic not only allowed to the gods is one of the attractions of the game.

Magic is a fickle thing.

 

[Hussar]

The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.

They term they used back then was "Class".

Really? What non-combat role did a Fighter have? Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have? What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role?

What combat role does a bard have? What combat role does a rogue have when facing a golem or undead or a plant?

Heck, about the only non-combat feature any class has exclusively is spells. Oh, and find traps. Sorry, forgot that one. Whoo, that took a long time to list.

The arguement, at least what I understand of it, is that because any class can potentially have non-combat features, all of the PC's at the table will automatically have all of them, creating characters that are mechanically identical.

This is completely false. One player might do "face" while another might do "knowledge guy". Which is identical to 3e. The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class. So, you can be a "face" fighter or a "knowledge guy" paladin or a "trap finder/problem solver" cleric.

Isn't this a win for 4e? That you have more concepts open to you than you had in 3e? In 3e, if you wanted to be a trap finder/problem solver, you took rogue. Period. Only. No other class could do it (ignoring non-core for the moment). So, if you wanted to play MacGyver, you had to play a rogue. Now, I can play MacGyver with any class.

Doesn't that mean that I have more options in 4e?

 

[Hussar]

The problem would arise when it happens of popping in and out of battle from one location to another, which makes you wonder then where in initiative order he comes, does he get surprise on his side when returning since he was effectively removed from battle, etc.

This is the problems I was having with it.

I don't see it far fetched to think that a PC could not do anything with magic that a DM controlled persona can do. It is magic after all, and a big reason why it should be open or close-ended within the system to have the restraints set for all or none.

I also don't think it has anything to do with narrative, or the story, but fairness of the game and what the player can be able to affect through the characters actions. I don't consider that narrative.

The dividing line is when the story needs outweigh the player needs. Those being can you believe it to be so without some arbitrary reason for the player and the character.

Should on the plane of fire a fire creature be able to move around his own area, sure. Can the players learn to do so? Sure, if they have some way of living in the flames to do so. Do it need to be the exact same way it is done, maybe not, but the option for players to perform magic not only allowed to the gods is one of the attractions of the game.

Magic is a fickle thing.

And that's what Rituals are for. Ritual that allows Word of Recall sort of magic. Heck, the True Portal ritual allows you to do exactly what is being discussed here. Grazz't has a magic item, single use, that allows him to create a True Portal in one round.

Poof, end of problem. Can the players do it? Sure. If they want to. Why not?

 

[Greg K]

Really? What non-combat role did a Fighter have? Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have? What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role?

Why are you not counting class 3e skills?

This is completely false. One player might do "face" while another might do "knowledge guy". Which is identical to 3e. The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class. So, you can be a "face" fighter or a "knowledge guy" paladin or a "trap finder/problem solver" cleric.

And the phb, both 3e and 3.5, provides a small section customizing characters. It may have used the fighter as an example, but some of used it as a guideline for creating other fighter variants as well as swapping skills to create other class variants like urban barbarians and wilderness rogues (pre UA).

 

[Thasmodious]

Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the "plotline" should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another.

Andor asked me to quote a page number in the 4e DMG where it stated the DM could houserule. I'm not confusing anything. Encouragement to forego RAW for what works is littered throughout the 4e books. Reflavoring powers, houseruling, making things up on the fly...and various tools exist to help you do that in a way that gels with the system (pg. 42 DMG being the biggie).

The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration

I agree completely with this, its sound DMing. If the players don't know the rules they operate under, or they constantly shift, the game seems random and they victims of the whims of the DM. The rules THEY operate under. They don't get to look under the hood to see how the DM operates. The important thing for the DM, is the same as for the fantasy author, to maintain internal consistency. The DM needs to know how Graz'zt teleports, what limits it might have, if it funcions just like the ritual, but without components and time, etc. And he needs to apply that consistently. But he isn't restricted from setting those rules in the first place, even if its on the fly. As long as its consistent the next time, verisimilitude is maintained.

The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did if you bring that mindset with you.

Word

What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM).

There I disagree, except for the part about me being wonderful.

The idea that an epic level demon lord can only do, throughout his entire day, throughout the millenia as he hatches his evil, cosmos spanning schemes, that the only things he is capable of doing are the few combat/encounter powers listed in his MM entry. That is so clearly not the intent. The evidence is in the simplicity of the stat blocks and the design style throughout the edition, which fully encourages the DM to, well, DM the game. More direct evidence is coming in the Draconomicon or whatever its called this time around. Undoubtedly the book will contain whole chapters on things dragons do when they aren't slaughtering parties. The stat block is needed for a fight, it is not the end all be all of the creature. Your kobold wyrmpriest or an orc Eye of Grummsh can perform rituals, your epic demon lords find some way to travel between planes and to show up when the PCs least expect him. It doesn't matter that those things aren't in their stat blocks. The section of the DMG detailing NPCs has this as #10 on their steps to building NPCs:

10. Choose Rituals: Giving your NPC certain
ritual scrolls might be appropriate, especially if he or
she is an ally of the characters. Ritual scrolls work well
for NPCs that aren’t ritual casters. Remember that villains
can perform powerful rituals “off camera” to help
drive your narrative.

 

[Hussar]

The reason I'm not counting skills is because we're discussing how classes expand on non-combat roles. Since skills (by and large) are available to all classes, they are not exclusive to any single class. Thus, I don't count them when discussing how class creates non-combat roles.

Nothing about being a fighter lends itself to non-combat roles. Actually, if you include skills in the equation, being a fighter actively works against non-combat roles since you only have 2 skills per level to work with. Sure, you can give fighter class access to diplomacy, for example, but, at the end of the day, he's still only going to get two skills.

You can have a fighter with a diplomacy of 15 or a rogue with a diplomacy with 15. Either way, the class had nothing to do with your non-combat role. Neither class gives any bonuses or benefits to having a diplomacy score.

That's why I refute the idea that class in 3e lends itself to non-combat roles. If anything, it works against it because of the limitations on how many skills you get per level and cross class skills.

 

[Thasmodious]

I got a string of 3E and 3.x fighter character sheets that would like to disagree with you.

Fortunately, all you have to do is hide behind a lamp post, or something, and they'll never find you.

Nice, very nice.

 

[Greg K]

Nothing about being a fighter lends itself to non-combat roles. Actually, if you include skills in the equation, being a fighter actively works against non-combat roles since you only have 2 skills per level to work with. Sure, you can give fighter class access to diplomacy, for example, but, at the end of the day, he's still only going to get two skills.

Reread the 3.0 section on customizing characters again. Not only does it provide the fighter with extra skills, but the character now receives 4 skill points per level.