Instant Friends

[AbdulAlhazred]

As someone that never much cared for rituals (or the design issues that they were created to deal with) I'm honestly pleased to see them bleeding back into player powers again even if only in a few specific cases.

It's definitely an old-school power. An ability that seems to openly assume players and DMs will 'wing it' is really quite alien to 4e's design philosophy. It's interesting to see Wizards suggest that players and DMs might be yet still be capable of using their imaginations.

What is imaginative about an "I win" button? Now the RITUAL version of this really DOES require some imagination. The party has to manage to get the target to stick around for 10 minutes and listen to the bard's song, without making him hostile. THAT requires some creativity. "I snap my fingers and the target instantly does my bidding" has ZILCH creativity about it, none at all.

 

[P1NBACK]

What is imaginative about an "I win" button? Now the RITUAL version of this really DOES require some imagination. The party has to manage to get the target to stick around for 10 minutes and listen to the bard's song, without making him hostile. THAT requires some creativity. "I snap my fingers and the target instantly does my bidding" has ZILCH creativity about it, none at all.

It takes imagination to roleplay the "friendship" - the power doesn't say, "he instantly does your bidding..." it says he "treats you as a trusted friend" and aids you in what way he can.

Also, like Neonchameleon said, the good part comes after the spell wears off.

 

[aurance]

An Orb wizard can really abuse this power. An orb wizard could theoretically Insta-Friend Orcus with a low roll.

For like two rounds. Orb of Imposition was errata'ed to affect a single saving throw roll, and most items that affected saving throws were changed in the same way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It takes imagination to roleplay the "friendship" - the power doesn't say, "he instantly does your bidding..." it says he "treats you as a trusted friend" and aids you in what way he can.

Also, like Neonchameleon said, the good part comes after the spell wears off.

Yes, and what does a trusted friend DO? He does whatever his buddy asks him to. Sure there are limitations on what you'll do for your best friend, but if you start to think about it a tiny bit those limits are pretty darn broad. Lend them most of your cash to get out of trouble? Yup. Lend them your car? Sure. Honestly, played in anything like an equitable fashion according to the description of the power it is a VERY powerful ability and there is basically no reason not to use it left and right on anyone who's opinion you could care less about the next day.

The 'consequences' part also applies equally to the ritual, so that is no argument for making it a power. It is just a bad power. Either it puts a giant monkey wrench in DM story plotting or the DM nerfs it to worthlessness in which case it is just wasting a spell slot. Just because something was in 1e doesn't make it good. I hate to tell you all this but I played 12 years of 1e and there was a LOT of 1e that was utter rubbish.

 

[Plaguedguy]

What is imaginative about an "I win" button? Now the RITUAL version of this really DOES require some imagination. The party has to manage to get the target to stick around for 10 minutes and listen to the bard's song, without making him hostile. THAT requires some creativity. "I snap my fingers and the target instantly does my bidding" has ZILCH creativity about it, none at all.

I think there's plenty of room for creativity and the power is worded well enough that the worst abuses are curtailed quite easily. In most cases you'll be dealing with +5 to the initial save, as most NPCs you encounter are going to be at least your level, and any of potential threat or notable power are above your level.

Of course things like level and immunities are easily adjusted and assigned by the DM, since monsters and NPCs are within their purview.

Then there's the issue of spells per day use. You lock up a utility slot in a non-combat power that either nets you an easier conversation (that you were already going to have, since you're not in combat) or severely antagonizes whoever you wish to speak to.

You can't force someone to surrender their goods (or the location of their goods) since theft is 'risking property'. You cant make someone act in a way that endangers their life, so revealing some things that they know will result in their deaths (due to an angry master's punishment) are off the table. They can't cast beneficial spells because spells are tied into character abilities now.

Also note that nowhere does the power read that it is undetectable by others present. So a non-combat encounter can instantly turn into one if you happen to try to charm someone with their friends or minions present.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes, and what does a trusted friend DO?

He does whatever his buddy asks him to. Sure there are limitations on what you'll do for your best friend, but if you start to think about it a tiny bit those limits are pretty darn broad. Lend them most of your cash to get out of trouble? Yup. Lend them your car? Sure. Honestly, played in anything like an equitable fashion according to the description of the power it is a VERY powerful ability and there is basically no reason not to use it left and right on anyone who's opinion you could care less about the next day.

The 'consequences' part also applies equally to the ritual, so that is no argument for making it a power. It is just a bad power. Either it puts a giant monkey wrench in DM story plotting or the DM nerfs it to worthlessness in which case it is just wasting a spell slot. Just because something was in 1e doesn't make it good. I hate to tell you all this but I played 12 years of 1e and there was a LOT of 1e that was utter rubbish.

Abdul, clearly as a DM you can interpret it how you like, but to me, the "trusted friend" is an important descriptor.

As an aside: that's the good thing about this power imo - it puts some power back into the group's hands about what this power means in the grand scheme of their world.

To me, I wouldn't just do anything for a "trusted friend" just because. They'd still need to convince me of their problems and need of help (i.e. you might still need to roll Bluff/Diplomacy even though you just used this power to make me a "trusted friend"). The thing is, it just depends on the circumstances and the fiction going on right now.

So, really. What this power does is, take a typical person you might not have as an ally and turn them into an ally temporarily, albeit with the downside that they know you've molested their free will and used magic to do it. For the most part, it's a change of disposition of an NPC. Big deal. It's not a "win button" as you suggest in the slightest (unless you as the DM play the NPC like that...).

 

[MrMyth]

It forces players to choose between useful combat powers and genuine utilities. Nobody is going to burn rare utility power slots on powers with marginal or niche uses when they can have vital things like Shield and Expeditious Retreat. They MAY put them in their spell books, but basically this means they'll be used even less often than rituals are now, it actually kicks these kinds of things even MORE to the curb.

There is some truth to this... but at the same time, Skill powers and other non-combat utilities already exist. Utility powers are rarely vital enough to a concept or build that they need to be taken, and I like having the ability to choose ones that can aid me out of combat - that's honestly what most utility powers should have been at the start!

If you don't feel it is a worthwhile investment, you don't ned to take it. If you do, you are hardly going to be crippled by the decision, any more than someone else who chose various situational utilities - like ones to Dispel Magic, or get you out of a grab, or help you spot hidden enemies. All of those could end up irrelevant in many encounters - that doesn't mean their existence in the game is a problem. You can choose a situational power that will be very useful in that situation, or you can choose more commonly useful ones. Nothing has changed that.

It means specific classes MUST be played in order to get specific vital capabilities. No longer can a party exist that doesn't have to have someone play a cleric just to get specific vital class feature based "ritualoids" like Raise Dead.

Rituals and ritual scrolls still exist. The existence of Instant Friends hasn't removed rituals from the game, so I'm not sure how this point applies...

Yes, and what does a trusted friend DO? He does whatever his buddy asks him to. Sure there are limitations on what you'll do for your best friend, but if you start to think about it a tiny bit those limits are pretty darn broad. Lend them most of your cash to get out of trouble? Yup. Lend them your car? Sure. Honestly, played in anything like an equitable fashion according to the description of the power it is a VERY powerful ability and there is basically no reason not to use it left and right on anyone who's opinion you could care less about the next day.

It specifically says the subject avoids risking their property. They won't go into battle for you, they won't lend you stuff. If you can convince your Dm to have them help you out and lend you things, more power to you, but as written, that isn't the default state of the power.

They might put in a good word for you with contacts they know, they may provide you useful information, they might help you out in all sorts of ways. But the limitations built into the power help avoid most abuses. If you choose to let PCs push beyond that, that's your choice as the DM, not something forced on you by the power.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Charm Person spells take power away from the DM and give it to the players.

It reminds me of the Magic: the Gathering card Mindslaver.

Some people really like playing that card and controlling their opponent. Generally opponents don't like having it played against them.

It's an especially disrupting effect in DM-controlled D&D games (as contrasted with player-controlled games where the DM is mostly just there to referee and run the monsters) where DM's next-to-never lose control of the game. I see it as a similar issue to player wishlists.

Important note: Mindslaver has been carefully balanced. It's pretty hard to cast and activate. When you do, it's a one time effect unless you've carefully set up some kind of recursion. Instant Friends, by contrast, is easy to use, and you get to use it over and over.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As someone that never much cared for rituals (or the design issues that they were created to deal with) I'm honestly pleased to see them bleeding back into player powers again even if only in a few specific cases.

It's definitely an old-school power. An ability that seems to openly assume players and DMs will 'wing it' is really quite alien to 4e's design philosophy. It's interesting to see Wizards suggest that players and DMs might be yet still be capable of using their imaginations.

Ah, yes. This accusation again. The one by which the edition with the best guidelines and tools to help the DM wing it that there has ever been in any edition of D&D is accused of being the one that prevents letting the DM wing it. Right. You've reminded me I really must get round to finishing writing that guide to skill challenges.

And, for that matter, if the monster makes that saving throw on this power you're going to piss him off. He knows what effect he was saving against. So it's a 1/4 chance of having a really useful ally for a few hours and a 3/4 chance of having a pissed off enemy. As DM, I can live with those odds. (At least, I haven't read the power. Even if the 3/4 don't care, it's not that bad).

 

[Plaguedguy]

Ah, yes. This accusation again. The one by which the edition with the best guidelines and tools to help the DM wing it that there has ever been in any edition of D&D is accused of being the one that prevents letting the DM wing it. Right. You've reminded me I really must get round to finishing writing that guide to skill challenges.

I'm pretty sure I in no way said that 4th edition is somehow bad or neglectful of roleplay or DM support. Seeing as I wholeheartedly embraced it and have been DMing it since release that might be a bit of a contradictory position on my part.

To clarify, I was jokingly referring to the attitude some players have expressed that every power and rule in 4e must be clarified completely lest we somehow risk balance or abuse. Hence the little angel smiley, which I apparently wrongly assumed would infer humour.

Edit: Which is in fact somewhat the point of discussion no? That this power as it is written is supposedly 'too open ended' for 4e, to which I think I've made a pretty solid argument against no more than a couple posts above.