Instant Friends

[MrMyth]

We've been down that road. No, Instant Friends does not just deliver the effects of a single skill check, it delivers much more. Yes, winning trust or friendship - let alone both - is a valid goal for a skill challenge, and quite a lot of other potential social skill challenges wouldn't be necessary if someone was already a trusted friend. As written, this power could very easily be interpreted as 'winning' such skill challenges by itself. That's not a good idea, and it could be updated, quite easily, to avoid it.

You can argue all you want that the skill challenges it could potentially break might have been better as part of a larger skill challenge, or as a single diplomacy check, or whatever - that's fine, that's more interpretation.

I think I've laid out some pretty strong points for why such simple challenges are already problematic. I notice you haven't addressed the fact that there would be many other ways to bypass such simple challenges, nor come up with any sample challenges that the power would bypass that couldn't already be bypassed by various single skill checks.

If you really want me to believe that this power is broken, then all I'm asking is for you to address my questions. I laid out two sample challenges in line with what you were describing, along with various approaches PCs could take that would resolve it just as immediately as Instant Friends. How would you react in those other cases? Would you let a single clever Bluff check convince someone to let you into the temple archives?

Really, I think Majoru Oakheart hit on a key point. The only skill challenges this would win entirely on its own would be one that you could already win through a series of Diplomacy checks and nothing else. And, honestly, any skill challenge that consists of "roll 4-12 diplomacy checks" was already a flawed one to begin with. DMG2 outright declares that such situations are a bad choice for a Skill Challenge.

In the end, if a DM creates a Skill Challenge that consists of trying to convince someone to do something they aren't particularly opposed to anyway, that DM is already inviting PCs to easily bypass the challenge. If you are making it a full-fledged challenge, I'd expect complications, risks, consequences - all elements that could restrict the use of Instant Friends.

Now, that doesn't mean every DM will run it correctly. Some things do change from one DM to the next - but, as we've noted, that applies to skills themselves as well. NPC interaction will always be influenced by the DM, and this doesn't especially change that.

 

[LostSoul]

You can call the DMing examples of Kamikaze Midget examples of bad DMing and that isn't an entirely bad characterization. The problem is it is exactly the way DMs generally DO think and operate when faced with plot busting open-ended mechanics like this.

Once again, I point out the need for a Requirement: Your DM acts as an impartial referee and does not have a pre-plotted outcome for the game.

I will also ask this question to people who have endless debates about DM rulings: If you don't like how the DM rules, why are you playing with that person? I would rather give people the opportunity to make creative contributions to the game - and judge people on what they do with it - instead of taking away the opportunity to make those creative contributions.

 

[Gradine]

In addition to LostSoul's excellent points and would like to add two of my own:

Anyone who thinks that Instant Friends is game-breaking is ascribing FAR too much power to it. I keep spelling this out and it keeps getting completely ignored, probably because I write too god damned much. Will work on this in the future.

And just to nip this in the bud in case anyone tries this argument at a later date, but the "what does a level 26 Instant Friends look like" could only be more literally a strawman argument if the correct answer was "well, it looks like a scarecrow." Let's blow this up in two easy steps.
1: We aren't talking about a level 26 Instant Friends, we're talking about a level 2 Instant Friends, which is useful though fairly benign, like any good level 2 utility.
2: Stretching many low-level powers towards high levels makes them seem ludicrous by comparison, especially if we're talking about utility powers, because level 26 contains the suitably ludicrous epic destiny utilities, but it works either way. What do we call a level 26 Shield? Nobody Hits Me Ever? How about a level 29 Lead The Attack? Your Solo Is Now Dead?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think I've laid out some pretty strong points for why such simple challenges are already problematic. I notice you haven't addressed the fact that there would be many other ways to bypass such simple challenges,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simple' challenges - beyond the circular argument you already put forth that any challenge that might be bypassed by the spell is too simple to be a Skill Chalenge, since it could be bypassed by the spell.

Social Skill Challenges that rely on interacting with a single creature are alluded to in both the DMG and the new RC, the DMG uses one as detailed example. Any social skill challenge that primarily deals with a single creature could potentially be bypassed by Instant Friends, not because it's 'broken' so much as because it's ill-defined.

nor come up with any sample challenges that the power would bypass that couldn't already be bypassed by various single skill checks.

I provided you with six such examples.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/294741-instant-friends-6.html#post5338771

If you really want me to believe that this power is broken, then all I'm asking is for you to address my questions.

The power isn't 'broken,' it's just badly written, it could be 'broken,' if interpreted one way, fine if interpreted another - in a different situations, the same interpretations might have the opposite results. It's just a bad mechanic, not an invincible one.

I laid out two sample challenges in line with what you were describing, along with various approaches PCs could take that would resolve it just as immediately as Instant Friends. How would you react in those other cases?

Trying to pick apart the examples I dashed off is irrellevant. You asked for examples, I gave you some that /could/ be a problem. Really, Intant Friends could end up problematic in virtually any Social Skill Challenge, not just because it might overpowered, but because it might be underpowered, or fail to model what it says it does. A DM who sticks strictly to the Bluff check bonus, for intance, might render the spell useless in a challenge where it should be handy.

Really, I think Majoru Oakheart hit on a key point. The only skill challenges this would win entirely on its own would be one that you could already win through a series of Diplomacy checks and nothing else.

Any Skill Challenge can be resolved with a series of primary-skill checks and nothing else. Though, I'm not convinced that's even the case. How many successful Diplomacy Checks does it take to get someone to consider you a trusted friend?

In the end, if a DM creates a Skill Challenge that consists of trying to convince someone to do something they aren't particularly opposed to anyway, that DM is already inviting PCs to easily bypass the challenge.

'Are willing to do for a trusted friend' and "aren't particularly opposed to" are two very different things.

Now, that doesn't mean every DM will run it correctly. Some things do change from one DM to the next - but, as we've noted, that applies to skills themselves as well. NPC interaction will always be influenced by the DM, and this doesn't especially change that.

Skill Challenges provide a reasonably balanced structure that lets the DM create an obstacle for the PCs to overcome other than a simple combat. Social Skill Challenges are a rather large subset of that, and social skill challenges henging on one creature aren't exactly unheard of - they're possibilities mentioned in the DMG & RC. It doesn't matter if one DM uses slightly different primary skills than another in a similar challenge. It does matter if a mechanic is dropped in his lap that could reasonably be interprested to obviate a skill challenge, especially if he interprets it unreasonably to avoid that, then has to reverse that ruling to let it be used reasonably later - because it's a vague, ill-concieved, badly-worded mechanic.

Arguing that it could be OK at some tables doesn't resolve that. Arguing that the DM can always screw things up, anyway, doesn't resolve it. An update to a less problematic wording /does/.

I will also ask this question to people who have endless debates about DM rulings: If you don't like how the DM rules, why are you playing with that person?

I thought this was a discussion of a new spell, not whether this or that hypothetical DM is worthy of his screen.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just a small injection of sanity for a moment. Whatever happened to the concept of using stuff you like for your game and changing/ignoring stuff you don't like?

This damned spell for example. Like it? Use it. Hate it? Toss it.

All better and everyone can be happy.

 

[FireLance]

I think this instant friends debate drives home the point that some of us prefer rules and others prefer rulings.

As written, instant friends pretty much requires the DM to make rulings on a case by case basis how effective the power is going to be. Naturally, this does not seem like a problem for players and DMs who prefer this playstyle.

Conversely, it does seem like a problem for those of us who prefer rules, and who would automatically focus on the worst-case scenarios: the DM makes the power too weak, the DM makes the power too strong, the player and the DM disagree on how the power should work, the power is too weak in some circumstances and too strong in others, etc.

Now, I freely admit that I prefer rules to rulings as a player and a DM myself. If one of my players selected this power, I would sit down with him to clarify how it would work in my game (in terms of rules) beforehand in order to head off most potential problems. In my view, it's not a bad power in itself. I just need to do a bit more work in order to adapt it to suit my preferred playstyle.

That said, the majority of posts in this thread seem be either highlighting the potential problems that could be caused by the power as written, or explaining why the problems identified aren't actually problems with the power. I'm curious to know what those who like the way the power is currently written see as the advantages to retaining the current wording, or what they think would be lost if the power was re-worded to have a more mechanically precise effect.

 

[Gradine]

That said, the majority of posts in this thread seem be either highlighting the potential problems that could be caused by the power as written, or explaining why the problems identified aren't actually problems with the power. I'm curious to know what those who like the way the power is currently written see as the advantages to retaining the current wording, or what they think would be lost if the power was re-worded to have a more mechanically precise effect.

If Instant Friends was given a mechanically precise effect (such as, say, +2 to Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate for the duration of the effect) then the power would only be useful when mechanically worthwhile (ie, social skill challenges) to use.

As is, while it certainly does seem most useful in social skill challenges, it has plenty other roleplay application in scenarios that don't rely on mechanics at all. Not every conversation is a social skill challenge, nor every verbal confrontation. Yet, Instant Friends, as written now, could see use to benefit the party in these situations.

As soon as you impart mechanics into an ability, you are very clearly saying that the ability is of no value except when the mechanics matter, which should not be 100% of the time in any roleplaying session. Since Enchanters, traditonally, have larger fluff-to-crunch ratios (apart from maybe Diviners and Illusionists) than many other schools of magic, this power is a welcome treat to those who were drawn to Enchantments for this very reason.

 

[P1NBACK]

Let's clear some things up:

First off, can this spell be used to overcome skill challenges? Yes. It can - in two cases:

1) When the goal of the skill challenge is to make someone a trusted friend for less than 1d4 hours.

...the target treats you as a trusted friend for 1d4 hours.

2) When the goal of the skill challenge is to get information from someone.

...It truthfully answers all questions you ask...

That's it. That's the only skill challenge this spell negates. And, even then, it might only be a portion of a skill challenge (as others suggested, you might still need to roll certain skill checks to capture the target or get in position to use the spell or figure out how to get him to like your allies, etc...).

Outside of that, this spell does not negate skill challenges. It only makes certain ones easier. Why? See below.

What does a 'trusted friend' mean? It's a disposition for an NPC. It means, the DM may alter the DC of a Diplomacy check based on the disposition as seen in the "rules" for Diplomacy:

A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.

In other words, being a "trusted friend" still means you need to roll Diplomacy checks against them for them to do things for you. At best, the DM changes the DC to the "Easy" DC for the level of the challenge. A spell changing a DC to Easy is not overpowered or a win button.

Especially, if you ask the NPC to "risk its life or property" - then you'll need to use the Hard DC... Right?

As for those people who are against this spell because it requires the DM to use judgment, well, I ask you - Do you use social skills in your game?

Because every social skill requires DM judgment. Read them. Bluff and Diplomacy - neither of them have mechanical aspects to them outside of combat.

Now, if Instant Friends is clearly and specifically an outside of combat spell, why would this make heads turn? It's on the same level and more specific than the social skills mentioned. It requires less DM judgment than a simple Diplomacy check.

Again, this spell is being blown way out of proportion by knee-jerk reactions from people who aren't used to seeing powers worded in this way. We already have skills, rituals and powers that do similar things and require just as much, if not more, DM judgment.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simple' challenges - beyond the circular argument you already put forth that any challenge that might be bypassed by the spell is too simple to be a Skill Chalenge, since it could be bypassed by the spell.

Ok, I'm pretty sure you aren't doing this intentionally, but are genuinely misreading what I'm saying. Nonetheless, that has never been the argument I've made.

What I've said is that any challenge that might be bypassed by the spell is too simple to be a Skill Chalenge, since it could be bypassed by any number of other simple, single-check approaches.

Trying to pick apart the examples I dashed off is irrellevant.

My point wasn't that a DM can figure out solutions to any of these problems - obviously that isn't a proof that another DM might not be able to figure out a way to handle it. My point was more that, in most of those examples, in order to have a problem come up, a DM had to deliberately ignore restrictions written into the power itself. I don't see any way WotC can be blamed for that.

More than that... my counter-examples weren't just about ways Instant Friends wasn't a problem. (I agree, that isn't definitive proof of it not being flawed.) My examples were showing ways that other elements could present the same exact issue.

You've got your sage guarding the temple archives. Instead of trying to charm him, bribe him, etc... the party approaches with a forged note from his superiors, and makes a successful Bluff check. Why is or isn't this enough to win the challenge?

What about having them cause a distraction and then sneak past when he investigates? One PC has Breaching armor and just teleports through the back wall and finds what they need. The druid turns into a small bird and flies in through a window. Etc. How would you address these various possibilities?

PCs already have many approaches that they might undertake which might bypass a challenge or involve approaching it in an unexpected way. That's one of the reasons skill challenges generally are designed to be dynamic, and to involve more than one single simple element. How effective such approaches will be already comes down to the DM.

One DM might let those approaches work completely and bypass the challenge. Another might adapt the challenge and ask for new checks to complete it. Another might just declare they don't work - the vault is too thick to teleport into, the windows are too small for animals to get through, the sage remains unhelpful even when charmed. I just don't see Instant Friends as any more problematic than many of these existing powers, items, skills and rituals.

Any Skill Challenge can be resolved with a series of primary-skill checks and nothing else.

And those are generally bad skill challenges. The advice given on skill challenges specifically says that anything that involves the entire party sitting around and repeating the same check is the sort of challenge you want to avoid.

'Are willing to do for a trusted friend' and "aren't particularly opposed to" are two very different things.

But the spell doesn't make them willing to do anything for a trusted friend. It makes them willing to do anything that doesn't involve risk to them or their property. That... generally only helps you with something that is probably not all that big a deal in the first place.

You've mentioned the DMG example several times - but again, you are trying to get the Duke to give the party some aid or assistance. You are directly asking him to give up property or risk sending his troops to help the party or whatever. Instant Friends explicitly can't do that for you. A DM could certainly say that it helps, but saying that it wins the challenge requires outright ignoring the requirements of the power itself.

 

[LostSoul]

I thought this was a discussion of a new spell, not whether this or that hypothetical DM is worthy of his screen.

Isn't that exactly what we're talking about when people worry about the DM's ruling making this spell a "win button" or totally ineffective?

I'm curious to know what those who like the way the power is currently written see as the advantages to retaining the current wording, or what they think would be lost if the power was re-worded to have a more mechanically precise effect.

I think it allows for more creativity on the part of the people playing the game.