Instant Friends

[Balesir]

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.

Huh? Why would you think that? None of the power descriptions in 4E have the rider "...and this power may be used in no other way - all uses other than the precise mechanical effects defined are forbidden". Sure, there is the "bag of rats" rule - but that's specifically because players *can* elect to use powers in innovative, non-standard ways. A major advantage of giving specific mechanical effects for game elements is that the players thus get a pretty good idea of what the power is capable of doing in game terms, and not in ambiguous game-world terms. Can the power do other stuff? Quite possibly - but not more in game terms than the definition provides. That way we get to play the mechanical parts of the game as a game, with clear rules, rather than a "who can blag the DM best this week?" contest.

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.

And written in a different way it couldn't because?...

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.

I think you must speak some variant of English I'm not familiar with.

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?

No, we're talking about whether DMs should need to give judgement calls for unusual or creative uses of a game element, or for all uses of a game element. The first is natural and expected - the second is sloppy, unhelpful game design.

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

How do existing game elements (powers, feats, items, etc.) prevent creativity? Giving no definite effect to a power might be seen as forcing more creativity, I suppose - since without it the power is worthless - but giving some definite effects does not rule out the possibility of others, surely?

Say I change the power as follows:

Instant Friends
Your magic infuses your words with the power of persuasion, clouding a creature's mind and tricking it into thinking of you as its dearest friend.

Daily * Arcane, Charm, Enchantment
Standard Action______Ranged 10
Requirement: The power may not be used on an enemy.
Target: One Creature that is not an enemy.

Effect: The target makes a saving throw. The saving throw has a +5 bonus if the target is the same level as you or a higher level. It takes a -5 penalty if the target is a lower level than you or does not have a level.

If the saving throw succeeds, this power has no effect. The Target is aware that you used this power on it if it is the same level as you or a higher level. Otherwise, it does not know you used this power.

On a failed saving throw, neither you nor your allies will become an enemy of the target until the effect of the power ends. The target of this power may not target any non-enemy with an attack until the effect ends. While the effect persists, provided you have a means to communicate with the target, you may use a Standard Action to make a Bluff check at +5 against the target’s Passive Insight to do any of the following:

• Slide the target 2 squares, provided that such movement does not enter hindering terrain.
• Have the target use Aid Another to help you in a task of your choice.
• Ask the target a question, which it will answer truthfully if it knows the answer. If the nature or role of the target does not indicate that it must know the answer to your question it should make a saving throw – a success means that it does know the answer, a failure that it does not.

This effect ends if you or any of your allies attacks the target or any of its allies, if any of your Bluff checks against the target fail (but not if it cannot answer your question due to a saving throw), or if either you or the target complete an extended rest.

Afterward, the target doesn't remember that you used this power on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

How does that prevent creative uses as well as those defined in the effects?

 

[MrMyth]

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.

For myself, as others have said, I'd find a more mechanically precise effect (or at least some of those suggested thus far) to make the power more limited and less flavorful.

I know, I know - one can still potentially use it in creative ways. Though that relies, in my mind, even more on DM fiat - whereas having a flavorful use written into the ability does not.

To give an example, I find Ghost Sound a more flavorful power than Distract. They are similar in concept - both are small abilities given as something of a 'bonus' to the appropriate class (Wizard and Psion, respectively). With one, you create a small fake sound. With the other, a small mental distraction.

And yes, Ghost Sound is written in terms of flavor, while Distract is written to be mechanically precise - it makes the target grant Combat Advantage to the next attack against it.

Now, both of these can similate the other one. One could use Ghost Sound to try and spook an enemy and gain CA, if the DM allowed it. One could use Distract out of combat to try and confuse a guard while you sneak by.

But despite this, I'm much more likely to see the first attempted than the second. Maybe that isn't everyone's experience, but it has certainly been mine - it can be hard to encourage players to creatively use powers when all they see listed in front of them are the pure mechanics of them. But powers that have some of that flavor built in? I've seen the same players take those and run with them.

Anyway. At least for me, an Instant Friends that just said, "You automatically succeed at a Diplomacy check" would be a relatively dull option, and more likely to be chosen solely for mechanical potency than for roleplaying flavor. I find the limitations on the current version to be acceptable enough to prevent abuse or confusion, and thus I like a power that has a significant amount of built-in flavor. Others disagree and feel the power is too vaguely worded to be balanced, and while I disagree with that assessment, I can understand the concern.

 

[LostSoul]

How do existing game elements (powers, feats, items, etc.) prevent creativity? Giving no definite effect to a power might be seen as forcing more creativity, I suppose - since without it the power is worthless - but giving some definite effects does not rule out the possibility of others, surely?

No, it doesn't - but how often do you see Curse of the Dark Dream used, in a skill challenge or not, to convince the King that his aide has just sent serpents after him? Not very often, I'd assume, but it's a fair interpretation of a spell that inflicts a waking nightmare on someone.

I think that you have to design spaces for the creative input or it's too easy to lose sight of it when you're playing such a complex game.

 

[Balesir]

No, it doesn't - but how often do you see Curse of the Dark Dream used, in a skill challenge or not, to convince the King that his aide has just sent serpents after him? Not very often, I'd assume, but it's a fair interpretation of a spell that inflicts a waking nightmare on someone.

Well, to be honest, we haven't come accross that many situations in which anyone might want to convince a king of anything of the sort - but I can see it being done if we ever did...

I think that you have to design spaces for the creative input or it's too easy to lose sight of it when you're playing such a complex game.

I think that goes into the inadequacies of the Skill Challenge system, as it stands. It's a great addition to the game - for an inherently gamist game D&D has gone a remarkably long time without any attempt at a non-combat contest mechanic - but it still doesn't really inspire the sort of tactical thought, analysis and reactive creativity that the combat system does. I haven't yet read Charles Ryan's piece that's linked on the EnWorld front page, but if it really does markedly improve this area it will be a service to gamerdom indeed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Originally Posted by FireLance
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.

A rule can never take away creativity, because the DM can always decide to step outside the box and go beyond the rules.

Having good rules to start with, though, makes that decision to 'go creative' easier. Bad rules force you to fix them on the fly, which is similar to 'stepping outside the box,' just a lot less fun...


I think that's the crux of this. There are those who want good rules, and those who are OK with fixing bad rules on the fly. On the WotC boards, they throw around something called the 'Oberoni Fallacy,' when someone claims a bad rule is OK because you can houserule it. It's not really a falllacy, though, just a PoV. If you're enclined to use the rules only as a starting point, then a bad starting point isn't much worse than a good starting point - you can still get to the same place. If you'd like to use the rules as a foundation, a bad foundation is something you want to avoid, or at least fix up-front.

 

[MrMyth]

I think that's the crux of this. There are those who want good rules, and those who are OK with fixing bad rules on the fly. On the WotC boards, they throw around something called the 'Oberoni Fallacy,' when someone claims a bad rule is OK because you can houserule it. It's not really a falllacy, though, just a PoV. If you're enclined to use the rules only as a starting point, then a bad starting point isn't much worse than a good starting point - you can still get to the same place. If you'd like to use the rules as a foundation, a bad foundation is something you want to avoid, or at least fix up-front.

I'm going to object to this. I don't think this a bad rule that a DM can handle well. I think this power is decently written as is, and that the restrictions built into the power limit the classic abuses of charm spells from earlier editions, and that it doesn't present any new issues for skill challenges that don't already exist in th egame. You feel differently, and that's fair enough, but I'd appreciate if you at least recognized what my position was.

A rule can never take away creativity, because the DM can always decide to step outside the box and go beyond the rules.

Mechanically rigid powers don't prevent creativity, but they do discourage it. A good DM and players can absolutely go beyond the implied limits of the power. But if the average player never thinks to go beyond those limits, then the creativity is curtailed.

I know I've seen threads on Enworld discussing how players will fill limited to just the numbers on the cards in front of them. I've seen it in my own games. I've had to write up power cards for my players that say, "Do something creative!" in order for them to feel free to use stunts.

Thus, for me, powers that have a bit of flavor built in are an appealing direction for the game - provided that they are able to avoid the abuses seen in such powers in the past, and I feel that Instant Friends does so.

 

[Balesir]

Mechanically rigid powers don't prevent creativity, but they do discourage it. A good DM and players can absolutely go beyond the implied limits of the power. But if the average player never thinks to go beyond those limits, then the creativity is curtailed.

I know I've seen threads on Enworld discussing how players will fill limited to just the numbers on the cards in front of them. I've seen it in my own games. I've had to write up power cards for my players that say, "Do something creative!" in order for them to feel free to use stunts.

Thus, for me, powers that have a bit of flavor built in are an appealing direction for the game - provided that they are able to avoid the abuses seen in such powers in the past, and I feel that Instant Friends does so.

More flavour (to a degree) I can agree with, and I can see an argument for more encouragement for players to improvise with powers - provided the basic abilities of the power in game terms are defined. The problems with Instant Friends are:

1. It includes flavour description in the "Effects" section; a description of how one imaginary character feel about another is fluff, not mechanics. It describes what is happening in the game world - it says nothing about what effect that will have on the game.
2. Take away that flavour description and there is barely any mechanical description at all - a +5 to Bluff Checks targetting the one creature.
3. Helping out is mentioned; answering questions is mentioned - but no idea as to the scope of either "effect" (if that is what they are meant to be) is given, other than a flavour description (again). "Anything that <an imaginary character> believes will not endanger its life or property" is speculation about imaginary events in a game-world, and speculation about imaginary events is about as useless a pursuit as I can imagine (even if I indulge in it from time to time ).

In short, it's an incompletely defined power. At least it could state more clearly the restrictions on the target - it can't attack the caster (or allies of the caster??) until the effect ends (which it will by the caster or an ally attacking the target or an ally). That in itself could be an important restriction if played to well - but it's not explored at all - just "assumed" (I assume). And the questions - are Bluff checks needed to get answers? How are questions that the target might or might not know the answer to handled? Can the target's allies sense what is going on?

I still think it's a badly written power; it doesn't really say clearly what it does, it doesn't give any real guidance on what it cannot do and the flavour text and mechanical effects are muddled up in the "Effects" section (that is supposed to give mechanical effects). I don't fancy the idea of running it, and the thought of some poor newbie faced with it makes me shudder with sympathy.

 

[P1NBACK]

Sigh...

The problems with Instant Friends are:

It includes flavour description in the "Effects" section; a description of how one imaginary character feel about another is fluff, not mechanics. It describes what is happening in the game world - it says nothing about what effect that will have on the game.

Yup. Same as Disguise Self. There is NO mechanical description of the "effect it will have on the game".

I don't hear anyone bitching about this spell being a badly designed one.

Take away that flavour description and there is barely any mechanical description at all - a +5 to Bluff Checks targetting the one creature.

From Disguise Self:

Anyone who attempts to see through your ruse makes an Insight check opposed by your Bluff check, and you gain a +5 power bonus to your check.

lol...

Helping out is mentioned; answering questions is mentioned - but no idea as to the scope of either "effect" (if that is what they are meant to be) is given, other than a flavour description (again).

Because it entirely depends upon what the circumstances at the table are. Much like every single skill check/power you use in social circumstances.

Instant Friends is amazing in the sense that it DOES actually define something you gain as a player using the power.

Let's take an example:

A Bard who uses "Words of Friendship" can attempt to get NPC X to answer his questions. He can roll a 20 on his die, have a +10 to his check and use Words of Friendship for another +5 (a purely mechanical power). At this point, whether that Bard gets what he wants is ENTIRELY in the hands of the DM - because Diplomacy is entirely in the hands of the DM. The DM can set a DC that is far beyond the scope of your skill, tell you lies, or he can simply say, the skill automatically fails (because as DM you can say that... and they give examples of it in the DMG). The DM can essentially "cockblock" you.

HOWEVER! (Yes, I'm shouting!)

A Wizard who uses "Instant Friends" can attempt to get NPC X to answer his questions. It's clearly spelled out in the power: "It truthfully answers all questions you ask..." There is no DM cockblocking. If your spell works the target truthfully answers your questions unlike Words of Friendship - the purely mechanical version.

So, this whole argument about Instant Friends not being mechanically sound is flat-out BOGUS.

Let me ask you, which would you rather use as a player?

Power A: The target tells you a truthful answer to each question you ask.

Or,

Power B: The target might tell you a truthful answer and might answer your questions at all, depending on the DC set by the DM and whether he allows you to use the skill at all.

"Anything that <an imaginary character> believes will not endanger its life or property" is speculation about imaginary events in a game-world, and speculation about imaginary events is about as useless a pursuit as I can imagine (even if I indulge in it from time to time ).In short, it's an incompletely defined power.

Except, it's more defined than Words of Friendship. As we just established. Because those "+X to Diplomacy" powers are flat-out, entirely based on the DM's judgment (no really... look up the rules for "Diplomacy" - I've posted them twice in this thread and they've been overlooked both times).

Instant Friends on the other hands HAS concrete, functional use outside of the whole "trusted friend" argument. The target "truthfully answers all questions you ask". Plain and simple.

The only way as a DM for this not to work is if YOU, as the DM, cheat.

At least it could state more clearly the restrictions on the target - it can't attack the caster (or allies of the caster??) until the effect ends (which it will by the caster or an ally attacking the target or an ally). That in itself could be an important restriction if played to well - but it's not explored at all - just "assumed" (I assume).

Huh? It does. Why would it attack the caster? They are now considered "trusted friends". When you set the disposition of your NPCs as "friends" do you normally have them attack their other friends? ...

And the questions - are Bluff checks needed to get answers? How are questions that the target might or might not know the answer to handled? Can the target's allies sense what is going on?

No. It is clearly defined. Bluff checks are NOT needed to get answers. The target truthfully answers all questions. READ THE POWER. If the target doesn't know he says, "I do not know" and as DM you tell the player, "That's the truth. He doesn't know. You would know this for a fact." And you better uphold that as a DM. No screwing around.

Can the target's allies sense what is going on? I don't know... Can they sense magic being cast? Can they sense if you cast Disguise Self while in the act?

There's a rule in Dark Sun that says most spellcasters have a chance of knowing whether you are casting a spell or not - unless you make a Bluff check or not. This seems appropriate for spellcasters. If there is no spellcaster present, no they probably wouldn't know. Otherwise, set the standard for ALL spells being cast, yeah? Do they know when you cast any other spell?

Obviously, they'd notice the shift in disposition if the target wasn't already friendly.

I still think it's a badly written power; it doesn't really say clearly what it does, it doesn't give any real guidance on what it cannot do and the flavour text and mechanical effects are muddled up in the "Effects" section (that is supposed to give mechanical effects). I don't fancy the idea of running it, and the thought of some poor newbie faced with it makes me shudder with sympathy.

I think I've given plenty of examples on how it's much clearer than other skill-boosting powers. Maybe you need to give the power a good hard read again.

 

[MrMyth]

At least it could state more clearly the restrictions on the target - it can't attack the caster (or allies of the caster??) until the effect ends (which it will by the caster or an ally attacking the target or an ally). That in itself could be an important restriction if played to well - but it's not explored at all - just "assumed" (I assume).

P1NBACK answered pretty much all the major concerns here, but I did want to briefly comment that I'd be against adding a restriction like it being unable to attack the caster - that sort of thing is where I'd actually see abuse coming into the picture.

Even if you are a trusted friend, that doesn't mean you get a free pass. If this person is a merchant's guard, the fact he now trusts you doesn't mean he'll stand by and let you steal all of his employer's stuff.

And yes, the does put some elements in the hand of the DM. But that's the case with all NPC interactions to begin with. Influencing them without scripting them is exactly where I want a power like this to fall - just like with Disguise Self, Illusions, and various rituals.

Now, yes, that could mean you get a DM who is completely unreasonable and this power is never relevant, or he goes out of his way to counter it whenever it comes up. And then you can stop taking this power, just like I can stop taking a power to get Fire Resistance when the DM either never uses fiery monsters, or always arbitrarily gives them the ability to bypass my resistance.

And if this bugs you as a DM, yes, you can tell players it isn't an option, just like I can ban Fly if I don't want to deal with it, or Dark Sun can ban Create Water.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm going to object to this. I don't think this a bad rule that a DM can handle well. I think this power is decently written as is, and that the restrictions built into the power limit the classic abuses of charm spells from earlier editions, and that it doesn't present any new issues for skill challenges that don't already exist in th egame. You feel differently, and that's fair enough, but I'd appreciate if you at least recognized what my position was.

I don't actually see a big disconnect between 'bad rule a good DM can fix on the fly' and what you said. Seriously, you just said it in a much nicer way.

And, the limits on the power - it wares off in a random period of time, gives a save, and doesn't force risk of life and property - are the /same/ as in some prior eds. It wasn't 'fixed' in those eds, either.

Mechanically rigid powers don't prevent creativity, but they do discourage it. A good DM and players can absolutely go beyond the implied limits of the power. But if the average player never thinks to go beyond those limits, then the creativity is curtailed.

Well I'd say 'mechanically consistent' rather than 'rigid,' that's also just saying the same thing more nicely. Seriously, though, I'd judge a rule set that worked adequately, if in a staid manner that didn't much encourage creativity, for average players, but could still be used creatively by 'advanced' or 'good' DMs/players, to be 'good.' Conversely, a ruleset that only worked adequately in the hands of the 'good' DM/players, and didn't discourage creativity at all, I couldn't judge 'good.' I'm sorry, I just think that it makes more sense to have rules that are balanced and playable for the broadest set of players, even if that means they might feel a little 'rigid' to more sophisticated players, or somehow 'discourage' more casual players from stepping outside the box they haven't really even gotten familiar with yet. It's a value judgement, I know, and tastes differ. It just strikes me as a good idea to aproach a ruleset with a certain degree of ... I don't know... responsibility?

I know I've seen threads on Enworld discussing how players will fill limited to just the numbers on the cards in front of them. I've seen it in my own games. I've had to write up power cards for my players that say, "Do something creative!" in order for them to feel free to use stunts.

Thus, for me, powers that have a bit of flavor built in are an appealing direction for the game - provided that they are able to avoid the abuses seen in such powers in the past, and I feel that Instant Friends does so.[/QUOTE]