Instant Friends

[P1NBACK]

Well I'd say 'mechanically consistent' rather than 'rigid,'

Tony, are you saying that a spell like, say Astral Speech (a daily Paladin level 2 spell that gives a +4 bonus to Diplomacy checks until the end of the encounter) is more "mechanically consistent" than Instant Friends?

 

[Balesir]

Sigh...

*Sigh*...

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.

It's not a very well defined one, but at least it limits use to a well-defined scope - the caster look like a different creature when using the power. Thus they will be reacted to as that other creature (be counted as an ally, etc.) until given away. Somewhat fuzzy, sure, but not as totally open ended as "trusted friend".

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.

The DM can always block a power use if so inclined, so powers are no "better" than skills in this respect; but the DMG has guidelines for skill DCs (albeit that they keep changing...), and overruling those is no different to overruling any other rule. Going outside those guidelines could be viewed as arbitrary and unreasonable - whereas with judgements on what "trusted friend" means, the lines are totally undefined.

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.

Unless you decide they don't know the answer. Or you decide they think it will put their life or belongings at risk to answer.

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? ...

Seems MrMyth disagrees, but I think they should be barred from attacking. That makes two of us, but it seems not to be universal.

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.

And the person who decides the NPC doesn't know is...? Or decides that they perceive that answering will put their life or property at risk? It's just as open to blocking as the skill cases - but there aren't even any guidelines (as there are for skill DCs).

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.

Maybe. Or maybe I think the fact that there are defined DCs for skills in the rules whereas there are not defined criteria for "what an NPC knows" or for "when an NPC might imagine its life or property is at risk" means the case is actually quite the opposite.

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.

If the creature is alone, I don't see why not - straight Bluff checks could do so ("I'm just taking them to get cleaned - I'll bring them back in a jiffy!"). Not that the creature won't remonstrate, call for help from the master, block the exit and generally make things awkward. Any other guards are not barred from attacking - and a return attack ends the effect.

"No action to cause damage to the caster" may actually be better - then grabs and restraining effects are possible.

 

[P1NBACK]

*Sigh*...

I wasn't sighing to you in particular, just the redundancy and overlooked points in this thread. But, point well taken. I'll keep my sighs to myself in the future.

It's not a very well defined one, but at least it limits use to a well-defined scope - the caster look like a different creature when using the power. Thus they will be reacted to as that other creature (be counted as an ally, etc.) until given away. Somewhat fuzzy, sure, but not as totally open ended as "trusted friend".

Wait... What? Why would Disguise Self make you be counted as an ally? That's a total addition to the power you just added.

Just like Instant Friends, the effect of Disguise Self rely entirely on the circumstances at the table and the other actions the PCs take.

And, what social power is "well defined"?

I would argue that Instant Friends limits use to a well-defined scope. But, I'm interested in you giving me a better example of a published social power that is more "defined".

The DM can always block a power use if so inclined, so powers are no "better" than skills in this respect;

Well, to clarify, I'm not really talking about "blocking" a power. I'm talking about it "auto failing" - like the example in the DMG about making an Intimidate skill check auto-fail.

Can you show me the example in the DMG where it suggests making a power auto-fail after allowing it to be used?

but the DMG has guidelines for skill DCs (albeit that they keep changing...), and overruling those is no different to overruling any other rule. Going outside those guidelines could be viewed as arbitrary and unreasonable - whereas with judgements on what "trusted friend" means, the lines are totally undefined.

Two things:

1) The DMG guidelines for skill checks are just that. Guidelines. As noted in the Diplomacy rules, "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."

2) You'll notice the "general attitude" (friendly) may apply to the DC. Therefore, "trusted friend" has a mechanical base in the vague use of Diplomacy as a "modifier" to a DC. In other words, Instant Friends should improve the DC of all Diplomacy checks made against the target.

However, it's still up to the DM - as is ALL social skills and powers.

Unless you decide they don't know the answer. Or you decide they think it will put their life or belongings at risk to answer.

Deciding whether the character knows the answer or not is based entirely upon the fiction. Would that NPC know that information? It's yes or no. If they don't know it, they say just that (answer truthfully). "I do not know."

If they know that answering would put their life or property at risk, in which Instant Friends says specifically they won't do, they should just answer truthfully to the PC who cast the spell: "I cannot tell you because my life and property would be at risk."

It's pretty straight forward. There's no judgment here outside of "Does this NPC know this thing?" and you can discern that based on the circumstances at the table in the fiction at this moment right now. Make a decision and stick to it. Because if you're a player, your next question should be: "Who does know?"

Seems MrMyth disagrees, but I think they should be barred from attacking. That makes two of us, but it seems not to be universal.

I wouldn't bar them from attacking. I know people who love each other, and friends who fight with each other and those are some of the most passionate fights out there.

However, a trusted friend doesn't just attack on sight. No.

This is basics man. If you're DMing a game, this is the kind of stuff you decide every game session. Has nothing to do with powers and skills.

And the person who decides the NPC doesn't know is...? Or decides that they perceive that answering will put their life or property at risk? It's just as open to blocking as the skill cases - but there aren't even any guidelines (as there are for skill DCs).

This is your job as the DM. To make these decisions. If you want, run a published module and that might help. But, you're still going to have to roleplay your NPCs and make judgment calls and decisions about what each NPC knows or doesn't know.

This has nothing to do with Instant Friends. If you try a Diplomacy check to convince the wench to tell you who that dark stranger is she just came out of the alley, the DM is going to have to decide RIGHT THEN, based on his knowledge of the world, game events, and circumstances whether she does or doesn't know and whether she would reveal that information.

That's called DM'ing my friend. That's called roleplaying NPCs.

Maybe. Or maybe I think the fact that there are defined DCs for skills in the rules whereas there are not defined criteria for "what an NPC knows" or for "when an NPC might imagine its life or property is at risk" means the case is actually quite the opposite.

You're right. Skill DCs have nothing to do with determining what an NPC does or doesn't know. It's called DM'ing. You must do this whether the PC has Instant Friends or not.

What Instant Friends does do, however, is make it concrete that IF that NPC knows something, he will certainly answer to the PC truthfully. And, he WILL aid you in what way she can outside of risking life or property.

Those are concrete mechanics.

 

[MrMyth]

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, I'm sorry, that still isn't want I'm saying!

Ok, you feel it is a bad power that requires decent interpretation in order to work.

I believe the way it is written will work fine in the vast majority of games.
I feel that any potential abuses of it will be stopped by the restrictions written into the power by a DM running it as written.
I feel that any potential issues it might cause for a skill challenge are ones that already exist for numerous powers, items, rituals and creative skill uses already in the game.

You've said it is a bad rule because a DM might potentially let it bypass a skill challenge. Do you feel the same is true of other elements that a DM might let do the same? You apparently consider movement based challenges to be fair game. What about an example you already used? The group needs to convince a scholar to let them into the temple archives. Say someone walks around the back of building, and uses Breaching Armor to teleport inside.

Do you allow this? Does this possible use of the armor mean that it is a badly designed item?

And, the limits on the power - it wears 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.

Ok, I admit, I'm more familiar with the Charm spells of past editions than Friends spells. And those were the ones I saw real abuse with - usually for a few reasons:
-It was much easier to make the spell very, very difficult for most people to resist.
-These spells could easily last for significant lengths of time.
-You could pretty easily convince people to do things they wouldn't do, shy of obviously suicidal actions.

And in fact... looking at the versions presented earlier in this thread, the Charm spells continue to be the ones that look potentially abusive.

So just to be clear: Are you saying that the earlier versions of this exact spell (Friends) were problematic in the past?

Or that the earlier versions of the Charm spells had the same limits as this power? (Which doesn't seem to be the case.)

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.'

Yeah, but... I'm not arguing for a system that encourages creativity at the price of becoming an unbalanced system!

That's the breakdown here. I'm not saying that the creativity of this power outweighs the flaws that require DM interpretation. I'm saying that those flaws don't exist. I don't believe they will actually come up in games with any more regularity than issues caused by teleportation, or flight, or bluff checks, or the very premise of skill challenges themselves. I believe this because I feel that the main abuses that charm spells usually allow for have all been addressed within the power itself.

You feel differently. That's fine. But you seem to keep arguing against non-existing arguments that I haven't presented, or distorted versions of my position. I don't think you are intentionally creating a straw man argument, but... it's still frustrating to see you argue against positions I'm not trying to defend.

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.

Again, just to make this clear: I'm not arguing for creativity at the cost of balance. I'm not arguing for irresponsibility in rule design, or game balance being a burden placed upon the DM. I believe this power is balanced in and of itself.

The entire discussion on creativity was born out of a seperate question that someone else presented - did we feel anything would be lost by changing the power. And my answer was yes, I feel a more rigid power could discourage players from going beyond the pure mechancis presented to them. That wasn't a justification for this power being unbalanced, it was an argument that, all other elements being equal, there would be a downside (in my mind) to replacing this with "You automatically succeed on a Diplomacy check."

 

[Zaran]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing over this silly power. It's Magic Missile all over again, 2 years from now when everyone has forgotten about this, they will come up with some new version because of all the arguing that's happened the month of release.

 

[P1NBACK]

... there would be a downside (in my mind) to replacing this with "You automatically succeed on a Diplomacy check."

Which, I'd like to point out, if it were worded this way, the outcome would be entirely more nebulous and completely up to the DM's interpretation - opposed to Instant Friends which has clear guidelines for rulings (the target will answer all questions truthfully, and will not risk life or property).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or that the earlier versions of the Charm spells had the same limits as this power? (Which doesn't seem to be the case.)

Substantially the same limits, there are difference from ed to ed. For instance, in 1st Ed you couldn't get a charmed caster to, say, make an item for you, even if you did suply the materials - with Instant Friends, you could. In 3.5, you could make the spell nearly irresistible - in 1e and 4e, you can't - in 1e, it would be darn near worthless by high levels, since saves became so trivially easy to make, it would have been replaced by higher level spells with similar or greater effects and a save penalty (still pretty unlikely to work).

That's the breakdown here. I'm not saying that the creativity of this power outweighs the flaws that require DM interpretation. I'm saying that those flaws don't exist. I don't believe they will actually come up in games with any more regularity than issues caused by teleportation, or flight, or bluff checks, or the very premise of skill challenges themselves.

That's not saying they don't exist. That's saying you believe they won't come up in a meaningful way. Two very different things. Maybe I'm more a 'Murphy's Law' kinda guy, but I think, in any system (game, SW, mechanical, business process, whatever), if you design in failure, you'll experience failures. (And, even if you do everything humanly possible to design /out/ failures, you'll experience failures, just fewer of them).

I think theres a definite thread of elitism in this whole discussion. I'm like "well, not everyone out there is all that bright, so there could be problems." You're like "well, anyone like that deserves those problems." We're /so/ superior! ;P

 

[Gradine]

I'll admit, given the "new player" that Essentials seems to be geared towards, Instant Friends seems a bit out of place. This is of course faulty thinking though; and I'll get to the reasons why in a bit.

To begrudgingly take credit for something else, I'll admit the whole "good/bad DM" argument was my invention, and one I would take back if I could. At the time, the kind of playstyle advocated by those arguing against the power appeared to me as obviously "bad DMing", rather than a style of play that others seem to enjoy but strikes me personally as patently un-fun. Allow me, then, to rephrase the argument, so that those still arguing the merits of the power don't have to suffer the sins of my past.

It seems that there are two completely different styles at play present here. If you, like me, enjoy the kinds of roleplaying scenarios and open-ended problem-solving that powers like Instant Friends seem to embrace, then you (or your DM, if not you) are likely making the kinds of adjudications that the power calls for on a regular basis. You likely see no problem with the wording of Instant Friends; you probably (if you're like me) revel in trying to figure out all the ways this power could be used as well as all of the potential pitfalls for this power. For instance, in a realm in which the penalty for dereliction of duty is execution, would a guard consider letting his most trusted friend through as risking his or her own life? Figuring out this kinds of quandaries, on the spot, and putting a storytelling spin on them is exciting to me, and the whole reason I became a DM in the first place.

Of course, this style of play isn't for everyone, I'm learning. I can only imagine that in a style of game where all skill challenges (even social ones) are as a mechanical and mathematical a fare as combat is, a power like Instant Friends wouldn't see much opportunity for use. If I were a player in a game where the DM stuck strictly to the literal interpretation of the rules as written, I would avoid powers with such open-ended effects like the plague. It is, then, a poorly written power... for that style of play.

And as absurd and un-RPG-like as that style of play strikes me, I will admit that if that were the way I played the game, I wouldn't like the power either. Actually, I'll put a caveat on it. This I will admit, but if and only if those who are arguing that this is a "poorly made power" admit that Instant Friends just simply wasn't designed for them, rather, it was designed for those who of us who prefer the more open-ended style of play.

We could argue over which style of play D&D caters to, and I would say that, for the most part, D&D is a game for open-ended roleplayers, though 4.0 was certainly an attempt to bridge the gap between the two playstyles. And since the other target for Essentials was "people who miss the way D&D used to be", and since that includes spells and abilities with more open-ended application, I think it's fair to say that this was the kind of gamer WotC had in mind when they designed the power.

And I think this is the reason why this debate has gone on this long, or that the discussion ever got as a heated as it had been. Any one side of the debate could easily see the opposing argument as a complete condemnation of the way they play the game. I certainly count myself guilty on both counts (on the condemning and the feeling condemned). And it's probably obvious to every outside observer of the discussion by now that there are some games for which Instant Friends is a perfect fit and there are some games for which it is a horrible fit.

Given that, the only way to actually be wrong here is to argue whether or not Instant Friends is well-designed or poorly-designed. The answer, like or not, is Yes.

As an addendum, because I can foresee this as a comeback, but the "if it only works well at some tables that makes it poorly-designed" doesn't hold water at all. There are plenty of elements within the game, big or small, that are casually dismissed depending on who's at the table. I've personally never played in a game where rituals prominently featured (or really used at all); I know others who swear by them, but I would never go so far as to claim that rituals are poorly designed. Some games completely dislike the idea of Psionics and don't use them; does this make Psionics a bad concept? House-rules are such an ingrained part of the game that at every turn the designers encourage the use of them in you encounter anything that rubs you the wrong way. In light of that, arguing that any aspect of the game must be universally acceptable in order to be well-designed is utterly fallacious.

I love Instant Friends, you hate it. I'll stop calling it well-designed, if you stop calling it poorly-designed.

And here I didn't think there'd be a middle ground.

 

[FireLance]

And here I didn't think there'd be a middle ground.

Actually, I think another good "middle ground" would be for the power text to address both styles of play: broad descriptive guidelines for how the power works, plus detailed mechanical rules for those who want them.

 

[Gradine]

Actually, I think another good "middle ground" would be for the power text to address both styles of play: broad descriptive guidelines for how the power works, plus detailed mechanical rules for those who want them.

That would strike me as an unnecessarily cumbersome power. And I think that's where a middle ground does not exist. After all, as has been argued, once you introduce strict mechanical benefits to a power's effects, you take away the open-endedness that those of us who love the power love about it. Gone is the encouragement (really, need) for players to find creative situations to use the power in; in its place, you've given carte-blanche for the DM to immediately quash any creative but non-mechanical uses for the power.

Allow me to break down these two schools of thought further.
A: Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution
B: Social encounters need a mechanical method of resolution

There are already same-level utility powers available to Wizards for those who subscribe to school of thought B (Glib Tongue and Arcane Mutterings). Instant Friends, on the other hands, obviously exists for those who subscribe to school of thought A. To insist that adding mechanical benefits to Instant Friends would make the power better is to insist that school of thought A is flat-out wrong.

I don't see how peaceful coexistence isn't the preferable solution here.