You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Greenfield]

To be clear, I accept that there should be a Save, that it simply didn't occur to the authors that the Dust would be used on an unwilling target.

But sometimes a bad argument needs to be dealt with, even if the conclusion might be correct.

Ever see the math trick for reducing fractions? 7C/7B = C/B, by "cancelling the sevens"? A variation on that is 16/64. Cancel the 6s and you get 1/4. The right answer, but for all the wrong reasons.

With that in mind, Scrolls use the casting stat of the user instead of the creator because the user is actually casting the spell. It's a bad example for how Saves should work for any other spell casting item, including Necklace of Missiles.

By the same token, Wands use the minimum caster stat bonus needed to cast the spell, so a Wand of Fireballs has a Save of 14 (10 + 3 for spell level, +1 for a casting stat of 13). That's almost certainly where the Save for Necklace of Fireballs comes from.

When creating a magic item like a Wand, you can create it at any caster level you like, so long as it doesn't exceed your actual level, and is at least the minimum to cast the spell in question. Necklace of Fireballs, by that logic, shouldn't have a missile lower than 5 dice, since 5 is the minimum caster level for Fireball. No sweat, really, since the Necklace isn't really the same as a Wand.

The point was that other than items the specifically cast spells (Wands, Staffs and Scrolls and a very few Rings), very few magic items work exactly the way the spells they're based upon do.

Now some, like Dust of Disappearance, specifically say that they work like the spell. In this case it then goes on to say that/how it doesn't work like the spell, and while it doesn't list a Save, it also doesn't say that there isn't one.

Here's a fun one for you: One of Quall's Feather Tokens can, as mentioned, create a tree, as an instantaneous effect. If you cast that down to activate it, and you do it right under an enemy, what happens?

Does the enemy get shoved aside as the tree fills the 5 foot square (5 foot diameter drunk, 60 feet high, 40 foot diameter crown)? Do they get lifted up as the tree shoots up? Do they get thrown by the sudden growth of an oak tree? Are they tangled in its branches? Are they somehow embedded in tree? (It's an instantaneous creation effect.) Does the tree appear at all if the area is blocked?

Fun use: Dragon diving down, using that tactic that the books say they despise but still include a feat for: Snatch and grapple. On readied action, have a 60 foot oak tree appear right in front of him.

The rules include damage for a fall, but not for damage from slamming into a tree (or a Wall of Stone ) at high speed. I personally see that as an oversight, but that's just me.

On that topic, how would adjudicate a character being fired over a wall using a catapult? As a fall from the peak height of the flight arc, or more? And how would you calculate the peak height? (My own thought would be to apply the same damage as the character would take if struck by a catapult stone, but that's more convenient than right.)

 

[Hussar]

OK, as an open question on the "Players should get to decide what parts of the campaign we explore and which get bruched aside into background" theory.

Assume five players. One dislikes playing out overland travel (that's not the characters' goal, just getting there - get on with it!). A second dislikes dungeon crawls (underground labyrinths are just old school character grinds - make with the storyline already). A third detests social interaction (enough of the GM's improv acting - on with the game!). The fourth detests mysteries, puzzles and riddles (fine for Doyle to write Sherlock Holmes, but he's the character, not the player, and you're no Doyle - let the character roll against his great skills to solve it), while the fifth gets bored in combat (it's about the character, not the mechanics).

So, describe for me the game to be run for this group.

In my world, these guys are extremes, and most players like certain aspects more, and others less, but also like some variety in their game. There may be periods where the game drags a bit for them, but they respect that the game is a group activity and cannot be tailored to their specifics. They also have some trust in the DM (lacking that, why would he be the DM) so they're prepared to give him the oppportunity to lead the game in a planned direction, with some faith there is a payout (much like I don't walk out of a movie because the opening credits didn't enthrall me).

If there is no compromise between the players and each other and the DM? You can't. That group will implode very quickly. It might work for a one shot, but, you simply cannot run a long term game for a group who has diametrically opposed goals.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe you can explain to me why you were wanting to rush back to the Grell encounter as fast as possible? What was the payoff and why did it not need to be delayed and if delayed then it was diminished? Why did you stop caring?

Well, for one, the adventure was on a timeline. There was a pretty strong time pressure in this, so, getting back to things as fast as possible in game made sense. For another, we wanted to go kick the monster's butt. We wanted revenge. But, instead, we got to spend half a session talking to random NPC's who we had zero interest in talking to.

So, yeah, delaying the action deflated the scene entirely.

Now, if you had decided that the grell moved on? Yeah, total bait and switch as far as I'm concerned. We met a challenge, failed the challenge, came back to try the challenge again, but the challenge is gone? After I've spent an hour pissing about with random NPC's that I didn't want to talk to in the first place?

Yeah, not my kind of game. My response would be to ask you how you would like me to resolve challenges and we'll do that instead. Stop wasting my time. Why did we spend significant amounts of time on a plan that you knew, before we started, had zero chance of success (since the monster had moved on)? I would be very disappointed at that point. What a complete and utter waste of time.

So, yeah, why did I stop caring? Because I had to spend all this time on crap that did not matter in the slightest towards resolving the challenge that I DID care about. And then, you would take that challenge away at the end so now I have to do even more crap that I don't care about in order to reach the challenge that I did care about? No thank you.

Talk about a complete misread of the table. The group is gearing up to go get payback, and the DM stalls and delays for much more time that we liked, and then you'd even take away the payoff at the end? Yuck.

 

[Celebrim]

To be clear, I accept that there should be a Save, that it simply didn't occur to the authors that the Dust would be used on an unwilling target.

No, I don't accept that at all. This usage is 'old as dirt'. It's probably coded into Hack. It's Gygaxian, right down to the dust being indistinguishable from its opposite. It's right in the first edition DMG, and there is no save mentioned there either.

 

[JustinAlexander]

You cited the Save for Dust of Disappearance as an established fact, as part of the argument over whether there was one. That's circular logic.

No. I didn't. Please stop lying about what I said. It's rude.

You said there were only two Dusts that listed saving throws, when a third one had already been discussed in this thread. That's not only misinformed, but willfully so.

Here is a link to the dusts listed in the SRD.

Dust of Appearance - Does not list a saving throw.
Dust of Disappearance - Does not list a saving throw.
Dust of Dryness - Fort DC 18
Dust of Illusion - Reflex DC 11
Dust of Tracelessness - Does not list a saving throw.

You are mind-numbingly wrong. But if you disagree, please feel free to cite the third dust from the DMG which lists a saving throw in its description. We'll wait, but I'm guessing you'll either slink off or simply throw around a few more insults in the hope that it'll distract from how mind-numbingly wrong you are.

What happens if a save isn't mentioned though? (...) How is one to determine what the save would be in the first place if one was allowed, but not mentioned in the item's description?

Magic Item Basics. For all items other than staffs, the default saving throw for a a magic item that produce spells or spell-like effects is DC 10 + the level of the spell effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of the spell.

This rule can also be found on pg. 214 of the DMG.

Justin, you're wrong.

No offense, but I'd take you a lot more seriously if you hadn't self-evidently ignored the rules for how magic items work in your attempt to figure out how magic items work. If nothing else, next time you feel compelled to ask a question like, "What is the saving throw for a magic item?" you might try typing it into Google. (It's the first search result.)

 

[Ratskinner]

So again, how do you handle this sort of thing as a DM, or as a player?

Sorry to come to this late.

In any case, I love it on a tactical level. I'm a little less fond of it on a strategic level. (I'll note that I'm talking mostly from DM-voice, here.) What I mean is: I think its great when a spur-of-the-moment solution to a combat or challenge occurs. Yes, they can sometimes be a little embarrassing as a DM, but y'know what...roll with it. It is a game, after all. I really love it as a player, of course. I like it a little less on the strategic level: "Hey! We buy tickets for a ride to a land that isn't part of this adventure and just duck all our current tasks/plotlines." I've had two groups (2e and 3e) that would get halfway through an adventure and just back up or back out of it and head off in a new direction on a whim. I had to get good at reusing generic opponents, or several sessions would have ended with "I haven't got anything for that...."

 

[Celebrim]

Well, for one, the adventure was on a timeline. There was a pretty strong time pressure in this, so, getting back to things as fast as possible in game made sense.

How does that make sense? If I say, "Ok, you get hirelings and spears and four hours later you are back at the entrance of the Dungeon of Unnatural Evil.", in terms of time pressure its the exact same thing as if we play out all four hours round by round. The same amount of in game time has transpired. I understand that you wanted to handwave the time, but you can't make an in game reason for an out of game methodology like handwaving. From the characters perspective, the same things happen. The only difference is play experience, not in game 'time pressure'. Out of game time pressure maybe, but not an in game time line.

But really, if its an in game time pressure issue, your plan sucks, because obtaining henchmen generally requires days to get suitable applicants. This is discussed in detail on page 35 of the 1st edition DMG, and so far as I know those general guidelines are still in force or at least still perfectly reasonable. So if days may pass, what do you think the chances are no other events will occur in the world while you are hunting for recruits for your damn fool idealistic crusade?

For another, we wanted to go kick the monster's butt. We wanted revenge.

Again, my question is, "Why?"

Now, if you had decided that the grell moved on? Yeah, total bait and switch as far as I'm concerned. We met a challenge, failed the challenge, came back to try the challenge again, but the challenge is gone?

Are you saying that the Grell isn't intelligent enough to vacate the premise? Are you suggesting NPC's should take no action 'off stage', and that NPC's basically just exist to sit there and get killed by adventurers?

My response would be to ask you how you would like me to resolve challenges and we'll do that instead.

And again, I'd be like, "Challenges? What are you talking about? I don't have a preference about how you go about accomplishing your goals, but that grell wasn't a challenge. It might possibly have been a goal along the lines of, "There is a monster eating livestock at night. I'll pay you 100 g.p. if you find and kill it." Most of the time, presumably you think the grell was in the way of getting to your goal, something like "Retrieve the admantium widget." or "Recover the lost treasure from the fabled Caverns of Easy Pickings." Now it isn't in your way. The grell was never a 'challenge' in the first place. It didn't exist solely to put a combat challenge in a linear corridor between A and B. I had no idea whether you were going to bribe it, fight it, charm it, or what and no real preference. It was a monster. It was an aberration attracted to this liar because it could get convienent meals without a lot of humans with pokey bits of metal accosting it. But why am I telling you this anyway? Your character has no way of knowing what the grell was thinking, or why it was there, or why it doesn't appear to be here now."

Because I had to spend all this time on crap that did not matter in the slightest towards resolving the challenge that I DID care about.

You still haven't explained to me why killing the grell was important?

If you just want to town portal back, gather resources, town portal back, and return to a static predictable encounter with a foe that is in basically the last state you left it, what do you need a DM for? A computer can give you that experience. Why don't we just mouse over NPC's and give them red or green auras according to what you are supposed to do with them? If you just want to treat NPC's as either game pieces or challenges, you could play the game solo. Roll random encounters, and then see if you can over come them. Again, no need for a DM. And for someone who seems to be really invested in overcoming challenges, you see to be equally invested in challenges that are easy and predictable and skippable if you aren't interested in that particular challenge. How is that a 'challenge'? We have a bit of hypocricy here. The players are supposed to surprise the DM and have a reasonable expectation that that will be validated, but the DM isn't supposed to surprise the players? That's invalid?

If you leave a dungeon and return, it's 100% likely that any intelligent inhabitants will have taken actions while you were gone. Things won't be like you left them ever. If you attack the hobgoblin liar, and then flee, if you did signficant damage its 100% likely they'll grab up their treasure and imps and run. If you don't do signficant damage its 100% likely they'll be on high alert, that they'll have rigged up additional defences, and that if they don't have a back door that they started digging one while you where gone. That's about as old school as it gets. There is absolutely ZERO expectation that an experienced player should have that intelligent monsters will stay in a state of suspended animation while they are off doing whatever. And that's by the book - page 104 and 105 of the 1st edition DMG and so far as I know those sorts of guidelines are still applicable. Really how long you've been playing that you don't expect that sort of thing to happen? I mean sure, maybe the monster is still in the dungeon, there is a reasonable chance that it doesn't know where else to go. But if its still in the dungeon, maybe it rigs up a fake Grell from strips of cloth and the entrials of a dead cow to lure you into wasting attacks on the fake, or who knows what.

If you don't need a DM to play the way you seem to prefer to play, who is wasting whose time?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Magic Item Basics. For all items other than staffs, the default saving throw for a a magic item that produce spells or spell-like effects is DC 10 + the level of the spell effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of the spell.

This rule can also be found on pg. 214 of the DMG.

No offense, but I'd take you a lot more seriously if you hadn't self-evidently ignored the rules for how magic items work in your attempt to figure out how magic items work. If nothing else, next time you feel compelled to ask a question like, "What is the saving throw for a magic item?" you might try typing it into Google. (It's the first search result.)

My point was that unless the specific item lists that it, not the spell it's based on, has a save, it is very safe to assume it doesn't have one if it's such things as wondrous items. Your point was that because it replicated a spell in a particular way, that it would thus replicate the spell's allowance of a save. That is the part that is wrong. Saves are given for the various items as a convenience (because looking for the spell an item is based on is a pain to do repeatedly) and as a way to definitely determine that it has a save in the first place.

But I suppose we can debate that further. Let's look at the Deck of Illusions. It says that throwing a card produces a major image of a creature as determined by the card. No save is listed though. Is it reasonable to conclude the item has a save associated with it by virtue of it replicating the spell? I would argue no, because everywhere else where an item allows a spell use, it gives a saving throw for it too. If they wanted it to have a save, they would have trivially given it one. Yes, it's often a joke that WotC is inconsistent, but in the case of items they are very consistent about listing saves and such.

And thank you for reminding me about the magic item basics and determining an item's effect's save. Even had I remembered that bit of information and included it, it really wouldn't have changed the point of "it doesn't list a save anyway." But to humor you, if they had given Dust of Disappearance a save, it looks like it would have been DC 16.

@Celebrim : I believe Hussar is speaking from the position of the players having gotten their butts beat by the Grell, thus their immediate goal is to get revenge and kill it. If it disappears/moves on/whatevers during their efforts to get resources to defeat it and they can't find it, the DM has robbed the players of the satisfaction of taking it down. That and he's wasted their time and even his own in a way. You can simulate the reality of a situation all you want, but a player expecting to get vengeance is usually going to be angered or at least indignant not to get it. And so the situation begs a question: Which is more important: The players, or the simulation?

 

[Hussar]

How does that make sense? If I say, "Ok, you get hirelings and spears and four hours later you are back at the entrance of the Dungeon of Unnatural Evil.", in terms of time pressure its the exact same thing as if we play out all four hours round by round. The same amount of in game time has transpired. I understand that you wanted to handwave the time, but you can't make an in game reason for an out of game methodology like handwaving. From the characters perspective, the same things happen. The only difference is play experience, not in game 'time pressure'. Out of game time pressure maybe, but not an in game time line.

But really, if its an in game time pressure issue, your plan sucks, because obtaining henchmen generally requires days to get suitable applicants. This is discussed in detail on page 35 of the 1st edition DMG, and so far as I know those general guidelines are still in force or at least still perfectly reasonable. So if days may pass, what do you think the chances are no other events will occur in the world while you are hunting for recruits for your damn fool idealistic crusade?

Ahh, but, we're not talking about whether or not my plan is good. That's a separate issue. Considering we'd already been crushed by the Grell once, and we needed to get past that grell, what would you suggest? Harsh language? I thought reinforcements was likely a good idea.

Again, my question is, "Why?"

Which part of revenge didn't you understand? Plus, we actually did need to get past that grell which commanded a choke point in the dungeon.

Are you saying that the Grell isn't intelligent enough to vacate the premise? Are you suggesting NPC's should take no action 'off stage', and that NPC's basically just exist to sit there and get killed by adventurers?

Nope. But, considering it killed one of us and drove the rest off, why would it leave? Oh, that's right, because the only "realistic" response is the one that screws over the players the most?

Hrm, I'm in my nice lair. A bunch of squishy humans just delivered a pizza to me and ran away. Yup, time to run away too.

And again, I'd be like, "Challenges? What are you talking about? I don't have a preference about how you go about accomplishing your goals, but that grell wasn't a challenge. It might possibly have been a goal along the lines of, "There is a monster eating livestock at night. I'll pay you 100 g.p. if you find and kill it." Most of the time, presumably you think the grell was in the way of getting to your goal, something like "Retrieve the admantium widget." or "Recover the lost treasure from the fabled Caverns of Easy Pickings." Now it isn't in your way. The grell was never a 'challenge' in the first place. It didn't exist solely to put a combat challenge in a linear corridor between A and B. I had no idea whether you were going to bribe it, fight it, charm it, or what and no real preference. It was a monster. It was an aberration attracted to this liar because it could get convienent meals without a lot of humans with pokey bits of metal accosting it. But why am I telling you this anyway? Your character has no way of knowing what the grell was thinking, or why it was there, or why it doesn't appear to be here now."

Yeah, I realize our approaches are very different.

You still haven't explained to me why killing the grell was important?

Well, besides repeating revenge a few more times, the fact that it was controlling a choke point and we needed to get past it (I believe I mentioned that a few times already) what more do you want?

If you just want to town portal back, gather resources, town portal back, and return to a static predictable encounter with a foe that is in basically the last state you left it, what do you need a DM for? A computer can give you that experience. Why don't we just mouse over NPC's and give them red or green auras according to what you are supposed to do with them? If you just want to treat NPC's as either game pieces or challenges, you could play the game solo. Roll random encounters, and then see if you can over come them. Again, no need for a DM. And for someone who seems to be really invested in overcoming challenges, you see to be equally invested in challenges that are easy and predictable and skippable if you aren't interested in that particular challenge. How is that a 'challenge'? We have a bit of hypocricy here. The players are supposed to surprise the DM and have a reasonable expectation that that will be validated, but the DM isn't supposed to surprise the players? That's invalid?

Wow, badwrongfun all over the place. If I don't play your game, I'm back to being a shallow, immature gamer who should stick to computer RPG's. Yeah. I think I prefer it when the DM isn't out to screw over the players every chance he has.

If you leave a dungeon and return, it's 100% likely that any intelligent inhabitants will have taken actions while you were gone. Things won't be like you left them ever. If you attack the hobgoblin liar, and then flee, if you did signficant damage its 100% likely they'll grab up their treasure and imps and run. If you don't do signficant damage its 100% likely they'll be on high alert, that they'll have rigged up additional defences, and that if they don't have a back door that they started digging one while you where gone. That's about as old school as it gets. There is absolutely ZERO expectation that an experienced player should have that intelligent monsters will stay in a state of suspended animation while they are off doing whatever. And that's by the book - page 104 and 105 of the 1st edition DMG and so far as I know those sorts of guidelines are still applicable. Really how long you've been playing that you don't expect that sort of thing to happen? I mean sure, maybe the monster is still in the dungeon, there is a reasonable chance that it doesn't know where else to go. But if its still in the dungeon, maybe it rigs up a fake Grell from strips of cloth and the entrials of a dead cow to lure you into wasting attacks on the fake, or who knows what.

If you don't need a DM to play the way you seem to prefer to play, who is wasting whose time?

Who said anything about static? That's your canard. You said that the grell would leave. Rig up extra defenses? Sure, no problem. Makes things more interesting. But there's a far cry from changing the tactical situation and simply bugging out and leaving the players dangling yet again.

Look, it would be REALLY nice if you'd stop making broad sweeping judgements about other people's playstyles. The badwrongfun police routine is getting really, really old. In every single example in this thread, your "realistic" response is the one that screws over the players the most. Every single time. Either the monster leaves with the treasure, if the players don't end a threat to your satisfaction, you withhold xp, etc. etc.

Ok, I get it. Viking hat DMing and all that. Sure. Antagonistic DMing has a long and storied tradition. It's just not MY approach to gaming. And, having seen way too many players come out of antagonistic DMing tables and have all the creativity beaten out of them, I don't really enjoy that sort of thing anymore.

For me, the players spent the most valuable table resource there is - time. They wanted to get back to that encounter and were willing to jump through multiple hoops to get there, spending hours of table time. That makes that encounter important. Pulling the rug out from under them, and then hiding behind the curtain of "Well, it's believable" is just plain out DM obstructionism to me. My free time is way too valuable to waste spending time jumping through someone's hoops that in no way actually move anything forward.

No thanks. I prefer a game pace a little faster than glacial.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

@Celebrim : I believe Hussar is speaking from the position of the players having gotten their butts beat by the Grell, thus their immediate goal is to get revenge and kill it. If it disappears/moves on/whatevers during their efforts to get resources to defeat it and they can't find it, the DM has robbed the players of the satisfaction of taking it down. That and he's wasted their time and even his own in a way. You can simulate the reality of a situation all you want, but a player expecting to get vengeance is usually going to be angered or at least indignant not to get it. And so the situation begs a question: Which is more important: The players, or the simulation?

Exactly. To me, the players are first, the DM second and the simulation is way, way, way, behind in about fifteenth place behind everything else.