Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Ahnehnois]

So, I have to wait until we're in a mid-level game to have narrative space? That's not a good solution at all.

Don't all characters?

 

[Starfox]

The sad thing is that this would be a perfect use of, say, 3e's feat system, but they didn't apply it in this way.

Yes, I agree, feats (in both 3E and 4E) gave the initial impression that they'd give a lot of non-combat options, but in practice whose options were never competitive (except the much-maligned Leadership feat).

 

[Umbran]

Don't all characters?

No, they don't. That's kind of the point.

In any case, the OP has asked several times now - this thread is supposed to be about *how* to implement this kind of thing, should you choose to.

You don't want to? That's fine. You can even have a thread about how this is a bad idea, if you want. But please stop distracting this thread from its core subject matter. Thanks.

 

[billd91]

Yes, I agree, feats (in both 3E and 4E) gave the initial impression that they'd give a lot of non-combat options, but in practice whose options were never competitive (except the much-maligned Leadership feat).

In practice, that should depend on the kind of game you run. In a game like d20 Call of Cthulhu, in which combat is pretty deadly and knowledge skills particularly useful, we spent a lot of feats on skill enhancers. A D&D game with the same general sensibilities could encourage the same feat distribution. It's up to the kind of game that people want to play.

And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use? You could try a siloing method, but how many silos are you ultimately looking at and how many does it require to balance? Are sub-silos going to be involved like martial and spell combat within a broader combat silo? And what if a particular game manages to not use one or more of those sub-silos within a broader silo? How do you balance things then? Or should the game just present what it presents assuming a default mode of play and leave it up to the individual game groups to find their own balance within their play styles?

 

[Starfox]

I was thinking of feats like this:

[h=4]✪ Master of Disguise [Deceit][/h]Requires Clever Disguise and Mimicry.
The character can convincingly pass himself off as nearly anyone with a little time and preparation. To use this ability, the player pays a fate point and temporarily stops playing. His character is presumed to have donned a disguise and gone “off camera”. At any subsequent point during play the player may choose any nameless, filler character (a villain’s minion, a bellboy in the hotel, the cop who just pulled you over) in a scene and reveal that that character is actually the PC in disguise!

The character may remain in this state for as long as the player chooses, but if anyone is tipped off that he might be nearby, an investigator may spend a fate point and roll Investigate against the disguised character’s Deceit. If the investigator wins, his player (which may be the GM) gets to decide which filler character is actually the disguised PC (“Wait a minute – you’re the Emerald Emancipator!”).

Such abilites could have been feats, available to players who prefer to do things this way rather than taking half the play session to play out the above example. And they could be available to anyone with decent Disguise skill.

 

[Mike Eagling]

And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use?

It seems to me the easiest way to do this would be through skills and feats by, perhaps, introducing separate skill/feat point tracks much the same way Pathfinder has different xp tracks for different styles of play?

 

[Alzrius]

Such abilites could have been feats, available to players who prefer to do things this way rather than taking half the play session to play out the above example. And they could be available to anyone with decent Disguise skill.

Well, I think that this conceivably treads on the fringes of some of the problems that 3.0 had, where there were certain actions that couldn't be taken without the requisite feat, but which seemed common enough that no feat should have been necessary (e.g. sundering a weapon).

I think that if you want to make narrative options something that aren't directly tied to a class, but function as exception-based options (e.g. "you can't do this, unless you take X which says that you can"), then you're starting to get away from the idea of classes altogether (at least for large areas of narrative ability).

 

[sheadunne]

In practice, that should depend on the kind of game you run. In a game like d20 Call of Cthulhu, in which combat is pretty deadly and knowledge skills particularly useful, we spent a lot of feats on skill enhancers. A D&D game with the same general sensibilities could encourage the same feat distribution. It's up to the kind of game that people want to play.

And that's at issue all over the D&D Next edition. How do you work in options to support the kinds of games people want to play and how do you balance things if portions of the balance between characters resides in a segment of the rules your particular game table doesn't happen to use? You could try a siloing method, but how many silos are you ultimately looking at and how many does it require to balance? Are sub-silos going to be involved like martial and spell combat within a broader combat silo? And what if a particular game manages to not use one or more of those sub-silos within a broader silo? How do you balance things then? Or should the game just present what it presents assuming a default mode of play and leave it up to the individual game groups to find their own balance within their play styles?

All good questions. I think another question is, how do you balance it at a table with different play-preference at the same table?

One method may be to make sure every option has a combat, exploration (and/or investigation, I'm not convinced they're different but accept that others may), and social function. Each option (whether its through feats, abilities, skills, etc) gives you a use within each tier. Then by default, it doesn't matter if your table is more interested in combat or investigation, you know that any option you choose will contain elements usable in that particular playstyle.

Brutal
- Combat (power attack)
- Exploration (Break down doors)
- Social (intimidation)

Ambidextrous
- Combat (two weapon fighting)
- Exploration (disable device)
- Social (slight of hand)

Anyway, something like that. These can be either generic flat bonuses, adv/div 5e mechanic when doing it, or a specific power that activates when you're preforming that action (more like 4e powers).

 

[N'raac]

And the historic D&D wizard has the ability to turn straight to the DM and say "No. It isn't happening." Such as when the DM says that the enemies are coming through that exit to the cave. A Wall of Stone means they aren't.

Actually, I'd suggest it means a roll for initiative to see how many enemies have an opportunity to get past the exit before you cast your Wall of Stone.

As for play what thou wilt being the whole of the law, this is what the whole argument is about. One of the things I want to play is a genuinely competent thief-acrobat. In D&D Next as it stands, tightrope walking is DC 25. I can't even play a thief who can match a real world circus performer on a tightrope - or even walk reliably on one in my back garden. A rogue therefore does not fulfil my criteria to work as an acrobat. If I want to tightrope walk reliably, I'm going to need the Levitation spell.

This is a clear issue with skill DC's. To my mind, a L1 character who has made the maximum investment in ranks of a class skill carying a pole should be capable o Taking 10 to walk a tightrope successfully. Even with average INT, a character with even a moderate skill focus should also have suficient resources to be similarly skilled in at least a couple of other areas. So, for me, that means a 10 INT character with 4 skill points per level should require 1 rank to tightrope walk. In Pathfinder, that rank (+1) plus a class skill (+3) plus that balancing pole (+2 for perfect equipment) can Take 10 for a 16. So DC 15 it is.

If "Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" then where is the objection to letting me have my trickster-rogues? The ones who are able to step in and say "What you've just seen wasn't actually what was going on". And it's for the rogues far more than the fighters that I need the metagame abilities - especially if I want the rogues to stand a chance keeping up with the casters.

I like that Disguise ability being a Feat with a prerequisite of, say, 4 or 5 ranks in Disguise. I'd also like that Feat to be available as a Pathfinder Rogue Trick, or simply a group of bonus feats made available to Rogues like combat feats are available to fighters (ie every other level).

Just to put this into perspective, 1e soft-capped at level 9 and the game was intended to change at this point (indeed the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14). And in 2e the generalist wizard needs to explore for all their spells. One of the huge advantages a specialist wizard gets in 2e is a free spell each level. Also Save or Suck isn't that reliable.

1e/2e were pretty quiet about wizards gaining spells. Most groups I gamed with provided a few spells at each new spell level. SoS (anything allowing a save) had declining reliability as levels increased, for sure a major change in the move to 3e. But then wizards in 1e/2e did not get bonus spells for high INT.

I know it is in mine. My PCs are typically drowning in items and generally are able to do commerce effectively when they are in an appropriate area. I suppose that is an additional disincentive to create one's own items.

Items are still half price, but it definitely makes item creation a "nice to have" more than a "clear choice". Which is what any feat should be.

No it doesn't. It assumes that spending 2 spells to ensure a good night's rest and we progress faster if we sleep in warm beds.

We progress slower with one encounter per day than with three or four.

A problem made easier by Teleport because we get a full powered ambush on the hostage takers, having bypassed their defences.

Provided we can teleport directly to the hostage takers, rather than needing to move through the area to get to them. And how considerate of you to arrive in a tight group, all holding hands, with the wizard in the center (well, part of the chain, anyway). Very handy for those enemy Fireballs and Lightning Bolts. Why dont the hostage takers use the commoditization of magic items to have an anti-teleport device?

They need to prepare every place we've spent five minutes. This is a lot harder than attacking our campsite.

They need to prepare the area you will pass through next. Or they need to pack up and leave in the 23.75 hours you aren't around. Or they need to scry & fry you in your nice warm beds. If their home base isn't defended against that, how is it possible that yours is.

Indeed. L9 it's probably too much. L11 a specialist wizard gets three spells a level higher. L13 it's irrelevant.

I think that's about right. Spells 2 levels lower than my max level definitely are scoured for long-term benefit and/or utility spells. But then, at L13 I can get that nifty Teleport Without Error...

You feel at home in your home base.

Provided home base is within the Teleport range (which should commonly be the case, at least somewhere close enough - hence I used those odds in my example). And provided no one trashes it to the point it is now "an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you". That's a nasty trick for a group heavily reliant on teleportation. And, if you are famous adventurers, the aproximate location of your home base should not be all that tough to ferret out.

And somewhere you can see counts as studied carefully. Which is why you get the scry and fry combo.

“Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently see it, you’ve been there often, or you have used other means (such as scrying) to study the place for at least one hour.

How, exactly, are you scrying? The Scry spell has some pretty specific rules. To me, the fact that scrying to study for at least an hour is mentioned specifically means scrying is not the same as "can currenty see it".

Indeed they will. Which is why you carry a couple of scrolls of teleport.

Which is money (and time if you scribe them) not used for other tools.

It depends. Most NPCs aren't spellcasters. Most spellcasters don't care about the PCs. And the tiny remainder? Should.

So why do the enemies the PC's rack up not have the good sense to hire spellcasters. If magic items are a commodity, there must be plenty around.

 

[LostSoul]

Then again, my most recent experience was having an 11th level NPC druid sneak attack a party of 3 10th level PCs and one fairly weak NPC. Your PCs were a ranger, a monk, and a monstrous character with blink dog abilities and a couple levels of rogue (i.e. no real casters). I definitely optimized that druid and unleashed the rulebook on them, and the PCs totally owned him. None of his offensive spells could pierce their defenses, his animal companion was useless, and his wild shape forms did him no good. I find that happens frequently with casters; tons of options, but most of them don't work, and option paralysis sets in.

This one seems pretty obvious: wall of thorns on the surprised PCs, then spells that damage an area (wall of fire, swarms) and let them burn. The blink dog rogue presents a challenge, but you could probably turn into a bear and grapple him to death (even though he'll escape it'll take him a standard action to do it, and you can just grab him again).