Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[N'raac]

My understanding of 3E maths is that making saving throws is quite hard.

Eg at 1st level a fighter's Will save might be +1 at best, I would have thought (WIS of 12 or 13) whereas the DC against a Charm Person spell would be 10+1 (for level) +3 or 4 (for a 16 or 18 INT) = 14 or 15. So around a 1/3 chance to save. And the DC will scale more quickly than the save bonus.

So let's reverse this - the L1 wizard with the right spell to target the fighter (poor will save and least likely to have a significant stat bonus) still has a 1/3 chance of his most powerful ability failing. How much higher should that chance of failure be? Fighters an wizards are both PC's. If saves are so easy that spellcasting is either an exercise in frustration waiting to finally luck out and have a target fail a save, or an exercise in seeking out spells that will have an impact if the save succeeds, why play a spellcaster at all?

No. It assumes that sometimes the players (and their PCs) can control the pace. The more that "sometimes" trends towards "often", the stronger this use of Teleport becomes.

And the question is why "sometimes" trends to "often or always". "Sometimes" I'd like a specific PC to absolutely shine. But everyone gets their "sometimes", so Teleport as the be all and end all does not work. And where is the adventure planning/design in this picture? Even back in 1e, if I ran a scenario where there would be very few (maybe 1 or 2) encounters in a day, rather than several, each single encounter was more powerful to compensate for the reduced need to husband resources for later encounters/deal with depleted resources from earlier encounters.

And at L15, I can transport myself, three fellow party members and the Druid's Large animal companion. Do we leave the companion behind from L9 to 14? What if we need to take an NPC (we're escorting a diplomat, or charged with bringing back a prisoner to face the judgment of the Great Kingdom)? "One additional medium or smaller creature" tells me that the Wizard's familiar is a separate creature, but Share Spell takes care of that as long as it's the caster's familiar (and it's within 5').

If "teleport in; one battle; teleport out" is such an obvious and powerful tactic, then the world should be developing strategies to deal with it, just like the world developed strategies to deal with better steel, cavalry, gunpowder, firearms, tanks, etc. Those cultures that could not keep up with this arms race became marginalized - so sure, perhaps there are tribes of gblins and orcs with no magical skills or knowledge, but they cant be much of a threat, as they cannot compete with those races who have mastered that magic. They either develop magic of their own, they develop tactics for dealing with magic, or their threat should already be reduced or eliminated by the prevelance of competitor, even enemy, species that have magic.

London to Prague is less than 650 miles, from London to Warsaw less than 900. That covers your basic pseudo-European campaign.

You'll note that my examples also presumed you could have a "very familiar" haven in range for most situations. Still a 3% failure chance, albeit with limited consequences. And still accessible by enemy teleportation.

In the last campaign that featured PCs doing this, the PCs lived in the Imperial palace, working as servitors/advisors to the Great Kingdom. That is a hard safe haven to ambush!

How nice for the PC's to dwell in the only place in all the world where repeatedly teleporting in and out is not the key to victory! Seems like the deck has been nicely stacked in favour of such tactics being successful. Again, if you structure the game to eliminate all the weaknesses of a specific tactic, it hardly seems unreasonable to expect that such a tactic becomes powerful. Now, if one really wants to frustrate the tactic, start builing replicas of the Imperial Palace, stock them with ambushers and wait for that 1% "similar area" - but this implies the PC's are a serious threat to an opponent with substantial resources. Seems like an opponent that might also have a pretty secure safe haven where 'port in/'port out is no more viable than it is for the Imperial Palace.

It may be that, within the fiction, the PCs progress slower. But in my experience players care about the rate of progression in the real world, not in the fiction.

Again, comes down to the reaction of the enemy. They just sit there, waiting for the next raid to take out a few more of them, rather than taking any steps to better defend themselves from these raiders, or flee the area. Sounds like a bunch of creatures whose sole purpose in existence is to provide easy pickings for the PC's. Perhaps they should send out a call for brave adventurers to defend them from the depredations of these mysterious and undefeatable raiders - that normally works, doesn't it?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If a small cadre of raiders Teleport to the PC's location, attack, then withraw by teleportation on Monday, then reappear with the same tactic on Tuesday, will the PC's have a plan for Wednesday, or will they just sit there bemoaning their inevitable defeat from these powerful marauders? The PC's are all L8, so they can't fight back with the same tactic, just to make it a bit tougher (or their enemy is holed up in the Imperial Palace of the Opposing Great Kingdom).

Or, if everyone is hapy, keep using the "fish in a barrell" enemies and the PC's get their power trip. If everyone is enjoying the game, then it's a good game for everyone. If they are not, then something in the game needs to change, right? At the extreme, that ma be removal of Teleport spells in their entirety. In my view, enforcing the rules of the teleport spells, and playing the enemy with a less defeatist attitude, would help a lot.

Oddly, the Teleport spell provides no indication of what happens if your desired location is out of range. I wonder if that just fails, or becomes a false destination (OUCH!)

 

[N'raac]

There are some comments on skills way, way upthread, suggesting that since the fighter will just dump INT and CHA, skills aren't going to help him have a narrative impact. May I suggest that, by dumping CHA and INT, the fighter has CHOSEN to minimize his ability to impact the narrative? You wanted stats that were entirely combat-focused, and abilities that were entirely combat-focused, and now you complain about having limited abilities out of combat. I don't put much stock in Wizards and Sorcerers who complain that their melee prowess is pretty limited, and HTH with those daggers and staves doesnt compete effectively against the Fighter.

"Being good at everything" is an MAD choice, and is likely to mean you won't be "the best" at anything. Chosing to have a bunch of 8's an a few extremely high stats, rather than a spread of moderate stats, is just that - a CHOICE. Just ike a wizard who dumped STR has CHOSEN to have a tough time hauling around rations, water and a spellbook, and should not be complaining when his encumbrance works against him. [Bag of Holding? Portable Hole? So much for Rope Trick!]

 

[Starfox]

Oddly, the Teleport spell provides no indication of what happens if your desired location is out of range. I wonder if that just fails, or becomes a false destination (OUCH!)

I'd be inclined to say it becomes a false destination - there is no location like that in range of the spell. otherwise there'd never be any false destinations - all possible locations exist somewhere if we assume an infinite universe of infinite variety. Eh, that creates some nasty confusion for the unlimited range Greater Teleport - did you arrive at your target, or at any of the infinite other identical places across the infinite universe? Lets not go there. Still, even discounting an infinite universe, it would seem that a location out of range has to be out of mind as far as the spell is considered, and so is a false destination.

 

[Alzrius]

Again, comes down to the reaction of the enemy. They just sit there, waiting for the next raid to take out a few more of them, rather than taking any steps to better defend themselves from these raiders, or flee the area. Sounds like a bunch of creatures whose sole purpose in existence is to provide easy pickings for the PC's. Perhaps they should send out a call for brave adventurers to defend them from the depredations of these mysterious and undefeatable raiders - that normally works, doesn't it?

One of my favorite blogs talks about this (albeit in the broader context of the 15-minute adventuring day), and pretty much comes to the same conclusion. If the PCs have these tactics, odds are that they aren't new tactics, and so NPCs who are of a comparable level to the PCs should have access to these tactics (and their countermeasures) as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones (1/2 move, d8 damage/5 feet moved in a giant AoE field around them)

Well, the monk would run out of the field and his DR would prevent any damage, and he has enough strength to carry the ranger with him without encumbrance (and does). His speed, even halved, would get them out of even a large area within a round or two.

Also, Dimension Door is vertical axis mobility. It's not the same as having a spellcaster's versatility, but that one-trick pony character has a hell of a trick. And, the last time I attacked them from up high in a forest, the monk jumped to the top of a (tall) tree in a couple of rounds. Height is not a huge advantage here.

Large/Huge (uncrittable and non-sneakable) Air Elementals that can pick them up and drop them to the ground for massive damage threshold,

They would simply laugh them off as an air elemental (or any summoned creature) has little chance of beating their saving throws/AC. Also, trying to drop a character with slow fall or dimension door/blinking in a forest is kind of pointless. Also, if said elemental had the melee characters in its whirlwind, it would not last more than a couple of rounds, even with its impressive (for a summoned creature) AC and DR.

(level 10 characters shouldn't have much more than a 12 as their best save - maybe 14 with feat investment - and more likely a 10ish)

I covered this elsewhere, but their saves range from +10 to +20, mostly in the middle of that range. Without any feats, IIRC.

against an enemy that can fly, behind a Wind Wall, with Stoneskin, and Regeneration...and summon a horde of animals (including some that can shoot touch ranged attacks at the PCs) and lob touch fire grenades at them (or just take a nap if they want to and do it again tomorrow after that obstacle course of death is laid out).

Frankly, even if I'd had the time to set up that kind of stuff, the PCs would have just left.

There is no reason to ever engage the PC's only strength; melee.

You're right about that.

That...is narrative control.

That...is a lot of stuff that wouldn't have worked anyway.

The NPC in question was not aware in advance the PCs were coming and did not have ideal time to prepare (nor did the PCs know about him). However, the best realistic outcome for him was a stalemate/escape. I'm not aware of any tactics that would likely have disabled or killed the PCs; maybe inconvenienced them at best. And there was (relatively unmentioned in this dialogue) a psychic NPC for whom range is not a concern who would have flayed the druid alive had the druid not dealt with him first. This is just an example, and everyone's table is different, and there are a few houserules in play here that somewhat increased the PCs' durability and reduced the druid's flexibility. But I'm legitimately trying to build a CoDzilla here, and I'm the DM, and it still doesn't work. Which suggests to me that magic is rather overrated.

 

[Quartz]

Martials (not just fighters) do not have tools that allow them to change or take control of the narrative of the game.

I'm not sure you're right here. Or rather, let me draw the distinction between the adventure and the campaign. Martials can have considerable social powers. Consider Galahad. As a peasant, he'd get shooed away. As a squire, he would be treated courteously. As Sir Galahad, he and his entourage would be given hospitality, and, by the way, could he please deal with this little problem... As Sir Galahad, Knight of the Round Table, he could muster the armies of the realm.

Let's ignore the fighter for a moment and look at the paladin, a traditional leader of men and defender of the faith. What if the paladin had a class ability that allowed them to call forth X number of followers in a settlement. Orcs are attacking the village, the paladin turns to the people of the town and shouts, follow me, and X number of townsfolk grab their spears and off they go. The paladin has inspired the people of the village to follow her. I think that traditionally this would be a "role playing" segment of the game that would be completely at the mercy of the DM's narrative. But what if it worked like a wizard spell (summon monster for instance), in that there may be a saving throw but other than that, the DM doesn't get to object. The paladin has used a class ability to override the narrative and summon forth his followers to fight the big evil.

This I like, but D&D is really mainly a squad-based game and that sort of opportunity is going to be rare, so more properly relegated to a Prestige Class, whereas spellcasters alter the narrative almost by design.

 

[Quartz]

I'm also a believer in medium saves. There are way too many poor saves and not enough granularity.

The 3E base save system is rubbish. I suggest using the 3E epic save system - level or HD / 2 round down plus +2 Class Bonus where a Class or Prestige Class grants a Good save. It's simple and works a treat. No one has poor saves, and no one gets unbeatable saves.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The 3E base save system is rubbish. I suggest using the 3E epic save system - level or HD / 2 round down plus +2 Class Bonus where a Class or Prestige Class grants a Good save. It's simple and works a treat. No one has poor saves, and no one gets unbeatable saves.

I don't think that particular approach has enough granularity for my tastes, but certainly, 3e's basic math is not unimpeachable.

 

[Imaro]

Hm, good point you make here. What I meant to say about the three pillars is that the word "narrative" in this context is so badly defined that it is actually useless. We spent pages on this thread just trying to find a definition, and the best we came up with was "non-combat". Compared to that, the three pillars do seem like an improvement - and the pillars being three (not just combat/noncombat) implies there might be more, so there is room for considerations like "investigation". Still, we can't make the pillars too many, or they outweigh combat - a lot of table time is spent on combat, and thus combat abilities matter alot.

But as you point out, there is another possible meaning of "narrative powers", and that is what you call scene framing. Like the infiltration power mentioned upthread, which is really a subplot resolved in an abstract manner. And some spells fall into that category, but DnD mainly shies away from such powers, especially for martial characters. DnD has traditionally been much too stimulationist to include off-stage events as powers. Perhaps those who deride this discussion and say martial characters should use what abilities they have instead of complaining have a point here - if you want to get the effect of as spell through hard work and skill, you should play that out and not ask the rules to give it to you for free. At the same time, if there are two possible ways to do something - one involving an hour or more of difficult role-play, the other involving a simple spell, most parties will take the spell, letting the spellcaster outshine the rouge. In 4E when many of these powers were made into lengthy rituals, some of my players complained that the magic got pre-empted by cruder but faster mundane solutions - a complete turnaround from earlier editions. Balance is so hard to achieve.

So, where does this lead us? Well, primarily it lets us refine our language, breaking up the fuzzy term "narrative" into different sub-meanings that are more useful and comprehensible, such as the "three pillars" and "scene framing" - tough I still think we need a better term for the later. We need to develop the concepts and tools before we can come to grips with the problem itself.

First let me say I think this is a really good post that touches on an important issue surrounding those pushing for mundane characters to have more/a different type of narrative control...

Emphasis mine... I think this is a more important part of the discussion than its been given credit for so far. Now first let me say that in all honesty, I have a slight distaste for these auto-change "powers" that would allow mundane characters to just make things happen (not in general but in D&D), and I wasn't sure why until you made this post. I think it's because essentially it feels like all you're doing is creating a new type of spellcaster and then claiming he's not using magic. now in many games (like Fate, MHR, Heroquest) there is little to no mechanical difference between spellcasting and climbing a wall and for those games I have no problem with a power like the above because mundane and magical interactions work the same (mechanically) in those games. However, In (pre-4e) D&D, that's not true... magic has it's own set of rules and limitations when interacting with the gameworld. While interaction with the gameworld on a mundane level has, for the most part, it's own seperate set of mechanics and limitations... and I honestly think some/many/a majority of D&D players like it this way. I personally don't want to play a fighter or rogue that uses "spells" but slaps a different coat of paint over them. and claims they aren't magic.

I also think that powers like these kind of defeat the purpose and fun of playing a mundane character vs. a spellcaster in the game. If I wanted to cast a spell and make something happen I would have chosen one of the numerous spellcasting classes. The type of martial/mundane character I like playing lives by his wits, skills, physical prowess and luck. More robust skills, with more varied options and even extraordinary feats attached to them at certain levels I can get behind for a mundane character... even a luck point system or specialized feats only they can pick that enhance mental and physical abilities... but meta-game mechanics that let me change reality at a whim, that's a spell in my mind and I'm not sure I want martial characters to become just another spellcaster if there are other options.

 

[Starfox]

I'm not sure I want martial characters to become just another spellcaster if there are other options.

Which is what this thread is all about. The problem is just that, finding those other options - and what options are not palatable to us and to the general D&D audience.

Thanks for a nice post.