Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Manbearcat]

There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all).

We're over 1.5 years into this effort now. Every time I see a post denouncing somethings inclusion that is clearly modular, I just blink in disbelief. If this game is supposed to be a (a) "modular, big tent, unity edition," then the most fundamental premise is that there will be options in the game that you will not use and that you can happily ignore. The idea that (b) "anti-<n>" lobbies should be vetting/quality-controlling "pro-<n>" modules, and then disallowing them based on their "anti-<n>" sensibilities, is anathema to the alleged design ethos of a modular, unity edition. If anyone's sense is that the 5e (a) design ethos is compatible with this (b) design approach and that the two are not mutually exclusive, I would love to hear that reasoning.

People clarify statements all the time on here with "play what you like" or "YMMV" (which is basically implicit). Whether someone's opinion is that something should be disallowed entirely (eg no modules allowing for it) or "this shouldn't be core/basic" is not implicit. Therefore, it would be nice if these statements were clarified with such a caveat. Because taking the time to write a post disparaging the potential inclusion of something that will clearly be modular (of which won't affect your gameplay) implies that you feel that "modular, big tent, unity edition" is boiler plate bunk. I mean, you can do it. Have at it. But what do you expect the takeaway to be from the readership?

** However, given that, Background Traits seem to be pretty incoherent with that expectation so I would assume that they will not be core/basic.

 

[Alzrius]

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 personally agree with this, though I suspect that there's a sizeable contingent of players who are happy with just such an action. It's worth noting that, for this, the difference between refluffing and reskinning becomes an issue depending on how magic is treated by the game rules.

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.

Again, I agree here, but I suspect that there's only so far that the rules can go in this particular area. One such mechanism for this is a universal mechanic that can be implemented for whatever a player wants to attempt (e.g. something like "action points" that can be evoked every so often for a wide variety of effects), though those might be too homogenous (in helping to distinguish each class in-and-of themselves, if not in each specific use) to really drive home the differences in class, not to mention issues of dissociation (again, as a whole, not for each use - why can't you pull off incredible non-magical stunt X after your action points have run out?).

Having said that, if we accept that some classes will have options that are not only different in various narrative circumstances, but that some will have a greater breadth of options (even without getting into issues of how effective those options are), that's going to lead to "scene imbalance" between classes that can only be corrected by utilizing multiple play-styles in the course of the game fairly regularly. Even blanket statements like "combat is more central than other narratives" are fairly broad generalizations that don't help very much. Given that, at some point it's going to be up to the GM, and not the rules, to make sure that the characters are in a position to exercise their options in different narrative areas with some degree of regularity (though not predictability).

 

[Starfox]

There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all).

Seems likely that you are right. Not even sure if anyone wants that to be a part of that to be part of the basic Next experience. These are not really issues for new players, and so need be in Next core. Franky I'd be surprised if it even became an official module. Perhaps something like Pazio's new Advanced Campaign Guide far down the road?

But this is not a Next thread, it is a general opinion gathering/brainstorming thread for all of DnD and perhaps other systems as well. If nothing else, the energetic participation it seems to indicate it is an issue worth discussing.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

That's why Wall of Thorns is the better spell. Even with a 30 STR you need to roll a 20 to move 10'; the druid can conjure eleven 10' cubes of thorns. The damage they take isn't a big factor (though Dex and dodge bonuses don't count against it), but I don't see how they can get out - not without magic (freedom of movement or dimension door).

While they're in the wall you can deal with the magic-using characters (the blink dog rogue and the psion). You should be able to do that with spontaneous castings of summon spells (the huge air elemental who can keep up with the rogue's mobility) and your animal companion. (Though you should probably be able to kill the rogue yourself as a dire lion.)

Killing the guys in the wall of thorns will be difficult if you don't have the right spells prepared, but since it'll take them a long time to get out, you can whittle away their HP. If they aren't dead by then, they'll be a lot weaker.

They would simply laugh them off as an air elemental (or any summoned creature) has little chance of beating their saving throws/AC.

+19 has little chance of beating their AC?

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.

One spell - not even your highest level spell - can seriously screw up the party, and only the magic-using characters can do anything about it.

 

[Imaro]

Again, I agree here, but I suspect that there's only so far that the rules can go in this particular area. One such mechanism for this is a universal mechanic that can be implemented for whatever a player wants to attempt (e.g. something like "action points" that can be evoked every so often for a wide variety of effects), though those might be too homogenous (in helping to distinguish each class in-and-of themselves, if not in each specific use) to really drive home the differences in class, not to mention issues of dissociation (again, as a whole, not for each use - why can't you pull off incredible non-magical stunt X after your action points have run out?).

Well my ideas on this would be to first balance out the skill allocation in D&D. I honestly believe that mundanes should have more skills than casters. With that done I'd like to see WotC explore something akin to Skill Tricks from 3.5. Where upon attaining a particular level in a skill would allow you to select a number of these tricks (that become progressively more powerful or broad in their capability) that then allow you to broaden and increase the narrative changing capabilites of said skills. I think the rules in 3.5 are a good start but they weren't fleshed out enough and didn't touch on the full range of skills. These skill tricks would give mundane characters the choice of either deepening their skills through extra bonuses (they become more and more exceptional at the said skill) or broadening (they are able to influence more though they are not necessarily getting better) their capabilities. As a quick and dirty example... using stealth/move silently...

Perhaps a depening skill trick would allow a rogue to roll twice and take the better of two rolls on his stealth/move silently check. While a broadening skill trick would allow the rogue's party to use his stealth/move silently score (as opposed to their own) as long as they stay within 10 feet of him. While this example isn't perfect I think a system along these lines could drastically even out the mundane/magic divide without everyone being a spellcaster.

EDIT: Another option I've thought about, which I basically stole from Earthdawn is allowing martial characters to "craft" their own magic items by performing legendary deeds with items and that deed empowering said item. While they would be limited in the type of items they could make, it would be the items that are most used by their class.

 

[Warbringer]

In granting narrative options, meaning the ability to affect the story through player/character actions I think there are three approaches to "I do X to the Y"

1.The action has a target number that the player needs to overcome for character success. This is pretty standard to the game with to hit rolls, skill checks etc, but can easily be adopted into narrative "director" stance by the player using narration to have the right tool available, contacts, a key that they claim they found etc ... (very Tas from Dragonlance).

This is weak narrative control as the control is probability based.

2. The player has a fixed resource that they exchange for the ability to use the narrative "director" stance. Most commonly in D&D this use of spells or extraordinary abilities, but was used a common practice in 4e. In this definition "slots" are fixed resource that the player exchanges for a pre-defined character narrative success; though, often there may be a component of 1. included, but there is also often a lesser success component; ie "on miss"

A variation of "fixed resource" is "variable resource". This is more commonly used in more narrative games (eg Fate) where the player has chips/points to trade in for "triggering" loosely defined powers/abilities/aspects that the player "interprets" within the narrative context. These are often double edged abilities and the player can re-fresh their resources by accepting story elements that put the character at a disadvantage.

Both of these are moderate narrative control

3. The player simply alters the story reality through narration and belongs to storytelling based games.

This is strong narrative control.

In D&D, space should be created for a combination of 1. and 2. and limited (maybe for creating a quest or other great event, 3. (normally "wish" domain)). Most likely, 1. as only spell classes have slots for exchange, outside of 4e

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's why Wall of Thorns is the better spell.

Can't say I was aware that Wall of Thorns was that powerful as written. However, it seems to be that it is essentially a two-dimensional spell, and that an enterprising character could climb/jump up the wall and jump into the trees overhead, or perhaps just scramble over top (the text is not clear on this aspect of the wall, but it seems like something these players would have tried). Also, the ranger has woodland stride (a nonmagical low-level ability), which effectively negates the spell, and is strong enough to carry other characters (which is a cheesy but legit RAW way of getting them out of the area). Again, one or two rounds of running. The caster spent a round creating it in the first place to barely accomplish anything.

You should be able to do that with spontaneous castings of summon spells

We're going awfully far into the details of how I run my particular campaign (as opposed to a generic statement about the game as a whole), but I do not allow my druids spontaneous summoning (and I use the spontaneous casting variant). My druids generally don't do summoning; they could, but those spells are not useful often enough to justify taking if you don't get them for free. And in this case, that full round spent summoning would have been a very dangerous round for the caster, and he would have run the risk of being disrupted.

+19 has little chance of beating their AC?

They're all around low 30's I think, but that's before all that fighting defensively/combat expertise stuff they do and my TB combat reactions. They're 10th level characters, and all of the sort that value AC. And those air elementals target ref saves, which are strong among the light warrior types.

One spell - not even your highest level spell - can seriously screw up the party, and only the magic-using characters can do anything about it.

A few people have taken on this exercise of trying to optimize this scenario, and I'm not convinced that any of you would have done any better if you were controlling my NPC, knew what I knew, and had the time that I had (in-game). We're still solidly in two birds in a bush territory. You can try all these seemingly powerful things, but if they don't work, you run out of options fast.

 

[LostSoul]

Can't say I was aware that Wall of Thorns was that powerful as written. However, it seems to be that it is essentially a two-dimensional spell, and that an enterprising character could climb/jump up the wall and jump into the trees overhead, or perhaps just scramble over top (the text is not clear on this aspect of the wall, but it seems like something these players would have tried).

Good call, I wasn't aware that there were trees.

Also, the ranger has woodland stride (a nonmagical low-level ability), which effectively negates the spell, and is strong enough to carry other characters (which is a cheesy but legit RAW way of getting them out of the area). Again, one or two rounds of running. The caster spent a round creating it in the first place to barely accomplish anything.

Nice catch. Woodland stride doesn't work on magic, but wall of thorns has its own condition. It's kinda vague but I'd go with letting it work.

We're going awfully far into the details of how I run my particular campaign (as opposed to a generic statement about the game as a whole), but I do not allow my druids spontaneous summoning (and I use the spontaneous casting variant).

That does impact their flexibility quite a bit.

They're all around low 30's I think, but that's before all that fighting defensively/combat expertise stuff they do and my TB combat reactions. They're 10th level characters, and all of the sort that value AC.

Ouch, that's pretty high for 10th level.

If I had been running the game I would have dropped the wall of thorns (even if I knew as DM that the ranger could slip out and the rogue could teleport away), figuring that even if they are able to get out, I can summon some dudes to help me out while they're struggling. Without summon spells I don't know what I would have done. Maybe a baleful polymorph on the rogue and then flight, getting back at them later on (using scry and speak with plants/animals to track their movements).

The forest can be pretty creepy when every animal you see might be a wildshaped druid ready to turn you into a frog!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Good call, I wasn't aware that there were trees.

Oddly enough, the trees are a disadvantage for the druid (who does tend to be around them a lot).

That does impact their flexibility quite a bit.

One of the legitimate problems with the core rules is the infinite spell list of divine casters. I contend that limiting that (using a published variant as a basis) is a simple change but one that significantly balances the game and prevents those characters from optimizing to particular situations on a daily basis (and, in some examples people might give, exerting too much influence).

Ouch, that's pretty high for 10th level.

I run high-powered campaigns with high ability scores and lots of magic items (which does tend to shift the balance slightly towards noncasters because they have more MAD and more good uses for money). Also, these are high-AC characters (monk, rogue, ranger). A 10th level wizard probably doesn't have that AC.

Maybe a baleful polymorph on the rogue and then flight, getting back at them later on (using scry and speak with plants/animals to track their movements).

This is what I should have done. I did have Transport via Plants, but I didn't use it fast enough. Me (and the character, in game) clearly underestimated the threat level.

The forest can be pretty creepy when every animal you see might be a wildshaped druid ready to turn you into a frog!

I've definitely got that vibe going.

 

[pemerton]

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?

<snip>

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.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a huge difference between "dumping" INT and CHA to ensure you have sufficient STR, CON and DEX to do you core job as a fighter, and "dumping" STR as an MU and then relying on your friends to carry you rations and water. Even with STR 8 you can carry 26 lb without trouble - that's a couple of spellbooks without any trouble.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

There are a lot of assumptions here about playstyle, campaign design etc. Nothing wrong with those campaigns, playstyles etc for those who enjoy them, but the fact that there are some approaches to the game in which teleport is not a strong strategy doesn't ential that other approaches are inherently flawed.

First, on counter-strategies (and NPCs using the same tactics, etc): this assumes a campaign world in which the PCs are not distinctive in capabilities or stature, but just one of many high level actors. That might work for Forgotten Realms (or similar worlds); it doesn't work very well for Greyhawk (or similar worlds). Greyhawk is not chock-full of arbitrary numbers of high level characters, and high-level PCs (ie 10+) can be expected to be among the most powerful actors in the world. Thus, they will live in some of the strongest towers or fotresses in the world (imperial palaces, Drawmij's underwater hideout, etc), whether as allies of other powerful beings or having defeated them and taken over their houses.

Second, on the enemy "just sitting around waiting": if the game is ToH style, or Maure Castle style - ie a fairly traditional scenario in which the main goal is exploration of an ancient and largely uninhabited fortresss/dungeon/etc, then the "enemy" - the traps, golems etc will just be sitting around waiting, and the casters will be able to nova without cost.

Third, in circumstances where NPCs do use retaliatory scry-and-fry, how does that make the game better? All it does is mean that the PCs suffer the full brunt of NPC caster nova-ing. In my experience it's a good recipe for TPK. Not really conducive to the ongoing campaign, I've found.

I like this. Rather than think about it in terms of moving the classes into other space where they've been traditionally weak, move the space to the them, where they aren't. Interesting.

Thanks.