Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[pemerton]

But is this really an ability, or just using tactics? In a Combat as War setting, you'd need to develop methodologies for things like this, and ten take 15 minutes or so at every campside implementing them. Sounds more like a playstyle-thing to me.

Are you responding to [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] or to me? (Or both?)

From my perspective, the difference between what I'm suggesting (building on what I took to be your idea) and DannyA, is that my suggestion doesn't require the player to specify what, in detail, the PC is doing any more than a caster player needs to know the details of what, in the fiction, is involved in producing a magical effect. The player, based on a fictional input (the ranger is in natural terrain that provides cover/concealment) is able to stipulate a fictional output (the ranger, his/her campsite, etc as appropriate) is occluded from scrying due to the PC's superlative ability at camouflage.

That's not to say that fictional positioning has no role to play, but it is all at the input stage (is there natural terrain that provides cover/concealment?) rather than at the details-of-resolution stage.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

I'd say 1/3 sounds right for first level. 1/6 for NPC classes. And at all higher levels spells are easier to save against. You go AD&D style in which the spell save depends on the defender, not the attacker. This is why you use Evocation as your primary school of combat magic. Evocation spells do half damage to the target even if they save. It therefore isn't frustration - it simply means that you use save-or-suck or save-or-die spells only when you've somehow rigged the enemy's saving throw.

why play a spellcaster at all?

You mean other than the ability to rain down fire from the sky, to create walls of earth with a snap of your fingers, and the ability to fly? If you want more than that I don't know why you'd play anything other than a spellcaster.

If "teleport in; one battle; teleport out" is such an obvious and powerful tactic

Unless it's incredibly rare. The highest level PC character in Gygax' Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14 - and he was a fighter (see [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for a more comprehensive answer). There are very few teleporters in Eberron. In AD&D you didn't often use Teleport because the chance of veering off course could teleport you into solid rock, causing instant death. Straight up wasn't the problem. Straight down was. Teleport in, fight, teleport out is an obvious and powerful tactic only if you are in a setting with a lot of high level magic users and teleporting working the way it does in 3e/3.5. And in AD&D a 9th level wizard was influential enough that you almost never wanted to risk them with a 2% chance of instant death (studied carefully) or 4% (seen casually). Even teleporting home had a 1% chance of instant death.

Scry and Fry is therefore the nuclear option in AD&D. You only do it against incredibly serious threats because casters are a very powrful strategic resource. It's powerful but high risk. Only in 3e, where they removed the "Teleport into solid rock: Instant kill" is it a problem. And then only in a setting where 10th level wizards are common. And yes, I agree in 3e they should. But in AD&D the chance of any random guardsmen being important enough that Bigby, Mordaniken, or Melf decide to deal with them personally is incredibly low.

Of course if you have decided to assassinate Mordaniken personally then you'd better come up with an answer to teleport shenanigans. But even then he probably won't do it other than to get away because he knows the risk of teleporting low - and until it's too late will probably think it's higher than the risk of being killed by some punks trying to assassinate him. (This, incidently, is another reason for Wizards to build towers - if Mordaniken tries to teleport into his inner sanctum and ends up low then he will only teleport 1" low - or in other words onto the wrong floor of his tower rather than into solid rock - and he gets to laugh at Bigby when Bigby (who has studied his friend's teleportation room carefully) visits him, screws up and teleports 2" low, or into the dungeons).

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,

Why? The tactic failed twice. If it hadn't failed the PCs would be dead. They are probably more alert than previously, but the raiders failed at their objectives. Yes, I'm being picky. But this is part of the problem. Scry-and-fry tends to kill, so you need to drill the entire army in anti-teleport shenanigans.

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.

Out of interest have you also tweaked the attack chances so they don't outstrip even what are now the equivalent to the old good saving throws? But I definitely agree this is an improvement.

It's at least as big an issue as martial healing, in my view, which is to say is at least as worthy of modularisation.

Agreed.

 

[Tuft]

But is this really an ability, or just using tactics? In a Combat as War setting, you'd need to develop methodologies for things like this, and ten take 15 minutes or so at every campside implementing them. Sounds more like a playstyle-thing to me.

The thing is, if we turn these kind of things into abilities or powers that are somehow purchased, either through point-buy or through slots in your class build, you cut into the space for stunts; improvisational, spur-of-the-moment inspiration things.

For example, yesterday in [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] campaign, we ran into an evil wizard pirate captain who had an item we wanted to "aquire". When we boarded, he hid in a force field bubble (i.e. a "Resilient Sphere") to buff and summon.

I got a flash of inspiration and, in best swashbuckling style, cut down a sail and wrapped it around his bubble, partially to cut of his sight and ability to lead, partially so that when he dismissed his bubble he would get entangled by the sail and lose actions to free himself, giving the barbarian a few extra attacks on him before he used whatever magic he was preparing.

If I had needed to have a cut-down-sails-and-entangle-people-with-them power purchased beforehand, I could never have done something like that.


When we played 4E, I once grabbed an opportunity to grab a conveniently placed pillar, and swing around it to knock down an opponent from behind - and the rogue player got furious. He argued that he haid paid for a "use the terrain to move and attack" power of some kind by using one of his rare power picks - and here I tried to do something similar *for free*...

 

[Neonchameleon]

The thing is, if we turn these kind of things into abilities or powers that are somehow purchased, either through point-buy or through slots in your class build, you cut into the space for stunts; improvisational, spur-of-the-moment inspiration things.
...
When we played 4E, I once grabbed an opportunity to grab a conveniently placed pillar, and swing around it to knock down an opponent from behind - and the rogue player got furious. He argued that he haid paid for a "use the terrain to move and attack" power of some kind by using one of his rare power picks - and here I tried to do something similar *for free*...

All I can say is "Bwuh?" Your description of 4e bears no resemblance to any 4e I have ever played. Especially when 4e has explicit place for improvisational stunts written in the DMG and on the back of every single edition of the DM Screen. And recommends terrain powers. The point about a power is that you do not have to ask the DM whether something works. It's just enough of your character that you can always find enough to use it if you meet the criteria.

But there are two basic approaches to understanding powers and under one powers encourage stunts, under the other they hinder them. If powers are a thing then they get in the way. If powers are the in game world representation of what is going on and the character's competences then they encourage stunts because they add definition and competence to the character. (Of course stunt dice, drama dice, and plot points encourage stunts that much more).

 

[Alzrius]

I know Greyhawk very well - I GMed it intermittently from the mid-80s and consistently from 1990 to 1997.

In the mid-80s boxed set, there are two soft-bound books. The thinner one (I can't remember now how it is labelled) sets out the class and levels of the rules of the various lands of Greyhawk. The highest level is the 18th level ruler of Stonefist (the Archcleric of Veluna may be at a similar level, I think). Many of the other rulers are between 10th and 14th level.

The average level of Circle of Eight members is in the upper teens.

This is a total of perhaps some dozens of NPCs in this level range. On the assumption that most of them are not the enemies of the PCs, there are simply not that many scry-and-fry teleporting enemies around.

That's not an issue of Greyhawk having fewer high-level characters, it's an issue of you not citing your sources very well. You say that Greyhawk has fewer high-level NPCs than the Forgotten Realms; since you originally didn't offer any qualifiers to that statement, you pretty clearly referring to the two settings as a whole.

Here's the thing: using just one of the earlier campaign setting products for Greyhawk - which not only has less development than later releases, but doesn't take into account the many, many adventures and sourcebooks also released for the setting - doesn't prove very much unto itself, since you're taking an extremely-specific snapshot of the setting and comparing it to a non-specific view of the Forgotten Realms to prove your point.

Either take everything into account, across the entire product lines, or compare single instances of products with a similar focus that were released at similar times, so that you can at least try to approximate an apples-to-apples comparison.

Presuming you meant that you were looking at the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting, for instance, how many high-level characters does it list compared to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Set?

I guess one might run a campaign in which the PCs first face off against the Horned Society (before Iuz did?), then Iuz and his hangers on, then Iggwilv and Tuerny, then Vecna. But that's only one of many possible GH campaigns. (Also, Eclavdra presumably has trouble teleporting to the PCs for the same reason they have trouble teleporting out of the Vault of the Drow.)

Sure, there are many other possible campaigns. I don't think that it's going too far outside of the baseline expectations of the D&D game to presume that most of those will have enemies with strategic and tactical options that are analogous to those of the PCs with some fairly substantive degree of frequency, rather than being exceptionally rare.

Also, Eclavdra spends plenty of time above ground (e.g. in Dorakaa), so that's not a concern.

People on these boards keep accusing me of being disingenuous. I wonder if they're all familiar with the definition of that word: "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity" (from the Random House dictionary via dictionary.reference.com).

Or perhaps everyone else isn't using the word wrong, and there's a reason that they think that.

What makes you think I'm being insincere? Not everyone whose experiences and opinions differ from yours is a liar (likewise I don't suppose that you're lying about your experiences and opinions just because they differe from mine).

The above example with Greyhawk is a pretty good example. You make a blanket statement about one campaign in regards to another, based on...comparing one boxed set to (while it's never specified, that seems to default to) the entire other campaign world. That does seem to come off as insincere.

The real qusetion is "Are relatively static, exploration style adventures deviations from the D&D norm?" My assertion is No, they're not. Greyhawk is full of them: look at some of the scenario outlines in various Greyhawk products, or classic Greyhawk modules like ToH. Many of these involve explorations of ancient ruins or hunting for myseterious artefacts. They are not particularly time sensitive. If balance between PC options breaks down in such scenarios - because there is no cost to PC spellcasters for nova-ing and then withdrawing to rest - then at a minimum I would expect the rulebooks to mention this. It is not hard to write an RPG rulebook that talks frankly about how the game does or doesn't handle various aspects of balance (Burning Wheel does this; so does Over the Edge).

Notice, in your first sentence here, you talk about "adventures" as opposed to "campaigns." Yes, D&D has adventures that are like that - no one is suggesting that it doesn't, or that such adventures won't be part of a campaign. But what's being suggested is a challenge to the notion that a campaign is made up totally, or even primarily, of such adventures as part of its default assumption (e.g. the assumption used when balancing the expected degree of balance - in terms of narrative options - between classes).

Even Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign ended with the PCs being driven out of Blackmoor by their enemies because they were so busy raiding the dungeons of Castle Blackmoor, for example, that they didn't pay attention to the political maneuvering in the surrounding lands (for more about this, I recommend Jon Peterson's excellent book Playing at the World).

The reason the game doesn't talk about issues of "nova-ing" for spellcasters as being a regular upset for balance between characters is that it doesn't presume you're going to running a game of endless static set-pieces.

But if such scenarios are meant to be part of what your game supports - and I don't think I'm pushing against the traditional boundaries of D&D very much by having run these sorts of scenarios - then the game shouldn't break down.

The game doesn't break down because they're only part of what the game supports, not a majority of it. As stated previously, such adventures can be a viable part of the game - spellcasters deserve their time to shine too - but they're not the sum total of it.

The flipside of this is that if the PC build and player resource rules assume time-sensitive scenarios in which spellcasters cannot nova then this should be expressly stated in the scenario-design guidelines.

See above. Even Gary, in the 1E DMG, stated (in all caps, no less) that you can't have a stable campaign without effective time management.

I don't quite see what this has to do with enemy NPCs scrying-and-frying.

You raised the issue of such tactics leading to a TPK; I'm pointing out why that's not so.

It's not entirely clear, but you seem to be assuming that my players don't strategically plan (whether in or out of character) and that my players don't play strategically.

I'm not assuming anything about your players. I'm responding to the points you raised, nothing more.

I don't know the full raft of 3E options - as I've already noted, it's not my game - but in classic D&D the only teleport-exclusion spells I recall are anti-magic shell (which is 6th level for MUs and from memory has a duration of 1 turn per level) and Forbiddance in UA, which is a 6th level Cleric spell and from memory requires a holy place or somewhere similar to cast it. So locking out scry-and-fry is not all that easy (especially with UA, which makes scrying available in the form of mid-level spells like Magic Mirror). And in any event the stakes are very high - one Fireball spell can wipe out all the MUs on the PC side (d6 dice vs d4 HD). Apart from anything else, this puts a lot of weight on the GM to decide how hard to push with his/her NPCs, and those GM decisions are certainly in danger of overshadowing the significance of player choices in contributing to the overall outcome.

You're making a lot of presumptions here, even within the framework of just using 1E.

By the time the PCs are at the level where scry-buff-teleport is an option, there are options for them to be on guard against it. These don't have to be active spells, since there are magic items, allied creatures, non-magical traps that can hinder attackers, and many more that can be done to foil such an attack. That's not even getting into anti-scrying measures.

But those are the tactical options. There are strategic options here that can be employed within the context of the game world to stop it from getting to this point in the first place. Negotiations, bribes, political alliances (e.g. "if you attack me, my allies from Elysium will come after you"), hostages - all are ways that PCs can interact with NPCs in the game world without it becoming a matter of class (or other mechanical) balance issues...in other words, changing the narrative space that you're working within, and working within another.

Finally, I'm not sure what you think the fireball issue proves, since if one can wipe out your magic-users, that'll be just as true in a dungeon as it is in a surprise attack on their camp.

For me, the bottom line issue is not whether strategic play is fun or not - sometimes it can be, though these days I prefer action resolution-focused tactical play - but whether scry-and-fry is fun. I've played with a lot of it. By mutual agreement my table changed the rules to get rid of it. (First, changes to Rolemaster; then, playing 4e which doesn't have it.) I don't think anyone at my table misses it.

If they don't think that being ambushed is fun, then why don't they act at a strategic level to prevent it in the first place?

It's at least as big an issue as martial healing, in my view, which is to say is at least as worthy of modularisation.

I disagree; see above.

 

[Alzrius]

Playing DnD as a wargame is one valid playstyle. It is not the norm, however. And the discussion has drifted pretty far off topic.

Strictly speaking, no one here is in a position to say what "the norm" is, unless there's been a wide-ranging poll of campaign play-styles of which I remain unaware.

That said, I do think that such a play-style is within the presumptions that the game makes with regard to itself.

Finally, I think that this is within the context of the discussion, since play-style is another way of examining the narrative space options that characters have (e.g. certain play-styles work to highlight, or ignore, certain narrative spaces more than others).

 

[N'raac]

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.

This depends on what you consider "your core job as a fighter". If it is to be a tank in combat, that implies it is not your core job to manipulate the narrative - that job, perhaps, belongs to the spellcasters. We typically used 28 point point buy. That allows 4 14's and 2 10's, among an array of other iterations. Let's see - you could have a 14 INT, 14 CHA, 14 STR, 14 CON, 12 DEX (maxes your bonus in full plate) and 8 WIS. You won't get extreme bonus hp or attack/damage modifiers, but I'd say you're competent as a Fighter, while having 5 skill points per level (as a human, since your stats are unmodified) and a decent CHA. You've traded off being a hulking tank for some extra versatility. You can also access every Fighter feat tree (Combat Expertise requires 13 INT, IIRC).

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.

It does entail that some styles will enhance the power of some spells. XX Person spells are much more powerful in a game with few monsters, since a much greater proportion of enemies are affected by those spells. Does that make them "overpowered"? Not in general, but perhaps in that campaign style specifically. Certainly an Enchantment focuse Wizard will be much more powerful than in a game focused on the Undead Legions of the Lich Lord. The game is, in my view, designed with the expectation of a wide variety of enemies, challenges and encounters. A more focused game may need some changes to take into account the manner in which that focus weakens some options and strengthens others.

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.

If there are few or no equals to the power level of the PC's, Teleport should not be the only ability which seems inordinately powerful. If the PC's are the most powerful men and women in the game setting, then conbat simply won't be much of a challenge to them, and the GM will need to structure other challenges. Such as situations where "killing the enemy" is not a viable "win" proposition. If your goal is to unite the disparate, squabbling Peoples of the West to be ready to face invasion by the Evil Eastern Empire, Scry & Fry on the leadership of the Kingdoms of the West probably isnt your best approach - now we have thrown the whole western sub-continent into leaderless disarray, which doesn't really solve the problem.

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.

If there are only a dozen or so (or, say, 100, including bad guys and uncaring folk the PC's will not interact with) people in the world of L10+, how is it so easy to acquire your pick of 5th level spells as a wizard? If you are "among the most powerful actors in the world", would it not logically follow that very little can actually challenge you, so scry & fry on most enemies is simple, even routine? Perhaps to the point it is not ven worth spending game time on such petty activities of these powerful PC's, and we should relegate them to behind the scenes activity, simply taken as a given for such powerful inividuals. Only those rare enemies of a comparable power level really provide enough of a challenge to merit focusing precious game time on.

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.

In such a case, it makes sense to ensure each indiviual encounter is potent enough to challenge the PC's on its own merits, as a single encounter. "Traditional Scenarios" also include Against the Giants and the Caves of Chaos, where activity by the remaining enemy while you are resting up is not only logical, but expected. As I recall ToH, any single encounter had great potential to be lethal in and of itself, or disarmed with the use of few or no resources limited in their use.

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've already commented on the Teleport aspect of this strategy in light of the RAW spell rules. I'm still waiting for the "scry" strategy which allows for reliable location of the main enemy. One aspect of those very "static environment" scenarios you describe was the hidden nature of many of the threats posed. You can Scry that green devil's head with the wide, black mouth for as long as you want without having any better idea how to deal with it. The Tomb of Acerack will look exactly as bleak and deserted for as long as you want to look. Whether you Scry or get there and stand, looking around but cautiously touching nothing. And, all by himself, Acerak is fully lethal to a high level party fully rested and loaded for bear.

I'd say 1/3 sounds right for first level. 1/6 for NPC classes. And at all higher levels spells are easier to save against. You go AD&D style in which the spell save depends on the defender, not the attacker. This is why you use Evocation as your primary school of combat magic. Evocation spells do half damage to the target even if they save. It therefore isn't frustration - it simply means that you use save-or-suck or save-or-die spells only when you've somehow rigged the enemy's saving throw.

I found that old school moel basically meant wizards would seek out spells lacking a save. Fighters can do damage, thanks. That 10d6 Fireball, 5d6 if we assume the enemy will typically save, lacks Evasion-type abilities or fire resistance, averages 17.5 damage. Meanwhile, the Fighter pumps that out in one swing - and he's getting 2 attacks per round, well on his way to 3, at 10th level. And don't cast it once melee is joined! Assuming we forego Scry & Fry so we have some 5th level slots available, we have Cloudkill (don't let your teammates get stuck in the cloud, and watch out for enemies not needing to breathe), and cone of cold (10d6 damage from a different source, same save for half, and watch out for that Fighter in front of you!) to do damage. Now, if the goal is to have Wizards provide battlefield control (Wall of Force/Stone and Rock to Mud), scouting (Prying Eyes), transport (Teleport) and allies (Faithful Hound, Summon Monster V), we have more options. But spells with a "save means wasted action"? Exercise in frustration if we're down to a 1 in 3 or 4 chance it will do anything. May as well get rid of those spells - the others will be clearly superior choices.

The highest level PC character in Gygax' Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14 - and he was a fighter (see @pemerton for a more comprehensive answer). There are very few teleporters in Eberron.

So why are L5 spells so easy to come by that our newly L9 wizard has his pick of the litter?

Why? The tactic failed twice. If it hadn't failed the PCs would be dead. They are probably more alert than previously, but the raiders failed at their objectives. Yes, I'm being picky. But this is part of the problem. Scry-and-fry tends to kill, so you need to drill the entire army in anti-teleport shenanigans.

Seriously? It failed twice? Why do the PC's keep at it, then? It has weakened the enemy forces, taking out guards on each occasion. The raiders have whittled away a chunk of our defenses. Seems to me they are remarkably effective, so we better find a way to deal with this before we are all wiped out.

Finally, I think that this is within the context of the discussion, since play-style is another way of examining the narrative space options that characters have (e.g. certain play-styles work to highlight, or ignore, certain narrative spaces more than others).

Definitely. If the campaign is just a series of static encounters, "narrative space" means something very different than if it is a complex array of players engaged in political machinations.

 

[Starfox]

* Yawns

Maybe time to start a new thread for the original discussion?

 

[Alzrius]

Maybe time to start a new thread for the original discussion?

"Can't let you do that, Fox."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here's the thing: using just one of the earlier campaign setting products for Greyhawk - which not only has less development than later releases, but doesn't take into account the many, many adventures and sourcebooks also released for the setting - doesn't prove very much unto itself, since you're taking an extremely-specific snapshot of the setting and comparing it to a non-specific view of the Forgotten Realms to prove your point.

The adventures are a decent point. But part of the point of the Realms is that it has a ridiculous amount of sourcebooks as a part of the world and that it is large and high powered. That the Greyhawk campaign setting is called explicitely "World of Greyhawk" implies that it covers just about all the movers and shakers. The very name "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" implies that there is a lot more out there - it's simply the part of the Realms you are expected to campaign in. Now please stop accusing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] of being disingenuous simply because he doesn't make the apples to oranges comparison you would like him to make.

And if you want the all-in comparison, as far as I am aware, Greyhawk never had an equivalent to the FR1-16 series, starting with Waterdeep and the North and ending with The Shining South. And in 2e Greyhawk was treated about as kindly as 4e was later to treat the Realms...

Me, I'd call "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" - which is what Pemerton is taking to be a fair comparison to "The setting as published, ignoring adventure modules" which is what I believe he is taking for the Realms.

Either take everything into account, across the entire product lines, or compare single instances of products with a similar focus that were released at similar times, so that you can at least try to approximate an apples-to-apples comparison.

Why "Released at simmilar times"? If we do that then we have to drop seven years of Greyhawk because Greyhawk was first published in 1980 and the Realms campaign set in 1987. As was FR1 - Waterdeep and the North. And FR2: Moonshae. In short the Realms (two 96 page books) was always intended to be published with supplements - Greyhawk was not other than a little material in Dragon - and World of Greyhawk is a total of 128 pages (i.e. only about twice as long as Moonshae).

And comparing a product that was intended to be standalone (and hence had no immediate expansions) as standalone against one that was released only shortly before its first two expansions that it was intended to be used with is to me the sensible way to do things.