Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Warbringer]

There was a suggestion many moons ago to have a feat tract and a trait tract to offset sacrificing expertise feats in favor of flavor feats. I think here something similar would would work, maybe a trait every 3 levels

So what is a trait... whatever you need it to be to make the narrative space more engaging for you. It could be action points, it could be "slots", it could be skill tricks; whichever, they grant the player specific tools to interact directly with the narrative outside of the class core abilities

 

[The Mormegil]

*Answering the OP*
The problem as I see it is that by having classes that are based on not having any magic you are cutting them off of magic. I don't know if there's people who don't care, I don't know if there's people who didn't notice or even like this, but look at it from a system standpoint.

What is D&D about? Fantasy roleplaying. What is fantasy? Well, mostly how stuff could be with magic. Low magic, high magic, technomagic, whatever you call it, if there ain't dragons it ain't D&D. So, magic is a pervasive element in the narrative, it's expected to be, it's important and people know it. There's tons of rules for it. There's also tons of fun to be had with it. It's goddamn magic!

And yet we keep allowing classes whose main characteristic is "I dun deal wit dat stuff duh". So, basically, we have characters that when confronting with the most interesting and important part of the setting (I admit this is arguable, but still, it IS important), have the only option to say "duh" or "I'll be over there doing other stuff". There's a mysterious light pillar in the center of the room: what's the fighter to do? Well he ain't rolling Knowledge (arcane) for it that's sure. He isn't going to use an Identify ritual or whatever the system has in place to understand what's going on.

Now I get the whole "spotlight" point of view. I will also flat out state that I believe it sucks, because a game should not aim to make sure everybody is equally bored, it should make sure everybody has fun while playing. I want everybody to be able to participate in each meaningful scene. But that is not something really important to the point. Why? Because the other classes aren't arbitrarily cut off from important pieces of the game. A wizard can contribute to fights. To "balance" his advantage in magic-based situations you could argue he should suck in every fight and have nothing to contribute, and I think there's people that believe that should be true.

However even if you do that (and you don't), wizards will still be able to contribute to fights. Ever had that brilliant moment where the wizard without spells loosened the chains of an enraged beast who slaughtered the orcs and allowed the party to win the fight? Or the wizard who just blew up the whole place with a well placed... torch?

There is an intrinsic problem with magic. And that is, to be blunt, that it isn't real. You don't know how magic works, but you bloody well know how a torch works. If your character has no in-game, systemic ways to interact with magic, you may as well just shut up in magic-based situations. But if your character has no idea how to approach a social situation, you can always contribute ("You shouldn't because roleplay and blah blah blah" whatever you can. With magic no you can't, unless you try stuff at random and hope it works, and I've seen plenty of fighters doing exactly that, even if occasionally they blew the party up, because doing nothing is no fun.)

You could argue that a "proper" and "consistent" magic system would solve that, but first, it requires extensive out-of-character knowledge of system mechanics that newcomers won't have, and second, it won't work on anything houseruled or invented for the adventure. I guess that's where the love for gargantuan spell lists comes from, but I really think that's not the best path to remedy this problem. It restricts the DM and it creates disparities, problems and excludes new players.

What I think is truly needed to "balance" fighters and wizards from a narrative point of view, is ways for the fighters (and rogues and warlords and... everyone) to interact with the most interesting part of every setting: MAGIC.
It doesn't need to be spells. It doesn't need to be skills. It doesn't need to be the same ways wizards or priests or what-have-you interact with magic. It can very well be what sets the class apart from everyone else (ever wondered why Spellthieves were so popular in 3.5, even though the class had literally NOTHING worth anything to anyone ever? I think this is the reason: they had a unique approach to magic, RP wise).
Let barbarians smell magic. Let rogues steal spells and eldritch tapestries. Let rangers create magic traps (and therefore know about them). Let fighters understand magic, damn it, why wouldn't they? Hey, here's this thing called magic, it reshapes the world, but no don't learn anything about it even though you may very well be killed by a fireball in battle, you won't need it and you're too dumb lol. They don't need to be doing magic, but I bloody well know that airplanes fly and have wings without being an engineer! I know how a computer works on a surface level and I use a computer every day without being a programmer! Why would anyone in any fantasy world ever decide to not interact with magic, anyway?

TL;DR: you should make sure every character can do stuff about magic because not being able to sucks. Invent creative ways to achieve that goal without making everything into a wizard.

 

[Starfox]

A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.

If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).

Actually, I feel the opposite. Charm spells are useful, but require opposed Charisma rolls - good for a Sorcerer or Bard, not for a typical Wizard. Charm applies only to the caster - the creature might well snack on your comrades and offer you a bloody haunch as a friendship gift. And Domination is like running a puppet - you can make it say anything, but you cannot ask it questions. (Depends on how you interpret "actions", but to me it speaks of action in a tactical game aspect - I suppose some DMs let creatures spell the beans when dominated). Diplomacy and Bluff are reliable means of extracting information in a friendly manner, Intimidate is a reliable and easy way to extract information from a prisoner or someone you can bully.

It is common in scenarios to note that that a creature will only divulge information if magically coerced, but I can't find any support for this in the spell descriptions - a creature opposed to telling you something critical will actually get extra saves not to do so, unlike with skills. For really certain interrogation, you need telepathic abilities, and then we're talking about quite high-level abilities.

In the end, I feel the DM can always play this to reveal just as much as he likes, and the DM's agenda for the adventure trumphs both skills and spells.

 

[N'raac]

A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.

Starfox has outlined some of the limitations to this approach above. I also expect most targets would be hostile once the charm ends and they know they have been ensorcelled. Of course, if the GM lets the players reapply the spell. with perfect knowledge of when it will wear off and/or has the target shrug off this use of magical coercion as no biggie (when being forced, intimidated or blackmailed - that is, coerced non-magically - would have made him a permanent enemy), then again, magic gains power over the mundane.

If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).

So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?

I would add an appendix here - social skills, like spells, are every bit as effective against PC's as they are against NPC's. That amazing diplomacy check means the PC's views have been changed, and he must be role played accordingly. As you say, physical conflict resolution doesn't get a "player veto", so neither should any other form of conflict resolution.

I can already hear the cries of "He's MY character" - yes, he is, and YOUR CHARACTER has been persuaded of the rightness of the NPC's cause. That's no different than being Charmed, or being wounded - that's the result the dice dictated, so play in accordance with it.

 

[Starfox]

I would add an appendix here - social skills, like spells, are every bit as effective against PC's as they are against NPC's. That amazing diplomacy check means the PC's views have been changed, and he must be role played accordingly. As you say, physical conflict resolution doesn't get a "player veto", so neither should any other form of conflict resolution.

Tried that, doesn't work. PC are special. Each of them has as much personality behind them as the whole rest of the world. Can't get around that easily.

On the other hand, IMC PC's tend to be insured against death and most permanent injury too. PC deaths simply doesn't work well in a storytelling game.

 

[Starfox]

you should make sure every character can do stuff about magic because not being able to sucks. Invent creative ways to achieve that goal without making everything into a wizard.

In games like Earthdawn and in anime-inspired fantasy, everybody is a magician - some magicians just happen to be swinging swords. Pathfinder is also moving in that direction, with the new semi-magical classes like Magus and Alchemist. But DnD has always had a tradition of allowing characters to be mundane, and yet to act on the same stage as magical characters, and for many players that is an important distinction. So the option to be nonmagical should be there, just as the option to be semi-magical, demi-magical, fully magical or any other degree each player wants.

As a comparison, everyone today can use a smartphone - its like using a magic sword, just swing it. But not everyone can get the most out of it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Starfox has outlined some of the limitations to this approach above. I also expect most targets would be hostile once the charm ends and they know they have been ensorcelled. Of course, if the GM lets the players reapply the spell. with perfect knowledge of when it will wear off and/or has the target shrug off this use of magical coercion as no biggie (when being forced, intimidated or blackmailed - that is, coerced non-magically - would have made him a permanent enemy), then again, magic gains power over the mundane.

So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?

A couple of things here. I've never ruled (in any edition) that the target of a successful Charm spell understands that they were under the effects of a mental compulsion for the duration of the spell. Only in scenarios of extreme outliers (such as if the player tries to get the NPC to do something specifically antagonistic toward its own nature...or if the NPC is a well accomplished spellcaster) would I consider this ruling.

My understanding is that the rulebooks agree with that approach. I can't find it right quick in my old books but I know the 3.x books find it this way on PHB p177:

"Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. For example, if you secretly cast charm person on a creature and its saving throw succeeds, it knows that someone used magic against it, but it can’t tell what you were trying to do. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, such as charm person, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells"

It provides ruling guidance for successful saves only and is silent on failed saves; the space for reasoning therein indicating that the target doesn't reflexively "wake up and know they've been snookered and are subsequently hostile." The target feels a hostile force or tingle on a failure but cannot deduce the effect (unless, also implicit, they are an accomplished spellcaster with the accompanying acumen). No tingle on duration running out and puzzling over or inability to deduce the affect...and certainly nothing declaring stock awareness of the effect and SoP deduction of a magical compulsion.

Grabbed my Fate Stargazer right quick and it basically handles "Black Magic" Power of Domination charm the same way (there are gradations in the Trappings and Stunts but this is Charm specifically):

"A subtle maneuver which isn't immediately obvious, this places a temporary aspect on the target. It is resisted by Resolve or an appropriate power skill. On a failure, the target may not know the character tried to charm them."

Hypnotize more aggressively asserts "on a failure, the target knows the character tried to Hypnotize them."

Again, both silent on success but provides ruling guidance on failures.

4e D&D just mechanizes the various iterations of the power with the Arcane keyword, gives you a bonus to Diplomacy or lets you use Arcana instead of Diplomacy and says something akin to "You weave magic into your words, defusing a dangerous situation through the fine art of diplomacy." No duration and nothing about deducing a hostile invasion of your autonomy by a magical compulsion and becoming hostile. More apropos is the Ritual version of the spell (Call to Friendship). It has duration and its effect and duration depends on your Diplomacy check. On memory and behavior post-Ritual, it says; "Once you complete the ritual, make a Diplomacy check to determine the effect it has on the target. Once the ritual’s duration expires, the target’s attitude returns to normal. The ritual does not affect the target’s memory in any way." Post-ritual target's attitude reverts to normal and memory is unaffected.

For what its worth, I just asked a few folks who are not gamers what they intuitively felt the situation would be post-charm. The consensus was that the target might be conflicted/puzzled if, at the end of the duration, they were doing something or in a place that they never would have been in otherwise (eg all of a sudden they are in a tavern that they outwardly hated or vowed to never go to). If this were the case, depending on their intelligence or understanding of spellcasting, they maybe should get some kind of check to surmise the truth of things. Beyond that though, no reflexive deduction or hostility. I don't recall if that was my intuitive response to the spell when I first started playing but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

 

[Mike Eagling]

A couple of things here. I've never ruled (in any edition) that the target of a successful Charm spell understands that they were under the effects of a mental compulsion for the duration of the spell. Only in scenarios of extreme outliers (such as if the player tries to get the NPC to do something specifically antagonistic toward its own nature...or if the NPC is a well accomplished spellcaster) would I consider this ruling.

I've always assumed the subject of a successful Charm spell comes down off their charm-high and generally thinks "What on earth was I thinking?!" but doesn't necessarily attribute the effects to magical coercion. This is obviously dependant upon the circumstances.

My understanding is that the rulebooks agree with that approach.

The 1e AD&D PHB or DMG say:

This spell will affect any single person or mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way. Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature holds back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two".

Remember that a charmed creature’s or person’s priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one’s basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee’s former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee’s feelings toward the charmer’s friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the charmer’s allies making suggestions like ”Ask him this question . . .” The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer, but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical abuse from the charmer‘s associates.

the space for reasoning therein indicating that the target doesn't reflexively "wake up and know they've been snookered and are subsequently hostile."

I agree but if done repeatedly upon the same subject, such as a town official, I'd argue their reaction would be significantly more hostile than if the same effect had been achieved through a mundane diplomacy or charm ability.

So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?

Agreed, this is clearly ridiculous. Just because a reasoned argument made sense at any given point in time doesn't mean people can't change their minds later or be influenced by changing circumstances.

As indicated above (at least as far as 1e is concerned) there's noting particularly certain about a magical charm.

 

[Warbringer]

Pinning down what's the acceptable design space for these mechanics is a serious question. Mechanics like "Here's one I prepared earlier" or "I'm calling in a favour" are controversial in D&D if not preset but retconned into existence, but these are the sort of mechanics that are essential for narrative space options.

Social mechanics can seem to be location dependent e.g. some could be argued as working only in civilised area, while some exploration mechanics may also be useful in limited circumstances. Which is a problem as the less reliable mechanical features are, both in a binary work/doesn't work way and in a chance of working way, the less useful and attractive those features are compared to competing features which may be more reliable. I certainly know I choose features with the best combination of reliabiity, chance of being useable and power. unless prioritising flavour over raw power, and even then marginally useful abilities are likely not to make the cut.

I'm just bumping this as its an interesting position that unfortunately ended up at the bottom of a page

 

[pemerton]

So Charm and Domination can wear off, but one successful Diplomacy check will mean the target is your obedient slave for life?

Agreed, this is clearly ridiculous.

That must be why I didn't assert this.

It's hard to have a successful conversation if absurdities which weren't asserted are going to be imputed. Instead of looking to examples that actually were referenced, like 4e skill challenges. I'd also refer to social resolution in The Dying Earth, or The Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel. Both mechanics deliver finality without absurdity.

EDIT: If the only way that players of fighters and rogues have to effectively change the narrative space is to have their PCs kill things, then they will take that approach. This has been a recurring issue in D&D.