Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[ImperatorK]

And what does that have to do with rules?

 

[Wicht]

The system is flawed. It's not flawed for some because they have gone way above and beyond the rules and crushed any possible use for spells. If Charm Person on a chamberlain is an abuse of the rules, then of course the only possible caster to play is a blaster. The fact that people are pointing to things like encumberance rules as a limitation for casters shows how little system mastery their players have.

This seems to be another example of hyperbole on your part. I have not read anyone talking about crushing possible use of spells. For Charm Person, I would merely note the limitations placed on the spell, in the rules. It is abusing the spell to use it in a way that bypasses the inherent restrictions in the spell text. DMs need to make sure that doesn't happen and all the rules are enforced, not just the ones that benefit the players.

There seem to be two arguments here. You are arguing that one side is "crushing rules," when in fact the argument is actually being made for enforcing rules via DM authority.

To better have this debate, it would help if you would stop assuming that the actions of the imaginary DM are somehow breaking rules, when no suggestion of that is being made in the examples given. If someone lays out a legitimate reason for the Chamberlain not to be affected by Diplomacy, or even Charm Person, in such a way as to thwart their use, while still using the rules (and even assuming its part of a pre-written encounter), then how is that DM force.

If I as a designer, think ahead, and plan for contingencies properly, then there need be no mid-stream change of the rules, for this scenario to play out as described. It might even be a major plot point. All absent the DM Force Manbearcat describes.

 

[Hussar]

Sure. I'm not saying you can't try to do it. I'm saying if you do it, you're unlikely to get away with it.
/snip

Well, that's goes without saying doesn't it Ahn? You're going to manipulate the game world to negate player actions, your players know that, so they don't do the things you don't like. Pretty simple.

OTOH, in games where GM Force is not considered a viable option, you'd find yourself at an empty table pretty quickly. I know, right now, that if I pulled that sort of thing on my players, they'd walk from my game. And rightfully so. This is not how we want to play the game.

Well, D&D rules do define alignments objectively, and if you read some of the fluff text WotC has written on magic (there's a section of applications of enchantments in Complete Arcane, for example), it becomes very clear that the people who wrote Charm Person see it that way as well.

But yes, I could hardly talk about ethics without bringing my opinion into it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6196848#ixzz2gwhBRjnh

If Charm Person was an evil spell, then why doesn't it have the Evil descriptor? I mean, it's not like WOTC was shy about slapping that on stuff. Animate Dead is an Evil spell by the mechanics. Charm Person is only an evil spell if the GM has decided (ie GM Force) that it is. Considering that burning someone to death (Fireball, Burning Hands) or Disintegrating them are not considered Evil spells, I'm not sure that Jedi Mind Trick is.

Now, what you want to do in your game is fine. But, trying to say that what you are doing is kosher by RAW or RAI is a large stretch.

 

[Hussar]

This seems to be another example of hyperbole on your part. I have not read anyone talking about crushing possible use of spells. For Charm Person, I would merely note the limitations placed on the spell, in the rules. It is abusing the spell to use it in a way that bypasses the inherent restrictions in the spell text. DMs need to make sure that doesn't happen and all the rules are enforced, not just the ones that benefit the players.

There seem to be two arguments here. You are arguing that one side is "crushing rules," when in fact the argument is actually being made for enforcing rules via DM authority.

To better have this debate, it would help if you would stop assuming that the actions of the imaginary DM are somehow breaking rules, when no suggestion of that is being made in the examples given. If someone lays out a legitimate reason for the Chamberlain not to be affected by Diplomacy, or even Charm Person, in such a way as to thwart their use, while still using the rules (and even assuming its part of a pre-written encounter), then how is that DM force.

If I as a designer, think ahead, and plan for contingencies properly, then there need be no mid-stream change of the rules, for this scenario to play out as described. It might even be a major plot point. All absent the DM Force Manbearcat describes.

But, Wicht, in your own words, the Chamberlain would only refuse to allow the PC's access if the King has specifically denied access on pain of death. That's a pretty tiny corner case and completely missing the other 99% of situations where using Charm Person in this way is a perfectly valid use of the spell.

Just because it might not work in one tiny corner case doesn't really mean anything. That's not the "limitations placed on the spell in the rules".

But, I will guarantee that in Ahn's and many other people's games, that Charm Person spell will see my character screwed over. If I use Charm Person (a pretty baseline common spell) I will usually fail, much to the detriment to my character. How is that not DM Force?

 

[Wicht]

But, Wicht, in your own words, the Chamberlain would only refuse to allow the PC's access if the King has specifically denied access on pain of death. That's a pretty tiny corner case and completely missing the other 99% of situations where using Charm Person in this way is a perfectly valid use of the spell.

Just because it might not work in one tiny corner case doesn't really mean anything. That's not the "limitations placed on the spell in the rules".

But, I will guarantee that in Ahn's and many other people's games, that Charm Person spell will see my character screwed over. If I use Charm Person (a pretty baseline common spell) I will usually fail, much to the detriment to my character. How is that not DM Force?

The Chamberlain analogy was not given by Ahn, and the statement about walking out did not ask for clarity as to commonality of such a situation, nor whether or not there was any in game reason it might represent "a corner case." Just a jump from point A to point Z and a flat declaration about other people's games.

The point is, there are valid in game reasons why some things might not work. As I understand the definition that has been given, if the DM uses the rules as written, and is not changing the scenario on the fly, it is not DM force. Therefore, it is not necessary to use DM force to keep players in check, one can simply utilize the rules in a reasonable and compelling way that keeps the game moving.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, that's goes without saying doesn't it Ahn? You're going to manipulate the game world to negate player actions, your players know that, so they don't do the things you don't like. Pretty simple.

No. I'm going to represent the world in a rational way, and the players will behave rationally. No manipulation needed.

If Charm Person was an evil spell, then why doesn't it have the Evil descriptor?

Fireball isn't evil either, but if you use it in a civilized place, there are likely to be consequences.

Now, what you want to do in your game is fine. But, trying to say that what you are doing is kosher by RAW or RAI is a large stretch.

I don't think that the RAI were intended to promote a psychopathic rampage of unstoppable wizards. Do you?

 

[Luce]

Could we focus on what rules specifically are perceptually ignored, which can give the spell casters an edge?
Let me start: 1. Item Creation issues. Can a PC declare at the end on an adventure, "I will be spending the next month item crafting"? How about in this case the DM rolling an random event table and having an burglar break in on say the 17th day? Or having some enemies track the party down and attack (Not arbitrary, but as part of the story and as a consequence of the player's actions)?
2. Spell acquisition. As ready mentioned mid tread, I am on the opinion that the DM controls the access to [uncommon] spells. One does not just get access to say "wright strike" (Spell Compendium) just because one gained a level. It takes time and money to write spells. But most of all the PC have to get access to the spell in the first place. I also feel justifies to deny divine casters certain spells if I feel they are in conflict with the deity/ethos they profess to follow.
3. Consequences. A broad category, but by that I mean that I try to extrapolate the reaction of NPC to the caster's shenanigans. Take the money making examples. If a wizard keeps using the "Wall of Iron" exploit, One the return will eventually start to diminish (supply and demand) and Two there will be some angry merchants and mine owners (aristocrats and experts). There may be a smear campaign, laws can be passed that "unnatural" iron is not accepted, or since people like that have money to throw at the problem assasins/legbreakers may be hired. Not to mention sudden wealth attracts people from the wrong side of the street. This not to punish the players, in fact I would not mind if the PC(s) win. Just in that way while the player's initiative is not denied, there is still an adventure in the process.
tangent/ One of the things I like about previous editions, is that item creation was supposed to be tied to an adventure - even if it is trivial to collect troll blood for CLW potion or medusa venom for "flesh to stone" scroll, the process of seeking out the ingredients makes the players more invested both in the game and the item. /tangent
What rules do you think are overlooked?

 

[Remathilis]

First off, very few uses. That's like asking what uses of weapon attacks would be nonviolent. As even various WotC sources discuss, enchanting a person and taking their free will away from them is a pretty terrible thing to do to that person, and is illegal and subject to harsh recriminations in any civilized context.

To be clear, I'm not talking about it from a metagame perspective. When I say "abusing the rules", I mean using the rules to do things that would be considered abusive by the characters themselves. Magic simply brings with it abilities that have more disturbing ethical implications than fighting or skill use.

I don't want my players to get the idea that using an enchantment against a non-hostile opponent to get what you want is a viable strategy. After all, if it was, the game world would fall apart. Any modestly effective spellcaster would get everything he wanted for free from friendly merchants, be surrounded by an army of slaves, and basically rule his own little world. Obviously, since there is a D&D world, that does not happen in general, and I don't see the players as exceptions.

Many other rules have similar implications. Scry-teleport for example. Even to the extent that it works in the rules, it's just wrong.

Let me jump in here right now to say one thing; magic (even the most innocuous) destroys the D&D world. Clerics can stop plagues and make blindness, deafness, and even death a temporary conditions. Arcane magic destroys the need for knights. Divination revolutionizes crime and punishment. Illusion and shapechange makes credit untenable. Druids can stop famines. Summons can create easy armies and slaves. Travel becomes easy, flight is easy, instantaneous travel comes eventually. Hell, 1/2 of these abilities are available to the lowly adept, the NPC CLASS; no heroic actions needed.

The minute you apply logic and ethics to D&D magic, the who world deflates and looks very alien.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Let me jump in here right now to say one thing; magic (even the most innocuous) destroys the D&D world.
...
The minute you apply logic and ethics to D&D magic, the who world deflates and looks very alien.

I always looked at D&D magic as being rather like Star Trek technology. It seems like it would solve every problem, so to have any kind of story you have to think beyond the basics and imagine what would and could happen if this stuff were real.

 

[MJS]

Sure, as long as its firmly black and white, this all makes sense. I don't think anyone's approach is as radical and player mojo-killing as is being discussed. Diplomacy isn't a spell in the first place. In a lot of games, mine included, saying you want to use Diplomacy on someone is met with crickets...I mean, ok, so...WHAT do you SAY to the Chamberlain? That line of dialog will lead to the same mechanic, but if its completely silly, the reaction should be adjusted. Personally I love it when PCs say hilarious to nobles. Diplomacy gives knowledge of protocol and a fat bonus to the reaction. Am I a terrible, tyrannical DM? Charm Person on the Chamberlain....huge can of worms there. If he makes the save, all hell could break loose. If it works, there will probably be negative, natural consequences down the line. Is that crushing the spellcaster's crystal balls? Obviously not. So, in the end, the solo wizard killed a dragon. A solo fighter beat ToH. Certain spells are problematic in high level games. DMs make rulings, within the framework, to best suit the campaign, as they always have, and always will. That's about it, eh? This whole class vs. class thing is a strawman itself.