Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

1. You are still using a 9th level spell to fuel (multiple) 9th level spells. (Even the Astral Projection trick had a cost attached to it.)
2. See text for short term service:

1. No you a looking at a 9th level spell being used to compel another creature to cast spells for you.

2. Again, I think wish reasonably falls under "more involved" forms of service, as per the spell text.

 

[N'raac]

1. You are still using a 9th level spell to fuel (multiple) 9th level spells, even under your interpretation that there is a cost involved.

What is the definition of the word "commanded"?

What is the definition of "a service"? Three wishes seems like three services, not one service. But I don't see where Noble Djinn can grant wishes at will - they need to be captured. Oddly, the spell is silent on what happens if you and the Called being cannot reach agreement as to a fair price for the desired service. Perhaps he is captured - but can still bargain to collect a fair price for his services.

 

[Ranes]

Gate. Noble Djinn. Three Wishes.

The grand caliphs (who would be noble djinni) of the elemental plane of air tired of such shenanigans a long time ago. They are perfectly within their rights to prevent gates from opening anywhere in their presence or indeed domains, enabling them to go about their business on their home plane free from fear of this method of abduction and forced servitude.

Such possibilities are made clear in the spell's description.

 

[Dandu]

2. Again, I think wish reasonably falls under "more involved" forms of service, as per the spell text.

Does casting Wish take more than 1 round per caster level, or are you referring to other text in the spell? If so, please provide a citation.

What is the definition of "a service"? Three wishes seems like three services, not one service.

If you called a Solar into battle and ordered it to fight three of the BBEG's mooks, would that count as three services or one?

But I don't see where Noble Djinn can grant wishes at will - they need to be captured.

I am fairly certain that if you abducted your neighbor's daughter for 1 round per caster level, you will be charged with kidnapping. Thus, I see Gate as capturing the djinn - not that it matters because if you Gate it for immediate tasks, you can command it.

[h=2]¹com·mand[/h]verb\kə-ˈmand\: to give (someone) an order : to tell (someone) to do something in a forceful and often official way
: to have authority and control over (a group of people, such as soldiers)

: to deserve or be able to get or receive (something)

Oddly, the spell is silent on what happens if you and the Called being cannot reach agreement as to a fair price for the desired service. Perhaps he is captured - but can still bargain to collect a fair price for his services.

Price is irrelevant; no reward is needed for an immediate task.

The grand caliphs (who would be noble djinni) of the elemental plane of air tired of such shenanigans a long time ago. They are perfectly within their rights to prevent gates from opening anywhere in their presence or indeed domains, enabling them to go about their business on their home plane free from fear of this method of abduction and forced servitude.

Such possibilities are made clear in the spell's description.

The relevant text:

By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord.

Please find a section of the spell text to support your argument.

 

[N'raac]

I think this is simply another example of there being reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of the spell description, and a reasonable one says that Gate doesn't get three more 9th level spells with a higher cost available for free. If we start with the premise that rules interpretations should not give unreasonable results, we typically end up with a reasonable read on the spell.

An even more simple read would be that you can specify the individual called by name, or its species, but not its occupation or standing within that species, meaning you can call a Djinn. Whether you get a Noble one? Well, there's a 1% chance...

What happens when the Djinn causes a Gate spell to be cast from his home dimension and names your Wizard?

 

[N'raac]

Does casting Wish take more than 1 round per caster level, or are you referring to other text in the spell? If so, please provide a citation.

Nowhere does it say he CASTS wishes. It says he grants them, and he is capable of doing so only when captured. As I note above, you could command him to allow himself to be captured, but remaining captured is not an immediate service, and I doubt too many Noble Djinn can't figure out what comes after being captured.

If you called a Solar into battle and ordered it to fight three of the BBEG's mooks, would that count as three services or one?

Does he need to travel in between? "Fighting for you in a single battle" is one service. If those three mooks are in one battle, in which you are engaged, immediate service. If not, you are asking him to hunt down and kill three separate targets, which is three tasks (none of which strikes me as "immediate").

I am fairly certain that if you abducted your neighbor's daughter for 1 round per caster level, you will be charged with kidnapping. Thus, I see Gate as capturing the djinn - not that it matters because if you Gate it for immediate tasks, you can command it.

Once again, you take the interpretation which carries an overpowered result, and then complain that the wizard is overpowered as a consequence. It does matter - there is nothing in the rules which says a Noble Djinn can grant wishes if he is not captured.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think combat has "failure" results, actually. This strikes me as the "failure is not possible" model, as the PC's always have some new option for achieving their goals. No thanks - maybe they are dismissed by the Chamberlain and need to go about this some other way. Maybe, sometimes, they must be proactive and create their own opportunities, not follow a trail of bread crumbs as the GM continually sets new scenes where they can succeed after all if they just make that roll this time.

This is just incorrect (and its got a lot of company in that post). You're working considerably hard at this but I swear, as the word count is increasing, the accuracy of the assessment of the differences in the two playstyles in total, and in the component parts, is decreasing. There is so much going on in each and every post to achieve any clarity. Compounding errors in understanding is the fact that there is far too much incorrect extrapolation of fundamental issues inherent in the analysis, or a conflation of multiple, incorrect (or A Bridge [WAY] Too Far) extrapolations or reductions to the point that all meaning is lost.

We need to break out component parts and examine them. Building an edifice on a wobbly foundation dooms the whole project. Simple things like:

- DMG information (such as market price of a ritual/magic item) as metagame information for GMs to create functional/balanced/of-level challenges versus information for GMs to world-build.

- Objective DCs that connote a living, breathing world to satisfy immersion/sandbox requirements versus subjective DCs to satisfy functional scene-based play where the GM is expected to frame the PCs directly into of-level, thematically relevant action/conflict.

Just those two differences alone bring about an extremely different playstyle/GMing orientation and subsequent table experience. This follows from "Rulings Not Rules" versus "Say Yes or Roll the Dice."

With the above in mind and with respect to the quoted bit at the top, would it be helpful if I posted an play example of how the above scene would manifest in 4e or Dungeon World or 13th Age (you pick) and you can take a look, read my analysis/breakout, reorient your thoughts accordingly, and then post commentary? Given your clearly conveyed preferences, I will say, that I suspect that you will not like the playstyle dynamics that it engenders. However, I will also say that it is unfortunate because in reading your posts, I get a sense that you would likely be a very good GM for any of those systems.

Let me know and I'll put the effort in to create a play example of "The Obstinate Chamberlain" scene in one of those 3 systems.

 

[Ranes]

Please find a section of the spell text to support your argument.

"Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening intheir presence or personal demesnes if they so desire. "

That's from the spell description. I believe it is also 'relevant text'.

Manual of the Planes describes the Elemental Plane of Air as being divided into realms ruled by caliphs and grand caliphs. Ergo, each of these rules a planar realm.

 

[TwoSix]

Why not? Genuine question? Red Herrings, false trails, and social roadblocks are standard fare for a scenario of court intrigue, and/or mystery. Why should I tell players upfront things I would prefer their characters should discover for themselves via interaction with the game world?

Sure, if the game is a social intrigue one, then it would make more sense. More importantly, they can use the obstinance of the Chamberlain to drive the fiction. You can use Insight checks to try to decipher what makes him nervous. You can Intimidate in the hope that he'll tell you why you can't see the king.

If there's an obstinate chamberlain that is framed in the scene, he should be there for a reason. Successes against the chamberlain should give you progress towards your ultimate goal. "Seeing the king" isn't a goal in a narrative sense, because there's no internal conflict. "Determining why the royal army is in an open state of hostility with Duke Dungslinger despite the friendship of the duke and the king" is a goal with narrative and thematic heft that may have "see the king" as part of the possible events of the storyline. And you can certainly have a social intrigue game where you meet the chamberlain, you attempt to sweet-talk him with Diplomacy, and he tells you nervously that the king is not receiving visitors, while casting nervous glances at the man in the red doublet chatting with the Earl of Swayzeham in the corner of the great hall.

And yes, I would make up those details in the game just like I made them up right here for this post. I probably didn't have the idea for the "king is being mind-controlled by Lord Darknevil" right up until the players showed up at the castle, because that's how these games roll. Bonus points for tying Lord Darknevil to some background of one of the players, to make it more interesting. Maybe one character has an Aspect of "Escaped Acolyte of the Cult of Daimon". Guess who Lord Darknevil works for?

 

[TwoSix]

This is just incorrect (and its got a lot of company in that post). You're working considerably hard at this but I swear, as the word count is increasing, the accuracy of the assessment of the differences in the two playstyles in total, and in the component parts, is decreasing. There is so much going on in each and every post to achieve any clarity. Compounding errors in understanding is the fact that there is far too much incorrect extrapolation of fundamental issues inherent in the analysis, or a conflation of multiple, incorrect (or A Bridge [WAY] Too Far) extrapolations or reductions to the point that all meaning is lost.

Honestly, I'd settle for "I don't get why you want to play this way, but I don't think you live on Crazy Street in Loserville."