Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Dandu]

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...

So you are ok with getting a noble djinn as long as the wizard casts, on average, a hundred Gates?

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

If the wizard is, like most PCs, a native of the Material Plane and on it at the time of the Gate, he does not have the Extraplanar subtype and can't be called through.

Nowhere does it say he CASTS wishes. It says he grants them, and he is capable of doing so only when captured.

I do believe calling him to a place where he cannot leave for a duration counts as capturing. At least in the eyes of the law, it is.

Again, if you went and held your neighbor's daughter against her will for one minute, would you be charged with having captured a child?

"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'.

You know what is also relevant text?

[h=6]Planar Travel[/h]As a mode of planar travel, a gate spell functions much like a plane shift spell, except that the gate opens precisely at the point you desire (a creation effect). Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening in their presence or personal demesnes if they so desire.

The text you quoted is for planar travel, not calling creatures. That is a pretty big difference, don't you think?

I agree, first of all, that Gate, does not in and of itself equate to capturing a Noble Djinn, therefore no wishes from that angle.

Why can I not use Gate to try and capture a noble djinn? A noble djinn is not a deity or unique being, after all. (Unless we are talking about the long contained, often imitated, never duplicated GENIE OF THE LAMP!)

Again, I am using the PFSRD, but the spell is essentially the same, excepting the switching of gold for xp. Bolded sections are the relevant quotes and make me feel secure in thinking wish granting free of charge is not what the spell is going to get you.

You can command it for the short term, which granting Wishes. It does not take very long to issue three wishes and have them granted.

A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.

Bolded sections are the relevant quotes and make me feel secure in thinking wish granting free of charge is what the spell is going to get me.

Incidentally,

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

If you will check out the text of the spell, service is defined.

 

[pemerton]

You just told us above that we don't want scenes merely for colour.

I said I don' want colour scenes framed as action scenes.

The previous roll to goad the advisor, taken directly from your example which was followed by an effort to either get a bonus causing success or a second roll, which you may or may not have allowed with no roll. And which you noted required that the player justify in terms in character which, as I read that, you had to adjudicate.

<snip>

Yet previously, when we suggested the GM had to make judgment calls, you told us no, he doesn't.

<snip>

You, the GM, making a ruling, as the ultimate arbiter - the last word - of the results in game.

<snip>

Again, I see the GM making the unilateral decision whether the action resolution mechanics will be engaged, or whether they will not. That is GM control.

<snip>

Here again we see the GM being required to make interpretations and rulings.

<snip>

The GM has no power to veto their actions? Above, he had to establish the credibility of the actions declared. Where did that power go?

None of these is about ultimate arbiter of events in the gameworld. And I have never denied that the GM has to make judgements - when you imputed to me (on no evidentiary basis) the view that the GM's role is purely mechanical I vehemently denied the imputation.

Being ultimate arbiter of the fictional positioning of PC; being ultimate arbiter of any credibility tests; being ultimate arbiter of whether the player has to engage the action resolution in order to impose his/her will upon the fiction; NONE OF THESE IS THE GM BEING ULTIMATE ARBITER OVER THE EVENTS OF THE GAMEWORLD.

In the first case it is the player who gets to decide, given his/her PC's fictional positioning, what his/her PC does. (For instance, in the example of play that I gave it was the player of the wizard who decided to contribute to the goading of the evil advisor, and thereby successfully goad him into attacking.)

In the second instance it is the player who gets to decide, within the limits of genre and mechanical paramaters, what his/her PC does, and as stated multiple times upthread the GM will have framed a scene in which those decisions can make a difference to the ouctome. And the GM exercising authority over credibility is not a general veto. Here is a simple analogy: some rides at a fair have a rule "You must be this high to ride". Enforcing such a rule is not exercising a general power of veto. Some drinking establishments have a rule "You must be 18 to enter." Enforcing such a rule is not exercising a general power of veto. Being the ultimate arbiter of mechanical and genre parameters is not exercising a general power of veto. It is not being ultimate arbiter of outcomes of events in the gameworld.

In the third instance it is the player who gets to decide what his/her PC does and therefore how the fiction changes in response to that action by the PC.

I do not see any interpretation of these which bring it about that it is the GM, rather than the player, who is deciding what happens in the fiction. Hence, it is not the GM who is ultimate arbiter of the outcomes of events in the gameworld.

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.

<snip>

Given that they can only "fail forward", still moving towards their objective, the only resolution appears to be PC success. Not "The Chamberlain roars in anger at your impudence to a ranking member of the King's Court. 'Take them to the Dungeon!' he yells.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Were there "fails" above, "forward" or otherwise? I saw the players use the mechanics to succeed. Had no AP been spent, or had the Wizard failed his roll, it seems the advisor would have left, frustrating the PC's intentions. Would wargame play have been different from that result?

First, you don't know what would have followed from failure in the instance of play that I provided upthread, because the players succeeded.

Second, for an instance of fail forward - in combat - see my example upthread of the PCs being captured by the goblins and waking in their dungeons.

Third, I don't know why you think that the PCs being sent to the dungeons can't be part of "failing forward", given that it is an example given by Luke Crane, one of the pioneers of the method at least in published game texts: Crane gives the example of the PC being sent to the dungeons, and then having his/her nemesis turn up and offer freedom if only the PC will do this one little favour (in D&D, that role could be well-played by a devil).

Fourth, I don't understand how the GM always framing scenes that the players can engage and push in the directions that the players want is an examle of railroading, whereas the GM framing a scene in which the players cannot make any difference to the outcome in the fiction is the GM giving the players a free hand to chart their own path.

I mean, if the players are setting the goals (as you note in the passages I have just quoted) in what sense is it the GM's trail of breadcrumbs?

Based on what you think you're "not doing", I think you view the use of GM force very differently from what ahnehnois and I see in our games. "GM Force" seems to have been watered down a lot as this thread progressed. Apparently, just saying "OK, you can roll" means we have not used GM force, and saying "No need to roll" is not GM force provided we proceed on the basis of a success.

What I see is that I am providing actual play examples in which the players set the goals for their PCs, and thereby set the direction of play; in which the players declare the actions for their PCs; in which the GM has framed scenes in which those declarations have a chance of changing the scene in unexpected ways in both fictional and mechanical terms; in which no one at the table knows what will happen until play actually takes place (I can tell you, no on at my table anticipated that the dinner party would end with the advisor being goaded into attacking the PCs).

And you are trying to tell me that this is the GM exercising ultimate control over the content of the fiction in the gameworld, and over the outcome of events. That the GM "saying yes" and allowing a player to dictate the content of the fiction is an exercise of GM force.

So yes, I definitely think we have differing conceptions of GM force. I use it to mean the GM imposing his/her will on the fiction, regardless of the action resolution mechanics. Whereas you seem to use it to mean the playes imposing their will on the fiction, either via the action resolution mechanics or as a result of the GM saying yes.

 

[Ranes]

[h=6]Planar Travel[/h]As a mode of planar travel, a gate spell functions much like a plane shift spell, except that the gate opens precisely at the point you desire (a creation effect). Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening in their presence or personal demesnes if they so desire.

The text you quoted is for planar travel, not calling creatures. That is a pretty big difference, don't you think?

You're saying that a caliph can only prevent a gate from opening next to him or in his domain if it was created for some purpose unrelated to him? Rulers of planar realms can block gates from appearing next to them. Nothing in the spell text says this only applies to gates opened under a subset of conditions.

[h=6]Why can I not use Gate to try and capture a noble djinn? A noble djinn is not a deity or unique being, after all. (Unless we are talking about the long contained, often imitated, never duplicated GENIE OF THE LAMP!)

No. He is not unique but he is probably a caliph or great caliph, a ruler of a planar realm. He is, after all, by definition, one of the plane's one per cent. Not the biggest cheese, but a big cheese. And he's having none of your Gate-related shenanigans.

Edit: I would rule that you could use a Gate to call a noble djinni if that noble djinni wasn't a ruler in his domain at the time. But then you'd have to be aware of a particular noble djinni's itinerary, though that should not be beyond you.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe here is the disconnect - the difficulty in persuading the Chamberlain has nothing to do with the character's level.

<snip>

Not all challenges, or possible actions are going to be presented in a way that is feasible for low level characters to accomplish.

This seems to be a manifesto for a playstyle that is different from my own preferred style. (As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6678119]Jackinthegreen[/MENTION] noted.)

I agree that it is perfectly possible to play D&D that way. But it is different from how I prefer to play the game. When I frame the PCs into a scene, I am inviting the players to change the fiction by engage the action resolution mechanics by leveraging their resources plus their PCs' fictional positioning. I would be defeating my own purposes if I set a DC which the players did not have the resources (say, skill bonuses on a character sheet) to deal with; just the same as I would be defeating my own purposes if I framed a scene in which the confict or antagonist was not one which spoke to the known concerns of my players.

A concrete illustration: the low-level paladin of the Raven Queen will encounter undead; but will not encounter Orcus. (i) speaks to the known concerns of the player - by choosing to play that PC s/he has signalled undead and Orcus as foes. (ii) speaks to the player's capability to influence the fiction - an encounter with Orcus would not satisfy that requirement, as - the 4e mechanics being what they are - a low-level PC has no meaningful chance in combat with Orcus, and it would fail all genre credibility requirements to suppose that a low-level PC would out-talk or out-smart Orcus in a non-combat encounter.

 

[pemerton]

Players don't have access to the DM's internal vision without a lot of open discussion, which oftend doesn't occur especially in older style games, and may disagree with it strongly in part or as a whole. The further the DM's internal vision deviates from the standard setting the more chances of the game going awry unless there is some player discussion of what everyone wants from the game and whether compromise is possible.

<snip>

Rightly or wrongly, I generally associate DM force most with highly adversarial wargame-style games, where the players struggle to win agains the DM, and victory needs to be "earned", whatever that means. The first casualty of such a game style can be clear communication. I was in such a game once, and we the players found out that the best way to succeed in a significant task was not to tell the DM what our ultimate goal was, but sneak up on it discrete step by step until it was a fait accompli. This was because any large-scale task we told the DM about instantly became a lot more difficult, because we had to "earn" our victories.

I vastly prefer collaboration and clear communication in all directions to the above nowadays. Setting success and failure stakes acceptable to all parties really aids communication and sidesteps the old-style DM instinct to be wary of the players tricking their way to victory.

A thoughtful post. I don't know if you've seen 13th Age, but it discusses this very issue, and also advocates collaboration and clear communication.

If you want to argue the DM chooses by not choosing, I'm not going to get into that, but that line of argument always resolves itself into "There's only one actual way of playing". The DM renouncing scene determination authority to always follow the rules mechanics doesn't mean it's the same type of play simply because he could get the authority back. That's like saying a vegetarian is simply a carnivore who hasn't eaten any meat yet. The whole point of the division we're discussing is the spectrum along where "the DM simply creates a scene to see what happens" versus "the DM creates a scene to advance or illustrate a storyline point or create flavor." Saying "But ultimately the DM chooses everything" obscures fundamental differences between playstyles.

Yes. This is the point I tried to make way upthread - that it is completely obscurantist to assert that the Queen of England still rules the US, and is simply delegating her authority to the constitutionally designated persons and institutions.

 

[Wicht]

Why can I not use Gate to try and capture a noble djinn? A noble djinn is not a deity or unique being, after all. (Unless we are talking about the long contained, often imitated, never duplicated GENIE OF THE LAMP!)

I get the feeling you just want to argue. But if you reread what I wrote, I think capturing a noble djinn using the Gate spell is certainly possible. I would just rule that it required a binding circle with expensive components. Capturing a genie should be a big deal, not a matter of a one-off spell. The spell alone gets you the genie, getting the wishes takes more work.

Really, the principle involved, design wise, is simple. You cannot use a spell to duplicate the effects of a spell of a higher level and you cannot use a spell to chain cast spells of the same level. Any attempt to do so should meet with failure. This is a basic principle of spell design and something game designers have to keep in mind when writing spells. Likewise GMs should keep it in mind when making rulings on spells.

 

[Wicht]

I agree that it is perfectly possible to play D&D that way. But it is different from how I prefer to play the game.

I think thats understood, but if you understand the counterpoint then what is the argument about?

Its not DM force to have a chamberlain who is too powerful for the characters, its merely a matter of preferred storytelling style.

 

[Ranes]

I think capturing a noble djinn using the Gate spell is certainly possible.

Me too. Just not easy, as you go on to explain. If I were in your game, I would be happy with your ruling, even though it is not identical to mine.

Mine is that you can't use Gate to snaffle a noble djinn from the Elemental Plane of Air, for the reasons I give upthread. The noble djinn who were rulers wouldn't allow it to happen.

Dandu, I put before you three reasons why I believe my ruling is both correct and reasonable.

First (correctness): the line about rulers of planar realms being able to prevent Gate leads me to believe that this is the correct ruling. I note that you don't think this applies, because you consider it to relate only to the planar travel aspect of the spell, not the calling aspect. However, you cannot separate the calling aspect from the planar travel; the former dictates the latter.

Second (reasonable extrapolation): the consequences of the alternative would be nothing short of catastrophic for the governance of the Elemental Plane of Air, because every wizard or sorcerer alive, who had lived or who was still to come, who reached a high enough level to cast Gate would make this method of djinn capture a matter of priority. They would do it as soon as they were able, for obvious reasons, and they would never stop doing it. There would be nothing but chaos in the elemental caliphates, as djinn were constantly popping in and out of existence, relative to their native domain. The grand caliph or deity would eventually put a stop to such intolerable exploitation, if none of their subordinate nobles took care of the matter first.

Third (reasonable extrapolation): another consquence of the activity going unchecked would be an arms race on the prime material plane so extreme, it would quickly degenerate into apocalyptic wizard war. Indeed, it would stand to reason that such a war would have occurred before your wizard's time. Your wizard would probably not be left with a world that he could occupy, let alone in which he could survive and prosper long enough to attain the ability to cast ninth level spells. The fact that such a world does exist, by virtue of your wizard being alive and capable of casting ninth level spells, suggests that it is not possible to simply snatch apparently hapless noble djinn with ease.

By all means capture a noble djinni and have it cast its three wishes on you. But it's going to be more work than the simple rinse-repeat method you think is all that's required.

 

[Hussar]

Incidentally, I was taking my son to buy shoes today. He's 16, fairly familiar with the PFRPG rules, and has tried his hand at DMing. I had not discussed the thread with him prior.

I asked him what ruling he would make in regards to the Astral Projection and Luck Blade scenario. After about 15-30 seconds of thought he said confidently that the use of the item in the astral plane would drain the charges from the sword in the material plane. Interestingly, his analysis of why was metaphysical, not mechanical, as he posited the copies are really just projections of the real thing. But the ruling was the same, without any prompting.

I thought I would ask my other kids later (individually) and see what ruling they would come up with.

So, the person you taught to play D&D makes the same rulings as you do. And you are shocked by this? Really?

Also, if genies are a problem, can't we just summon certain kinds of demons or devils to grant wishes as well? I mean Glabrezu can grant a wish 1/month to any mortal. So long as alignment isn't an issue, we could certainly gate a Glabrezu and gain a wish. Or is that beyond the power of a Gate spell?

 

[Hussar]

In an odd development, I was playing instead of DMing this past week. I was playing a charismatic character, came upon a situation where I thought I should be able to talk my way out of a fight, but the DM decided not to roll the Diplomacy check and rule that the raging warrior in front of me wasn't interested in talking.

And even as a DM myself, I went with it without thinking twice, even though I disagreed and thought that my character's abilities should be used, because he was DMing and that's his business.

That's not force.

Rolling back to this again, because I think this, for me is the biggest point.

Let's alter the situation a bit. Instead of a charismatic character, Doppleganger Ahnehnois is playing a combat character. Half orc barbarian with a great axe.

He meets the raging warrior and decides to engage by planting his axe in the forehead of the raging warrior. The DM responds in an identical manner: "The raging warrior is not interested in fighting. You cannot fight this raging warrior. Nothing you do can engage this guy in a fight."

Is that an acceptable DM ruling? What's the difference between that and the original DM?

See, to me, the DM has declared unilaterally that a particular encounter must be resolved in a specific way and player choice has been removed from the equation. The DM has decided that this encounter will be a fight, no matter what.

Of course, a wizard casting a simple Charm Person spell ends the fight immediately (assuming a failed save) and can do what the non-caster cannot do - reframe the encounter into a non-combat encounter. Unless, of course, there are those here who would rule that Charm Person cannot stop someone from attacking. That being friendly or helpful won't actually change anything in the encounter. After all, that's precisely what this DM did do for the charismatic character. So, it should be ruled the same for spells, shouldn't it?