Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ranes]

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?

What fun! I think there are two points here. One is that the MM and other sources contain creatures that grant wishes partly for players to benefit or try to benefit from. The second is that when it comes to granting wishes, it behooves the DM not to simply facilitate an instant infinite wish loop but to make each wish granted well earned and special.

 

[Hussar]

What fun! I think there are two points here. One is that the MM and other sources contain creatures that grant wishes partly for players to benefit or try to benefit from. The second is that when it comes to granting wishes, it behooves the DM not to simply facilitate an instant infinite wish loop but to make each wish granted well earned and special.

But, that didn't answer the question. Can you use Gate to call creatures to cast wish spells? If so, then you can use 9th level spells to cast other 9th level spells, which was the original issue.

That a DM can put a stop to this isn't the issue. The issue is that the DM has to jump through so many hoops (and yes, drawing on an out of print source for a different edition is a pretty big hoop) in order to mechanically rule against doing this.

I'd much rather that the mechanics were written in such a way that this sort of gymnastics isn't necessary in the first place. And the fact is, this is only necessary for casters. Non-casters are never this much of an issue.

Look, let's repeat this, the issue is not that DM's can make rulings. That is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that the mechanics are such that the DM is forced to make rulings which are always restrictive in order to ensure that the game is balanced. Why not write the mechanics in such a way to get rid of this necessity?

 

[Ranes]

But, that didn't answer the question. Can you use Gate to call creatures to cast wish spells? If so, then you can use 9th level spells to cast other 9th level spells, which was the original issue.

Sorry, I thought I was clear. Of course you can use Gate to call creatures who can cast ninth level spells. My point is that doing so is a far cry from using a ninth level spell to cast another ninth level spell.

That a DM can put a stop to this isn't the issue. The issue is that the DM has to jump through so many hoops (and yes, drawing on an out of print source for a different edition is a pretty big hoop) in order to mechanically rule against doing this.

I have repeatedly pointed out that MotP (to which I assume you refer) was updated to serve 3.5. It's not even relevant to the Gate issue. I referred to it because I could. All the required information as far as Gate is concerned is in the MM and PH, as it happens. Also, aren't all 3.x books currently out of print, by the way? I'm not up to speed on this.

I'd much rather that the mechanics were written in such a way that this sort of gymnastics isn't necessary in the first place. And the fact is, this is only necessary for casters. Non-casters are never this much of an issue.

I am not arguing that DMing high level 3.x isn't challenging or that fighters are usually just as hard as MUs to adjudicate. What I - and most others on the OP's wavelength contend - is that the issue with spell casters is frequently exaggerated or simply mis-ruled.

Look, let's repeat this, the issue is not that DM's can make rulings. That is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that the mechanics are such that the DM is forced to make rulings which are always restrictive in order to ensure that the game is balanced. Why not write the mechanics in such a way to get rid of this necessity?

That is your assertion. I have not seen enough cogent argument to convince me to accept it as fact.

Please don't shout.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

Yes.

It's an odd one; hard to imagine a rationale for it. But it's within the letter and intent of how the game works. I could imagine that the NPC is some kind of higher power who can't be attacked, or that the DM simply is trying to censor problematic behavior, or maybe some other reason.

The difference is that it's a stranger example. It's also not really equivalent; a negotiation requires two active participants, while a battle only requires one. It's much easier to imagine a negotiation being unfeasible because it is a more sophisticated interaction.

But let's turn this example around the other way. Let's say that I had wanted to engage the NPC in dialogue, had said my full spiel, and rolled a Diplomacy check. Let's suppose that that check was really high, high enough to mandate an attitude change under the rules. And then let's say the DM ignores this, says that the NPC refuses to listen and attacks before my character gets a word out, ignoring his apparent desire to talk, and calls for initiative and starts rolling attacks. Can I, as a player, force the DM to stop? Do I have a right to dictate the behavior of a character that the DM created and is playing, determine the amount of time that's passed, or decide how the skill mechanics are interpreted in this situation? If the DM goes on, am I supposed to file a protest? Walk out?

I think it's pretty obvious that the appropriate behavior in this situation is to accept that the DM knows more than I do, and accept that I asked him to DM for a week to give me a break, and let him do his job. If I stopped the game every time I disagreed with a DM's decision, it wouldn't end up being much of a game.

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.

Yes, that's what the DM decided. A much more reasonable decision than in your rather extreme counterexample, if still not one that I was wild about. From what I knew about the NPC, he had insufficient motivation to be so set on that outcome. But ultimately, I don't know and can't control what the NPC was thinking.

And frankly, this ruling is minor compared with all the other things the DM established to create the encounter in the first place. All of which were equally his prerogative.

I didn't have any say in whether the opponent existed in the first place, or whether he had hostile intent. I didn't even have any say in what my character looked like, oddly enough (I was mind switched to a new body; no dice rolls involved). I didn't control where this encounter took place, or when, or how many people would be there, or what time of day it was, or what the weather was, or what the broader geopolitical situation was that this NPC was living in. Nor did I control any of the factors that might influence this NPC's behavior other than my attempt at talking to him with my character. And, as it turned out, I had virtually no influence on the outcome of the encounter; I simply rolled an initiative and was critted to the point of near death without making another die roll; less luck with stabilization rolls and I likely would have been dead, which if I know this DM might very well have stuck.

All of which is perfectly fine.

The purpose of this example is to show that I'm not hypocritical or domineering about these things. It's not like I don't understand the player's perspective or am hostile towards it. I simply acknowledge that the game works best with one central authority. That's a lesson that transcends my personal game, which is why it's in the rulebooks.

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?

Not necessarily. After all, a spell and a conversation are not the same thing. Charm Person is actually mind control, in a minor but still significant sense. I see no reasonable expectation that a particular scenario should play out the same way with a Charm as with a Diplo.

Could a DM say that a particular NPC was immune to Charm, or apply a bonus to his save so that he makes it? Sure. Could a DM decide that even a successfully NPC still engages in confrontational behavior? Sure. It's possible that an NPC might consider it acceptable to attack or imprison a friend under certain circumstances. Can the DM decide that the character simply can't cast the spell, or that it does nothing? Absolutely, for any number of reasons. Most of the time, a successful Charm probably accomplishes the goals of the caster, but there are no absolutes here.

 

[Dandu]

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.

Nothing in the spell text says it applies universally. Rules of planar realms can prevent traveling to and from their realm via Gate. Evidently, they cannot prevent abductions. Like it or not, the Gate spell tells you under what circumstances the Calling function does not work, and the caliph not wanting abductions is not one of them.

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.

I agree, and I would go further to say that the rules should reflect this. Otherwise it would be like downloading a distro of Linux that requires the user to debug the program code before being completely usable. It is good that Linux is a highly customizable system that allows enthusiasts to tailor it to their own needs, but this diversity should arise because users are required to modify the source code because it is poorly written. And even though releasing a good distro requires combing through a mind numbing amount of code looking for every single possible problematic interaction, the fact remains that it is someone's job to do so if they want to release a serious product.

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.

I disagree based on the reason given above: the calling aspect tells you under what circumstances it cannot work, and the will of the caliph is not a factor.

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.

Appeal to consequences: Gate can't work like that because it would break the game. To plagiarize Wikipedia, this is a logical fallacy because the argument that concludes a hypothesis to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true.

To which I say: Yes, that's my point. The mechanics of Gate were not fully thought out, which requires DM adjuration where it should not exist if the spell was properly written.

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.

See my response to your second point.

 

[Hussar]

But let's turn this example around the other way. Let's say that I had wanted to engage the NPC in dialogue, had said my full spiel, and rolled a Diplomacy check. Let's suppose that that check was really high, high enough to mandate an attitude change under the rules. And then let's say the DM ignores this, says that the NPC refuses to listen and attacks before my character gets a word out, ignoring his apparent desire to talk, and calls for initiative and starts rolling attacks. Can I, as a player, force the DM to stop? Do I have a right to dictate the behavior of a character that the DM created and is playing, determine the amount of time that's passed, or decide how the skill mechanics are interpreted in this situation? If the DM goes on, am I supposed to file a protest? Walk out?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page115#ixzz2hkS1FU3K

At this point? Me? Barring some bizarre situational thing, yeah, I'd vote with my feet. The DM has agreed to play this game and you did absolutely nothing outside the mechanics. You are using the game exactly the way it was intended to be used and the DM has decided that no, his opinion is more important to the game than yours. You have no ownership in this game. Any action you take can be vetoed by the DM through fiat.

Why would I want to play in a game of Calvinball?

Yes, that's what the DM decided. A much more reasonable decision than in your rather extreme counterexample, if still not one that I was wild about. From what I knew about the NPC, he had insufficient motivation to be so set on that outcome. But ultimately, I don't know and can't control what the NPC was thinking.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page115#ixzz2hkTVbBbp

Actually, yes, you can. That's precisely what diplomacy does. It controls how NPC's feel. The reason that we have these rules is precisely to avoid DM's doing exactly what he did. Prior to 3e, there were pretty few rules for players to influence NPC's in any manner. It was largely done freeform. 3e added rules specifically to avoid exactly this issue - DM's simply invalidating player actions.

To me, there is absolutely no difference between the DM invalidating your character's diplomacy and invalidating another character's attacks. The issue is invalidation, pure and simple.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The DM has agreed to play this game and you did absolutely nothing outside the mechanics.

Neither did he though. We both did exactly what we were supposed to do. I stated the intentions of my character, and he adjudicated the outcome.

You have no ownership in this game. Any action you take can be vetoed by the DM through fiat.

That's true, I don't and he can. Which is right there in the DMG, and is built into the DNA of the game. A DM will generally and accurately refer to the game as "my campaign", because it is. If I wanted ownership, it'd be on me to DM and to find some players. Most weeks, I do.

To me, there is absolutely no difference between the DM invalidating your character's diplomacy and invalidating another character's attacks. The issue is invalidation, pure and simple.

I don't think you can invalidate something that has no validity in the first place. If a player states his intention to attack, that's where his job begins and ends. He isn't playing the axe in his hand. The DM controls every component of that action; the physics of the axe swinging, the responsiveness of the opponent, the situational factors in between them, the dramatic implications of the outcome. The player has no right to adjudicate/dictate the outcome of the attack, the negotiation, or anything else he does.

At this point? Me? Barring some bizarre situational thing, yeah, I'd vote with my feet.

Fair enough. If I was playing, and the DM said "Hey, we're switching to this new system. It's totally abandoned any notion of the rules meaning anything, metagaming is the standard way to play, and it's loaded with problems, but all the PC classes have equal ability to influence the narrative. Who's with me?", I sure wouldn't stick around to find out what that game was.

Why would I want to play in a game of Calvinball?

Because it's fun? To counterpoint, why would I want to play Chutes and Ladders?

Actually, yes, you can. That's precisely what diplomacy does. It controls how NPC's feel. The reason that we have these rules is precisely to avoid DM's doing exactly what he did. Prior to 3e, there were pretty few rules for players to influence NPC's in any manner. It was largely done freeform. 3e added rules specifically to avoid exactly this issue - DM's simply invalidating player actions.

I find that interpretation unreasonable and unlikely. It certainly contradicts the basic notion of how NPCs work; the DM controls them just like a player controls his PC.

I prefer to think of things like Diplomacy as DM tools. Without that, I'd have to make a judgment about NPC behavior based solely on the persuasiveness of the player's argument and the overall situation. Diplo gives the players the language to express their character's aptitude and proclivity, which gives me a basis for comparing different characters and scenarios. I can see how persuasive characters are relative to each other. That helps me make decisions. They're still my decisions.

To me, that's what the whole d20 system was about. Used to be, you'd just take the Obscure Knowledge NWP, and it wasn't really clear what that meant. How much do you know? What do you know about? Knowledge skills make that clearer. Now, you know about nature or arcana or something, which has a clearly defined scope and you have a number that says how good you are relative to other characters and the standard DCs. None of which entitles the character to know any particular fact, regardless of his roll, it just gives the DM and the player a more descriptive medium for communicating.

 

[Wicht]

I agree, and I would go further to say that the rules should reflect this.

Urm, I think some of us are arguing the rules do reflect this, its just some people attempt to interpret them in a manner counter to their actual intent. I laid down a basic principle of spell design. Using this principle, if there are two possible interpretations of a spell's wording and one interpretation fits within the parameters of good design and one interpretation does not, chances are real good the first interpretation is the correct one. Once the principle is agreed to (and you have agreed to it), arguing that the poor interpretation must trump the good interpretation just seems to be arguing in poor faith. The wording of the spell is fine if one merely accepts that wishes are not part of what a person can simply command a summoned genie to do. And there is no good reason to think that it is, other than the assertion that the spell allows it; but said assertion violates the principle of good spell design and forces an interpretation upon the spell that is not necessarily the only interpretation.

 

[Wicht]

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

Actually, as I pointed out, he arrived at the same conclusion using an entirely different set of reasoning than I used. I was not shocked by his ruling, I was pleasantly pleased. But astral travel is not an issue that has ever come up in our games that I can remember, so I doubt that our mutual gaming experiences really colored his ruling too much. I just thought it an interesting experiment.

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?

Genies are not a problem. They are supposed to grant wishes. Gaining said wishes requires more than a simple conjuring/calling spell. Ditto for demons and devils.

 

[Hussar]

Neither did he though. We both did exactly what we were supposed to do. I stated the intentions of my character, and he adjudicated the outcome.

That's true, I don't and he can. Which is right there in the DMG, and is built into the DNA of the game. A DM will generally and accurately refer to the game as "my campaign", because it is. If I wanted ownership, it'd be on me to DM and to find some players. Most weeks, I do.

I don't think you can invalidate something that has no validity in the first place. If a player states his intention to attack, that's where his job begins and ends. He isn't playing the axe in his hand. The DM controls every component of that action; the physics of the axe swinging, the responsiveness of the opponent, the situational factors in between them, the dramatic implications of the outcome. The player has no right to adjudicate/dictate the outcome of the attack, the negotiation, or anything else he does.

Really? Your players don't roll damage on attacks?

But, then again, you would be the first player I've ever seen who would accept a DM ruling by fiat that you may not attack something.

Fair enough. If I was playing, and the DM said "Hey, we're switching to this new system. It's totally abandoned any notion of the rules meaning anything, metagaming is the standard way to play, and it's loaded with problems, but all the PC classes have equal ability to influence the narrative. Who's with me?", I sure wouldn't stick around to find out what that game was.

But, that's what you are playing. Rules mean nothing in your game because the DM can change and veto any player action at any time.

And, the thing is, the system is not loaded with problems. I don't have any balance issues, players can accurately predict the results of their actions and everyone has ownership over the game.

Because it's fun? To counterpoint, why would I want to play Chutes and Ladders?

I find that interpretation unreasonable and unlikely. It certainly contradicts the basic notion of how NPCs work; the DM controls them just like a player controls his PC.

But, that's not what the mechanics say. The mechanics say that if I hit a target, it takes damage. If I use diplomacy, their attitude changes.

I prefer to think of things like Diplomacy as DM tools. Without that, I'd have to make a judgment about NPC behavior based solely on the persuasiveness of the player's argument and the overall situation. Diplo gives the players the language to express their character's aptitude and proclivity, which gives me a basis for comparing different characters and scenarios. I can see how persuasive characters are relative to each other. That helps me make decisions. They're still my decisions.

And that's perfectly fine. No one is saying that you are doing something wrong. What we are saying is what you are doing doesn't work for us. For us, having that level of DM Force is unacceptable.

To me, that's what the whole d20 system was about. Used to be, you'd just take the Obscure Knowledge NWP, and it wasn't really clear what that meant. How much do you know? What do you know about? Knowledge skills make that clearer. Now, you know about nature or arcana or something, which has a clearly defined scope and you have a number that says how good you are relative to other characters and the standard DCs. None of which entitles the character to know any particular fact, regardless of his roll, it just gives the DM and the player a more descriptive medium for communicating.

Actually, that's not true. 2e's skills actually did say how much you know. It was based on your ability score. Have the Obscure Knowledge NWP and an Int of 18? Then you know a heck of a lot of Obscure Knowledge.

Which, to me, tells me that my player will know a particular fact based on his roll. If the Knowledge skill is sufficiently high and the player rolls high enough, then the player is perfectly entitled in my game to know that particular fact.

Rules matter to me. If the rules say X, then the players act in a certain manner regarding rule X. Which means they should be able to confidently predict whether a particular course of action will succeed or not based on the rules.