Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[TwoSix]

Which is kind of important in this context. If you used that approach with 3e, it would suggest that a character with access to advanced magic (or any other powerful ability) and partial authority to dictate its use has an obligation to do so in a way that maintains a certain level of balance and narrative cohesion.

That's a solid point. After all, magic systems in narrative games also tend to be freeform, which means the players have to exert some responsibility over their use. They do, though, also tend to be heavily resource constrained and/or provide a lot of narrative blowback, which is a feature missing from 3e magic. 3e also lacks any thematic constraints on magic, and actually has a lot of base archetypes that would encourage the use of unrestricted magic. (The iconic 3e wizard is a super genius who's often trying to save the world, at least at higher levels. Why wouldn't he use Twinned Celerity if it helps to defeat the big bad?)

Still, that gives me some ideas that 3e could be veered into more nar/indie territory with some house rules. A 3e Dark Sun, for example, could give a lot of narrative consequences to magic use via defiling.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm having a difficult time trying to unpack the chamberlain example. Maybe people can help me with it.

What has been defined
1) Players want to see the king
2) Players go to see the chamberlain to ask to see the king

Is that correct?

My first question is, what is the players' goal? In my understanding visiting the king isn't a goal, it's a means of achieving a goal, same as seeing the chamberlain. If that's true, then what is the player's goal in seeing the king?

What I think this example may need for me is a players' goal. What if the player's goal is to get permission to wear weapons in the Town of CoolFantasyName? That seems to be a goal I can understand.

Revised Example
1) Players' want permission to wear their weapons in the town of CoolFantasyName (Goal)
2) Players' need permission from the king
3) Players' need to see the chamberlain in order to see the king

Now how do you frame the scene with the chamberlain? Does it change anything having a defined goal? Do we need to step back and ask why the players need to wear weapons in CoolFantasyName?

I think that any example we use is going to have issues, since no matter what the example, the context is going to be missing. Everything that came before it is no in the example.

Framing scenes should be based on the context of the game. If the game is political intrigue, then certainly the chamberlain scene should be framed to further emphasis that intrigue. If the game is a hack-n-slash focused game, then the scene can easily be framed where ninjas attack the chamberlain when the part arrives.

I think most people game this way (but I don't know everyone). Where there's difference is how those scene may be resolved. One way is always a mechanic resolution. The scene is framed in a way that players can use their resources to overcome the obstacle, whether they succeed or not is based on the die roles. Another way is purely through roleplay. The results of Dip/Charm are based on narrative, not on die rolls.

Once the scene is resolved (by whatever method), how the following scene is framed is also a bit different. One way may be to frame the next scene based on how well or poorly the players interacted mechanically in the previous scene. If the players succeeded mechanically with the chamberlain, then the next scene may be framed with an audience with the king. If the scene failed mechanically, the next scene might be the players leaving the castle where they see a man being attacked by brigands, who after they rescue, turns about to be the nephew of the king, who takes them to see the king for thanks. In this example, the plot is developed through utilizing the mechanics of the game. There's isn't one in advance. Die rolls determine the next path.

Another way is to provide more narrative interaction for the players based on a predetermined series of events (although hopefully by providing information to the players on possible next steps). The players go to see the chamberlain who's in a foul mood and doesn't want to listen to dirty, smelly adventures and sends them on their way. But during the narration, the players learned that the chamberlain was acting a little strangely, he kept looking over his shoulder at another man, dressed in black, wearing a rapier. Was the Chamberlain being blackmailed? Had an old enemy returned to thwart their attempt to see the king? The players know that if they want to see the king, they now have to resolve this other issue, which is part of a much bigger plot already in the works. No die rolls are necessary, since the scene is more of a redirection to the bigger plot rather than a scene frame to advance player goals. It designed to advanced story/plot goals.

I can certainly find fun in both. I prefer to play in example one and prefer to run in example two (although probably a milder version than some of the other examples in the thread). I think though that I'm getting closer to resolving my play/run differences. I will probably end up in the middle somewhere like I find a lot of gamers.

One can also see how the two example may exasperate or defuse any issues regarding unbalanced mechanics. In example one, if there is an imbalance between character resources (one character have more than the others or access to more power things than the others), it will be more difficult to frame the scene so that all players have the opportunity to use resources. In example 2 it doesn't matter if there's one character with tons more resources, since the resources don't allow the character to further the plot/story through narration.

Anyway, it's certainly always an enlightening conversation here on En World. And it always adds a bit more to my own gaming. Carry on!

 

[Dandu]

I haven't had internet at home for a few days, so sorry for not responding to your original post.

My interpretation of the text is that Polymorph any Object has no HD restrictions at all. The balancing mechanism given in the spell is duration of the spell, not HD. Casters should be able to use Polymorph any object to make any creature or thing into any other creature or thing. But the more radical the change, the shorter the spell lasts. The examples given were also used in the PFRPG rules, which did make some changes to Polymorph spells, not only for balance, but for clarity, and I think are meant to mean that there is no HD restriction in place (though PF mostly got rid of HD restrictions anyway with their polymorph school of spells). Interestingly, Polymorph any Object was left more or less alone in the changes when the changes were made.

I will say that where I think the 3.x Polymorph any Object spell text falls down is in the mental attribute discussion. The PF rules are much clearer in this regard, and better imo.

There is no question that people can make mistakes when designing spells, or writing text, and polymorph is one area where I think it did need some cleaning up, and it got it in PF. But the HD question isn't really, imo, a problem with the spell, once you understand that the examples override the HD restrictions of 3.x Polymorph.

Do you think it good spell design to allow an 8th level spell to turn a pebble into a Tarrasque?

 

[Wicht]

Do you think it good spell design to allow an 8th level spell to turn a pebble into a Tarrasque?

Well, not the tarrasque, but a tarresque without regeneration, spell resistance, frightful presence, immunities to fire (etc.), or anything that makes it something other than a big killing machine... So not really a tarrasque, so much as something that looks like it in this case. Do keep in mind that the only abilities a 3.x polymorph imitates are expressly extraordinary special attacks, all other special abilities are lost, so in the case of the tarrasque, under 3.x rules you get the improved grab, the ability to swallow whole, and a really sharp bite, but you lose most of the other things.

Its pushing the spell but its perfectly within the abilities of an 8th level wizard to create a really, really, big monster, so sure.

Personally, if I was going to alter polymorph any object in any way, I would make the possibility of having a shorter than 20 minute duration for extraordinary changes such as this one (maybe a 5-10 minute option). Or I would also houserule, if still using 3.5, the PF change which keeps HD the same from form to form (a very sensible and easy approach). If using a pebble, this would mean a really strong monster with a glass jaw.

Though really, I just prefer the whole PF approach to polymorphing and would likely just use it wholecloth, even if using all other things 3.5.

 

[Dandu]

Well, not the tarrasque, but a tarresque without regeneration, spell resistance, frightful presence, immunities to fire (etc.), or anything that makes it something other than a big killing machine... So not really a tarrasque, so much as something that looks like it in this case. Do keep in mind that the only abilities a 3.x polymorph imitates are expressly extraordinary special attacks, all other special abilities are lost, so in the case of the tarrasque, under 3.x rules you get the improved grab, the ability to swallow whole, and a really sharp bite, but you lose most of the other things.

Its pushing the spell but its perfectly within the abilities of an 8th level wizard to create a really, really, big monster, so sure.

Then how do you feel about the Umbral Blot, Ruin Swarm, or Epic Dragon?

 

[Wicht]

Then how do you feel about the Umbral Blot, Ruin Swarm, or Epic Dragon?

The spell can't do a swarm: that's multiple creatures. The Epic Dragon is same as the Tarrasque: you end up with something big with teeth, but nothing else. The main troubling one is the Umbral Blot, and I would flat rule against that. The problem there, however is not the spell but the creature design. The abilities of the creature should be supernatural, not extraordinary.

Though again, if you just adopt the PF rules for polymorph, all the "brokenness" goes away, so I don't actually have these problems in my game.

 

[Dandu]

The Epic Dragon is same as the Tarrasque: you end up with something big with teeth, but nothing else.

Given that the Epic Dragon will likely trash everything level 20 or below in melee combat, do you think turning a pebble into one is a bad thing?

The main troubling one is the Umbral Blot, and I would flat rule against that. The problem there, however is not the spell but the creature design. The abilities of the creature should be supernatural, not extraordinary.

I would argue that the problem comes from your interpretation of Polymorph Any Object that removes the HD cap and allows for ridiculous things to be formed with it. The Umbral Blot's abilities are not a problem in an epic level game, but you're interpretation of PAO allows for epic monsters to be dragged into pre-epic games.

Though again, if you just adopt the PF rules for polymorph, all the "brokenness" goes away, so I don't actually have these problems in my game.

Why should I have to adopt PF's rules for Polymorph if there is nothing wrong with the polymorph spell?

 

[Wicht]

Given that the Epic Dragon will likely trash everything level 20 or below in melee combat, do you think turning a pebble into one is a bad thing?

I would argue that the problem comes from your interpretation of Polymorph Any Object that removes the HD cap and allows for ridiculous things to be formed with it. The Umbral Blot's abilities are not a problem in an epic level game, but you're interpretation of PAO allows for epic monsters to be dragged into pre-epic games.

Actually its the DM at any individual game that must allow epic level creatures into his game. He might simply rule that if the characters don't know about it, they can't polymorph into it and that they don't yet know about most epic level things. Problem solved.

But why should non-epic characters have access to epic level powers keeping in mind that spells cannot duplicate things more powerful than themselves?

But the Umbral Blot's abilities should still, IMO, be supernatural.

Why should I have to adopt PF's rules for Polymorph if there is nothing wrong with the polymorph spell?

I was fairly sure I said above that Polymorph was one of the areas where 3.5 spells could use some cleaning up.

 

[Dandu]

Actually its the DM at any individual game that must allow epic level creatures into his game. He might simply rule that if the characters don't know about it, they can't polymorph into it and that they don't yet know about most epic level things. Problem solved.

Wait. Your solution isn't to admit that removing the HD limit is bad, it is to say that it can't be done because the wizard does not have a high enough knowledge check?

There's a tiny problem with your approach: getting a huge knowledge check is something a wizard can very easily do.

Level 15 wizard. 18 ranks in K. Arcana. Let's say a +7 Int modifier. We're at a +25 modifier so far. Moment of Prescience can give up to a +25 bonus with a CL of 25 - not easy, but doable with enough boosts, especially if you're a Red Wizard. We're at +50 now. Get Guidance of the Avatar cast on you for a +20 somehow - use Limited Wish to mimic the effect as it is within the power level of Limited Wish. We're at +70.

What's the DC to know about an Epic Dragon?

The best alternatives to saying that the PCs don't know is to either not have epic monsters, or just conclude that the PAO example text is flawed. It would hardly be the first WotC example to not follow the rules - anyone remember Abjurant Champion and Mage Armor?

But why should non-epic characters have access to epic level powers

They shouldn't, which is the argument for enforcing the Polymorph HD limit.

keeping in mind that spells cannot duplicate things more powerful than themselves?

This is your principal of good spell design. It is not a principal that the D&D designers expressed or have followed. If that were true, you would not be able to use Lesser Planar Binding to bind a Nightmare and gain access to two (count 'em, two) 9th level SLAs.

I was fairly sure I said above that Polymorph was one of the areas where 3.5 spells could use some cleaning up.

Agreed. Tremendously.

 

[Wicht]

The best alternatives to saying that the PCs don't know is to either not have epic monsters, or just conclude that the PAO example text is flawed.

I don't think there's anything flawed with the text itself. The problem comes when you try to throw new things onto the framework. I never played epic 3.x and don't really have much desire (though I do like the look of PF Mythic), but if a DM wants those options in his game then its his responsibility to manage it; however there is nothing that says he has to allow it the characters access to epic options just because they are in a book somewhere until he is ready to do so, no matter what their Knowledge skill is. If a player feels entitled to do everything he wants regardless of DM sayso, of course there are going to be problems, but thats a game style problem, not inherently a core rules problem. The core rules function fine as is. Options (like epic) should be added in judiciously.

If that were true, you would not be able to use Lesser Planar Binding to bind a Nightmare and gain access to two (count 'em, two) 9th level SLAs.

I'm not sure where I see the problem with this scenario... Sorry. You get only one service from the bound creature. That's a one way ticket and then its gone. And if the command is worded poorly you are in even more trouble. I would allow it.