Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Dandu]

One service is plenty: Use the 9th level spell Etherealness to get me inside this locked vault.

 

[Wicht]

One service is plenty: Use the 9th level spell Etherealness to get me inside this locked vault.

Assuming you manage to contain the creature and keep it from trying to kill you, and then assuming you win your charisma check, and then assuming you mount the nightmare and it obeys you, I am left with this question: how do you get back out of the vault?

 

[Nagol]

You ask for the far more to the point service: "Act as my willing mount for the next 24 hours" is how.

 

[Wicht]

You ask for the far more to the point service: "Act as my willing mount for the next 24 hours" is how.

That is a far more sensible command true. Though the passage of time in the planes might be something to consider as well... But I think you could do it. It would take a 5th level spell and a 4th level spell combined, with maybe a 3rd level spell just for good measure, and you would likely want some sort of protection to keep the nightmare from visiting you in your sleep the next night and stomping your face in while you are helpless to the world, assuming you used it in the service of good... But if a player wants to do all that, then it seems feasible to me. And out of 20 times doing it, there is a pretty good chance it won't work and you will have to fight for your life (assuming again you are not doing things amiable to the nightmare).

Edit: Also, however, may I point out a consideration,... as Dungeons and Dragons is normally a group game, any 9th level wizard that rides off alone into the planes on the back of a nightmare is looking for trouble. And if you are wanting rides for the whole group, that's 4 5th level spells, 4 4th level spells and likely one or 2 3rd level spells, with a high probability of something going wrong. By the time a wizard can manage that, they are 15th level.

Edit, edit: Let's the example of the vault for instance. Say the DM has placed a CR 10 challenge in there for the 9th level party. Wizard decides, I can get in with a Nightmare. Does the conjuration, binds it as a mount for 24 hours. Now the wizard swoops into the vault, dismounts and is attacked. Nightmare doesn't fight. That was not in the contract. The CR 10 baddy has one Level 9 wizard who has just used two of his most powerful spells for the day. That's a bad situation to be in.

 

[Nagol]

That is a far more sensible command true. Though the passage of time in the planes might be something to consider as well... But I think you could do it. It would take a 5th level spell and a 4th level spell combined, with maybe a 3rd level spell just for good measure, and you would likely want some sort of protection to keep the nightmare from visiting you in your sleep the next night and stomping your face in while you are helpless to the world, assuming you used it in the service of good... But if a player wants to do all that, then it seems feasible to me. And out of 20 times doing it, there is a pretty good chance it won't work and you will have to fight for your life (assuming again you are not doing things amiable to the nightmare).

Edit: Also, however, may I point out a consideration,... as Dungeons and Dragons is normally a group game, any 9th level wizard that rides off alone into the planes on the back of a nightmare is looking for trouble. And if you are wanting rides for the whole group, that's 4 5th level spells, 4 4th level spells and likely one or 2 3rd level spells, with a high probability of something going wrong. By the time a wizard can manage that, they are 15th level.

Edit, edit: Let's the example of the vault for instance. Say the DM has placed a CR 10 challenge in there for the 9th level party. Wizard decides, I can get in with a Nightmare. Does the conjuration, binds it as a mount for 24 hours. Now the wizard swoops into the vault, dismounts and is attacked. Nightmare doesn't fight. That was not in the contract. The CR 10 baddy has one Level 9 wizard who has just used two of his most powerful spells for the day. That's a bad situation to be in.

Absolutely.

I ran a Wizard that used the Planar Bindings mostly to impress the locals: ride up to an event on a Nightmare trailing a pack of Hell Hounds (going to an inauguration for a temple to Ares as an envoy from Hecate).

The very few times she used the Bindings in adventuring were impressive indeed. A pit fiend is an impressive engine of destruction even when the contract had a rider that the service was immediately complete should the devil take damage.

 

[pemerton]

I have a quick question concerning the issue of GM force that has been touched upon in this thread by a couple of people... Doesn't 4e, implicitly if not explicitly, give the GM just as much leeway to use GM force as any other version of D&D?

I've covered this a couple of times upthread. The text changed between the PHB and Essentials.

PHB p 8

When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story​

Rules Compendium p 9

The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the Dm determines what to do. At time, the DM might alter or even ignore the results of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

I regard this as part of the broader "retro" orientation of Essentials.

 

[Imaro]

I've covered this a couple of times upthread. The text changed between the PHB and Essentials.

PHB p 8

When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story​

Rules Compendium p 9

The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the Dm determines what to do. At time, the DM might alter or even ignore the results of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

I regard this as part of the broader "retro" orientation of Essentials.

Yes, but I am specifically talking about things like pre-deciding outcomes... which are in the original 4e books. Why is it ok to determine that a skill will auto-fail without knowing what the fictional positioning will be? There is an example SC in the 4e DMG where Intimidate is an auto-failure... no matter what, isn't that GM force?

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I think that these examples nicely illustrate how different approaches to the game can lead to different experiences with respect to "imbalance."

Your second example, in particular, illustrates in more detail what I mean by a scene which is about colour plus backstory, but doesn't actually give the players an opportunity to change the content or direction of the fiction. It also illustrates that the "story/plot goals" have been prescripted by the GM.

However, in D&D play, there is no mechanism that provides for this, and only general recommendations that it happen regularly but not always.

<snip>

these games are built completely differently. Players have resources that they don't have in D&D. They also have considerations that they don't in D&D. Typically, there's some mechanism to encourage them to act in a non-psychopathic way that rewards them with metagame resources if the player does something that moves the game forward or acts in accordance with genre expectations.

in a typical D&D game (or potentially in any number of other games), situations often arise that the player has no meaningful ability to influence. Whatever choices he previously made may be subverted or made irrelevant.

The only mechanism needed to ensure that scenes that are framed are ones that the players can influence via their resources is a GM framing such scenes. sheadunne's post shows that mechanism at work, and also the contrasting approach.

Nothing in D&D's general design favours one approach over another, although over the past 20-odd years aventure design has tended towards sheadunne's second ("storyteller") approach; and at least in 3E the PC build rules, and the resulting differentials in player access to resources, will tend to make the first approach hard to manage at mid-to-high levels unless all the PCs are casters.

As for resoures, D&D players have plenty - skill bonuses, attack bonuses, hit points, and various class features. 4e players also have action points and second wind.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As for resoures, D&D players have plenty - skill bonuses, attack bonuses, hit points, and various class features. 4e players also have action points and second wind.

I think characterizing them as resources for D&D players is misleading. After all, the DM determines how much of those resources the players have (typically by determining things like starting level and ability score allocation methods, but this is where the literal rule zero comes in to play). The DM also determines when and how they are used. The only things the player really controls is whatever character creation choices the DM allows, and to propose potential engagements of those mechanics by narrating his character's intent.

I tend to look at all of those things as DMing tools rather than player resources.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but I am specifically talking about things like pre-deciding outcomes... which are in the original 4e books. Why is it ok to determine that a skill will auto-fail without knowing what the fictional positioning will be? There is an example SC in the 4e DMG where Intimidate is an auto-failure... no matter what, isn't that GM force?

It's an interesting case.

Upthread I talked about the idea of fictional positioning established via "secret" backstory, which means that the players are deploying their resources with a less than thorough understanding of how resources + fictional positioning are likely to lead to an outcome.

The duke who can't be intimidated is an example of that phenomenon.

But it has two interesting features that are worth noticing. First, the GM's notes for that scene also indicate that successful use of Insight reveal's that the duke cannot be intimidated. So the secrecy of the backstory is only provisional - it can come to light, and the players gain full knowledge of the ficitonal positioning (ie that this is a man who won't be intimidated by them). Second, the failure is only 1 of 4 needed to fail the challenge (the example was written using the old 8/4 rule rather than the errata-ed 8/3 rule). So the GM is not determining the overall outcome of the scene.

I don't think this is the best design ever, and like much of the 4e GMing advice it suffers from barely enough "show" and nowhere near enough "tell". For instance, the fictional positioning of the duke as someone unable to be intimidated by the PCs might make sense if they are low-to-mid Heroic tier, but would (I think) be obviously silly if they were Paragon, let alone Epic. But the example doesn't talk about this sort of consideration, and rather leaves working out the connection between mechanics and fiction as an exercise for the reader.

Another thing that is missing is that the example doesn't canvass ways that the PCs might get leverage over the dke to intimidate him. It seems obvious, to me at least, that the designer is envisaging use of Intimidate to bully or threaten the duke directly, and is saying that the duke is not the sort of person who can be treated in this way (and this is reinforced by the example of play on p 77 of the DMG). But it is fairly easy to envisage other ways that the PCs might be able to threaten the duke (say, via blackmail or indirect threats against his friends or family), and in those cases it might make more sense to allow the check to be made, but also note that the duke will, in the future, attempt to exact vengeance against the person who acted against him in such a way.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that example.