Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[JamesonCourage]

And there it is. Now wizards must shout at the top of their lungs in order to cast spells. Hrm, hearing in battle is a -10 to Listen checks.

Just checking the SRD really quick turned these up:

(Listen DC) Sound
(-10) A battle
(0) People Talking (DC +10 to make out what they're saying)

Listen DC Modifiers
+1 per 10 feet of distance
+5 Listener distracted

It looks like you mis-remembered "battle -10"; that's the DC to actually hear a battle. If you rule that the Fighter is distracted in combat, then he'll take, effectively, a -5 on his check. So, that's 5 better than what you had in mind (raising his chance from 5% to 30%). Let's continue:

There's no reason that I can't whisper, which is DC 15, so DC 25 to listen.

Here's what I found on Verbal Components:

Verbal (V)
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

So, again, it looks like whispering isn't an option. Listen DC to hear people talking? DC 0 (as noted above). It notes that the Fighter won't know what the Wizard is saying unless he hits DC 10, but if he's just trying to hear the creature, then it's going to be significantly easier (DC 0). So, that lowers you down quite significantly, (by 25), so the Fighter is going to hear you, now, as long as he's within, say, 100 feet.

Oh, and I'm 50 feet away

Oh, so he's good, then.

so, that makes the DC 30 (note, I can be further away than that if I wanted to be). Listen is not a class skill for a fighter, which means that his Max Rank is 8 and it's unlikely the fighter has more than a +2 for Wis. IOW, he's got a 1 in 20 chance of hearing the wizard. Even with normal speaking, that still means a 50/50 chance of hearing, still forcing a 50% miss chance.

This is the math I'm referencing, by the way.

Now, pinpointing the Wizard will be hard (we'd need to consult the invisibility rules: "A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.").

And, well, let's at least try to use the rules. I'll let you do the math, since you can determine if the Fighter is "distracted" or not. But, if you use your "+10 to Listen Fighter" and your "50 foot away Invisible Wizard", then the Fighter needs to hit a natural 15 to pinpoint his exact location (natural 20 if you determine that he's sufficiently distracted from finding this Wizard).

If, however, he's not distracted, he can at least tell where the Wizard is to move closer ("A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.”"), thus lowering the Listen DC by 1 per 10 feet the Fighter closes.

Again, this isn't to say that I don't think there are issues of balance in the game, and that the Wizard would likely lose to the Fighter in a fight. But, man, your references were kinda off. I just feel if you're going to get all indignant and do the maths, you should at least do them mostly right. For all I know, I missed stuff; I haven't really DM'd 3.X in years; then again, I'm not getting all "shirty" about it

But, yup, let's interpret the rules in the most punishing way possible for casters.

Or, seemingly, in the best way for the casters, as you may have accidentally done, above? As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

So, where is it written that putting a bag of holding in a Rope Trick destroys magic items? Hazardous could simply be a d4 damage. Random effects. Various other things could happen. But, no, "actually reading the spells" means that magic items get destroyed.

There aren't rules for the specific interaction of Rope Trick and other extradimensional spaces beyond merely being "hazardous" as far as I know, but I believe the usual line of thinking is that since the Bag of Holding has those lines talking about its interaction with a Portable Hole, that's what's used for other interactions with extradimensional stuff. That doesn't technically specify the items contained in the bag or portable hole are lost when a bag is placed in a portable hole, but since it does say both are sucked into the Astral Plane and forever lost and that if the bag is destroyed its contents are lost then it stands to reason that the items are lost too. The Portable Hole does not have the same wording about its contents being destroyed if it's destroyed, so that's up to interpretation on whether they would be.

I would guess that Rope Trick's line about other extradimensional spaces is left up to interpretation because the designers might have wanted the DM and/or group as a whole to have some fun with it. If one is playing where the mechanics must be spelled out then those interactions are likely to cause some issues.

In short, it is ambiguous what would happen even if there's precedent for other extradimensional spaces definitely having rules and thus it's probably in the best interests of everyone that it not even be used as an example because there cannot be an objective way to rule on it. Would it be reasonable to say that neither a bag of holding or a portable hole can even be brought into a Rope Trick? Yes. Then again, it might also serve the table better to say that doing so is only hazardous if one doesn't prepare defenses for it, so if one wanted to bring a BoH or PH into a RT then it'd be another spell or something which could allow things to move on without much conflict, especially if what conflict or issues that would arise from it being "hazardous" aren't very compelling in the first place or actively detract so much from the game that it's more sensible to ignore them.

Personally, I wouldn't call the interaction between a RT and a BoH or PH worth getting fussy about and would just rule that it's okay to have both in the RT. The players could very well have enough stuff with them that it's necessary to store them discretely, and perhaps be discrete with RT as well. My thoughts turn immediately to the 7th Harry Potter book where Harry, Hermione, and Ron camp out in that enlarged-on-the-inside tent and Hermione has all their stuff in her purse that's likewise larger-on-the-inside.

Come to think of it, the Invisible Spell feat might handle Rope Trick stuff (specifically hiding it) quite nicely if it's simply used as written.

 

[Aenghus]

With so many different RPGs out there there are players with a huge variety of playstyles and expectations. Even within D&D there's been decades of a myriad of different games with widely differing styles, in a variety of editions, that have produced players with wildly different expectations.

This can make finding players with compatible expectations more difficult, and perhaps explains at least some of the prickly defensiveness visible here on this forum, particularly this thread. Few people like becoming an endangered species, and the fracturing of the player base has put a lot of us on the endangered list.

A case in point being how proactive players are allowed to be in a game. A lot of players are very passive, sometimes because they have been trained to be in games where proactivity wasn't rewarded or encouraged, or actively punished. I attempt to retrain passive players by showing them they can take some initiative and be successful doing it. The first step is describing the gameworld as clearly as possible and establishing expectations for how it typically works, what actions are likely to be successful, unsuccessful or impossible.Secondly, when players try being proactive I don't punish them for it, regardless of the secret details of the gameworld so far unrevealed - if their action doesn't make sense I try to improve their understanding of the gameworld and allow retractions. If their actions entail unforeseeable risks, I will generally tell them so they don't inadvertently suicide their PCs out of ignorance.

I want my players to make informed choices, so I err on the side of perhaps giving them too much information. Players starved of information are at their most dangerous, bored from inactivity or forced to make random, meaningless choices.

But generally, the players in my game can attempt actions such as skill checks and I'm highly unlikely to veto them or summarily decide they are impossible. The better the players understand how my game works the less likely they are to attempt the impossible in the first place. Success or fail, the results do need to be something we can live with, and this might require some negotiation.

The people who post on this forum are probably unrepresentative of the average player or DM. We have a lot more system mastery and have spent a lot more time thinking about RPGs in general and D&D in particular. The extrapolated consequences of the various elements of the D&D rules aren't obvious to a lot of people, and are subjective in nature as different people can honestly come to different conclusions given the same evidence, especially given the ambiguousness of some of these rules. Though when people have lived with their gameworlds for years, it can be hard to remember whats actually printed rules, what's houserules and whats extrapolated from their logical consequences.

 

[Lanefan]

I have explained above why I would not run this scene - namely, because it does not give the players any opportunity to affect the fiction. It is simply for the dispensing of backstory.

Is your question "Why doesn't pemerton want to frame scenes that are simply for the dispensing of backstory?" In which case, the answer is because (i) I find them boring, and (ii) they don't actually give the players a chance to play the game - all the players can do is soak up the backstory and thespianise their PCs.

If you see that as an issue of pacing, fine. To me it's an issue of whether or not we're actually playing the game.

I think we've just run hard aground here. "Thespianise their PCs"? That sounds like a put-down of what I'd call "role-playing", and the core activity of the whole flippin' game! Role-playing IS "playing the game" just as much as combat, exploration, and information-gathering are.

Further, scenes where backstory is "dispensed" can often be the most vital parts of the whole adventure; particularly if not all the story is going to be provided unless the PCs ask the right questions and-or read between the lines (and-or pay attention at all, which sometimes players don't, to their later detriment).

Lan-"do pay attention, double-O-seven; it's for your own good"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Tangent the 41st in this thread...

There has been a movement in recent years, and I mostly approve of it, to focus just a little more on plot and a little less on exploration in published adventures ...

While you may approve of this movement, personally I find it a bloody nuisance; as it means when I want to use a newer adventure module I have to spend time stripping out all the writer's pre-assumed plot and backstory garbage so I can work with what's left. (PF adventures, while otherwise usually quite good, are so bad for this I won't run them)

All I want is a simple adventure module. I'll put in the rest.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Definitely not what I'm looking for. If the player has a question about the outcome, he asks the "final arbiter" (aka DM). When players start trying to put their own interpretations of rules into things, I call that rules lawyering, and it gets ugly quickly.

Nope.

No, that's not it. What I'm presenting is that the DM decides what will happen. Sometimes, a player will say he wants to do something, and the DM will say to himself "Hey, that sounds like a good idea that I hadn't thought of", and improvise an NPC or other elements in response to the player's intent. Sometimes, he'll say "Hey, that would really screw up my game" and flatly decline. Most often, he won't be so decisive, and those are the cases when he will defer to the dice, and roll something to see what happens.

See, that's the major sticking point here. For us, the DM never decides what will happen. The mechanics tell everyone at the table what will happen. So, the outcome is never fixed beforehand. There is no this "would really screw up my game" ever. You can only screw up a game when someone has pre-determined what will happen.

In our style, that's never true. The reactions of the NPC are unknown until the players interact. The DM sets the initial reaction (hostile, neutral, friendly) but, it's the players, in conjunction with the mechanics which determine how the scene plays out.

What's important is that it's his choice, and it's his choice what to tell the players. In many cases, it's important that they not know the reason things happen or don't happen, to prevent them from acquiring metagame knowledge.

Whereas, in our playstyle, we presume that this is a unreachable goal. You can never prevent them from acquiring metagame knowledge, so why bother? It's never important that they not know why something happened, because the actions of the players always determine what happens, not the decisions of the DM.

 

[TwoSix]

I think we've just run hard aground here. "Thespianise their PCs"? That sounds like a put-down of what I'd call "role-playing", and the core activity of the whole flippin' game! Role-playing IS "playing the game" just as much as combat, exploration, and information-gathering are.

There's a contingent of roleplayers who don't feel talking in a funny voice does a whole lot to really define a character. Other people feel differently. It's nothing to feel put-down about when people don't necessarily like what you like. (Although [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] makes an excellent point about the slow loss of a gaming community that reflects one's personal preference.)

Further, scenes where backstory is "dispensed" can often be the most vital parts of the whole adventure; particularly if not all the story is going to be provided unless the PCs ask the right questions and-or read between the lines (and-or pay attention at all, which sometimes players don't, to their later detriment).

Or you can play a game where the backstory is created in play as a collaboration between the DM and the players. Very little is discovered, most things are created.

Honestly, it still seems you're a little perturbed at discovering that people can play an RPG in a radically different manner than your own.

 

[Hussar]

I guess it comes down to whether or not, as a DM, you want to play in a game where you can be surprised by the campaign itself. Do you, as the DM, want to know, 100%, everything in your game world, or are you willing to play in a campaign where you don't have that?

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, that's the major sticking point here. For us, the DM never decides what will happen. The mechanics tell everyone at the table what will happen. So, the outcome is never fixed beforehand. There is no this "would really screw up my game" ever. You can only screw up a game when someone has pre-determined what will happen.

Is that statement true? I guess so. But it's very difficult for a DM to run a game without predetermining anything. How many people are really running a 100% improv game? If not, you've predetermined something.

And it might not be a question of a DM knowing or dictating one particular outcome. I find that typically I enter a campaign with some thematic goals in mind, and that even my interpretation of basic task resolution can be affected by those themes in subtle but pervasive ways.

In our style, that's never true. The reactions of the NPC are unknown until the players interact. The DM sets the initial reaction (hostile, neutral, friendly) but, it's the players, in conjunction with the mechanics which determine how the scene plays out.

That's fine, and I can see the appeal of a certain emergent aspect of that approach.

But man, it's hard. I've tried that philosophy and I find it so much easier to DM when I plan some things and advance and then improvise around them, rather than trying to let everything run out of my control. It's very difficult to run a cohesive improvisation, and (unlike most people here, I would guess), I have actual training in improvisation.

Whereas, in our playstyle, we presume that this is a unreachable goal. You can never prevent them from acquiring metagame knowledge, so why bother? It's never important that they not know why something happened, because the actions of the players always determine what happens, not the decisions of the DM.

Taking a fairly literal definition of both, I think metagaming is antithetical to roleplaying. Since this is a roleplaying game, I'd say that makes metagaming a bad thing, something I want to avoid. Is it possible to completely 100% eliminate a player's out of character knowledge? Perhaps not. But I think it's important to get as close as possible.

Let's say we're talking about the players trying to Diplo an NPC, and the NPC is secretly possessed by a demon. If the players know that their roll exceeded the normal DC and they didn't get the response they were expecting, they'll start to get suspicious of the NPC. That's bad. On the other hand, if the DM just tells them the NPC doesn't do what they want without rolling, or if he makes them roll but decides that the DC is so high they can't make it, then there's more ambiguity. And the more NPCs you do that with, the more ambiguity there is. Then, the player legitimately can't tell what's going on. Just like his character.

I guess it comes down to whether or not, as a DM, you want to play in a game where you can be surprised by the campaign itself. Do you, as the DM, want to know, 100%, everything in your game world, or are you willing to play in a campaign where you don't have that?

I get surprised pretty often.

 

[Wicht]

Tangent the 41st in this thread...
While you may approve of this movement, personally I find it a bloody nuisance; as it means when I want to use a newer adventure module I have to spend time stripping out all the writer's pre-assumed plot and backstory garbage so I can work with what's left. (PF adventures, while otherwise usually quite good, are so bad for this I won't run them)

All I want is a simple adventure module. I'll put in the rest.

Lanefan

One of the oddities about doing freelancing is it leaves me far less time for my own personal campaign design, so I have been running the Adventure Paths for some years as my primary adventures (in addition to playtesting). So they are fitting my needs (and I like reading them). But I understand the problem from your point of view. May I recommend checking out the unfolding Ruins Perilous in Rite Publishing's Adventure Quarterly. All dungeon, very little plot. Quite old-school in fact. I particularly recommend the first level. (Though I wrote-upthe outline of the third level and am interested in seeing how it turned out, it should be in the next mag.)