Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

The whole Demon summoning thing came up because Wicht insisted that you cannot use a lower level spell to cast a higher level spell. That is now proven false.

Eh, not so much.

You can Planar Bind a Glabrezu, yes?

yes

You can get a Wish from that bound Glabrezu, yes?

There is a possibility of getting a wish. Its not a certainty. There are a number of possible reasons the wish might not be granted, according to the rules as written.

Thus, you can cast higher level spells by using lower level ones. End of story.

You did not cast wish. You bargained for wish and paid some sort of heavy price. It is no different than a 1st level character being able to buy a potion of invisibility. The price paid for the potion is not akin to being able to cast it. If you did not pay a price, or if there is going to be no price to be paid in the future, the DM is doing it wrong. Demons are not supposed to be in the wish granting business. They are in the soul harvesting business.

The astral projection "wish exploit" is an attempt to get something for nothing. The summoning a demon to get a wish is an example of buying a wish via a magically created opportunity.

Its an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Dausuul]

You did not cast wish. You bargained for wish and paid some sort of heavy price. It is no different than a 1st level character being able to buy a potion of invisibility. The price paid for the potion is not akin to being able to cast it. If you did not pay a price, or if there is going to be no price to be paid in the future, the DM is doing it wrong. Demons are not supposed to be in the wish granting business. They are in the soul harvesting business.

The astral projection "wish exploit" is an attempt to get something for nothing. The summoning a demon to get a wish is an example of buying a wish via a magically created opportunity.

Its an apples and oranges comparison.

Agreed. For what it's worth, I would probably roll dice to see if the glabrezu had granted a wish recently, something like "Roll 1d100. That's the number of days that have passed since the last wish-granting. If it's 30 or less, the glabrezu can't grant your wish today." Then the players can decide if they want to hold the glabrezu in the circle till its ability recharges; send it back and try again with another random glabrezu (re-roll the dice); or give up.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get a wish via planar binding, but it comes with a lot of hazards, and the possibility of the glabrezu having already used its wish is one of 'em. Another, more serious hazard is that you're getting your wish granted by a freakin' demon! Better have a good lawyer* on hand. I generally feel that DMs shouldn't twist the wording of wishes unless the player is being unreasonable, but when the wish is coming from a creature that is literally chaos and evil incarnate, all bets are off.

[SIZE=-2]*Now I'm imagining a room with two summoning circles. One of them contains a glabrezu. The wizard is standing by the other, which contains an erinyes. The demon and the devil are glaring at each other with the searing hatred of ten thousand years of war. The wizard says, "Mr. Glabrezu, I'd like to introduce my attorney. She'll be negotiating the terms of my wish..."[/SIZE]

 

[pemerton]

my point is there aren't any rules for things igniting and burning. What is the chance that something does or doesn't catch on fire? How much damage does something burning do to it? How fast does it spread? How about if you add oil too it? That's what I mean there are no rules for using the spell in this manner...

So you made up rules for the ignition and burning of things, that's cool and what I consider going outside the box

What edition of D&D does have rules for things igniting and burning? Not B/X. Not AD&D (unless you're talking about lighting and throwing flasks of oil - I don't remember even DSG or WSG having rules for this). In the 3E DMG the only rules I could find concerned heat effects (including catching alight) for characters, but not for objects - does this mean that a 3E player who uses a torch, or a Burning Hands spell, to light a campfire is "thinking outside the box"?

Personally, I don't regard using fire spells to set things alight as all that innovative - not in B/X or AD&D, and not in 4e.

 

[Imaro]

Unfortunately you've played under some GMs who didn't take the time to understand the trap/hazard/terrain system. The math is explicit and there are plenty of examples in the DMGs to assist in creating of-level fire challenges with explicit rules guidance for the usage of "burn" and "spreading" effects. Dragon magazine expands on the hazard system, significantly. Something like a Raging Fire is ridiculously easy to create (and there is one created for you):

- Size: n * n squares upon ignition.
- Trigger: Target enters or begins its turn in, or adjack6ent to, the fire.
- Attack: Level + 4 vs Ref (combat advantage if you're in fire).
- Damage: Of-level low damage expression + tier-based ongoing fire (save ends)
- Miss: half damage on miss and no ongoing
- Special: Concealment within 2 squares of fire. At the end of each round the fire spreads to 1d4 squares at random.
- Countermeasures: Of-level acrobatics check and attacks with water destroy the squares of fire

Done. That took me a few minutes to write-up, would have been simple to compose on the spot with the fundamental math, and it wasn't made up. That is just using the math and fundamentals of the trap/hazard system. If someone can't be bothered with learning the system, then there are plenty of traps/hazards available in the magazines if they just want to rip those for minimal mental overhead.

I don't know how many fire hazards and single-use terrain features I've improvised over the years using that system but its more than a few.

The trap/terrain/hazard system appears to be as oft-used as the Disease/Curse/Condition Track system. Both are great tools for facilitating various aspects of play.

Well putting aside the fact that in order to get these rules you have to be a subscriber to DDI...

Why did you decide on the low damage expression? would a different decision be just as valid? Why does the fire do half damage on a miss, is this a property of fires mechanically in the game or just something you decided? An so on. I don't think you're disproving my stance. you're just showing how you wou;ld handle the situation, I'm sure if we asked other DM's we'd get other answers... Here's an interesing question... does the power Burning Hands explicitly allow you to create a hazard? If not why is ruling that it doesn't set things ablaze (with the mechanical underpinnings of a hazard) wrong? And if so, doesn't that step on the toes of the spells that create zones since I can now use something like Burning Hands to do the same thing? This, IMO is definitely an example of out of the box thinking (on the part of as player who initiated it) and DM/arbitration/fiat... not understanding how this is even in question.

 

[Imaro]

What edition of D&D does have rules for things igniting and burning? Not B/X. Not AD&D (unless you're talking about lighting and throwing flasks of oil - I don't remember even DSG or WSG having rules for this). In the 3E DMG the only rules I could find concerned heat effects (including catching alight) for characters, but not for objects - does this mean that a 3E player who uses a torch, or a Burning Hands spell, to light a campfire is "thinking outside the box"?

Personally, I don't regard using fire spells to set things alight as all that innovative - not in B/X or AD&D, and not in 4e.

Why do you always go to other editions, I never said they had these rules (though I do want to check my Rules Cyclopedia when I get the chance since for some reason I feel like there were rules for burning things, though I could be wrong)... this wasn't some type of value judgement, just a quickly composed example of thinking outside the box in 4e? As for whether you think it's thinking outside the box or not well I'm not making a commentary on how you judge a players ideas, but I think it does step outside the RAW of 4e and for a newbie to the game I very much think it's probably pretty creative... more creative than picking a power, hitting, doing damage and apply effect... *shrug* to each his own I guess.

EDIT: Also I think trying to create a forest fire with mechanical effects is a bit different than lighting a campfire for story color...

 

[TwoSix]

Why do you always go to other editions, I never said they had these rules (though I do want to check my Rules Cyclopedia when I get the chance since for some reason I feel like there were rules for burning things, though I could be wrong)... this wasn't some type of value judgement, just a quickly composed example of thinking outside the box in 4e? As for whether you think it's thinking outside the box or not well I'm not making a commentary on how you judge a players ideas, but I think it does step outside the RAW of 4e and for a newbie to the game I very much think it's probably pretty creative... more creative than picking a power, hitting, doing damage and apply effect... *shrug* to each his own I guess.

EDIT: Also I think trying to create a forest fire with mechanical effects is a bit different than lighting a campfire for story color...

"Thinking outside the box" is usually viewed as being complimentary, so saying a game doesn't let you think outside of the box comes across a bit negative, even if that wasn't your intention. I prefer to think that looser rules just give you a bigger box!

 

[pemerton]

Why do you always go to other editions

Because using fireball to set alight wooden things (ships, forests, buildings) has been a part of the game for as long as fireball (and other fire spells) have been in the game.

Also, at post 1533 upthread you said that "I see a few downsides to the "through play" method such as issues with coherency and already established backstory, a dis-incentive to think outside the box". And I thought that setting things on fire with a spell in 4e was meant to be an instance of this downside.

It now seems that you're saying that setting things on fire in 4e is no different from setting things on fire in any other edition of D&D - ie it requires extrapolating from the fictional positioning, plus (in 4e, at least) applying and adjudicating general guidelines for damaging objects. Does that mean you're revising your claim about "indie" play and thinking outside the box? Or was this the wrong example of thinking outside the box (though it was your example)?

I personally still do not believe that there is any evidence that "indie" play, in which backstory is established through play, discourages "thinking outside the box". Setting things on fire with a Burning Hands spell is certainly not such evidence, and you now seem to be agreeing given that you seem to agree that it is no different across editions of D&D.

 

[Imaro]

Because using fireball to set alight wooden things (ships, forests, buildings) has been a part of the game for as long as fireball (and other fire spells) have been in the game.

Also, at post 1533 upthread you said that "I see a few downsides to the "through play" method such as issues with coherency and already established backstory, a dis-incentive to think outside the box". And I thought that setting things on fire with a spell in 4e was meant to be an instance of this downside.

It now seems that you're saying that setting things on fire in 4e is no different from setting things on fire in any other edition of D&D - ie it requires extrapolating from the fictional positioning, plus (in 4e, at least) applying and adjudicating general guidelines for damaging objects. Does that mean you're revising your claim about "indie" play and thinking outside the box? Or was this the wrong example of thinking outside the box (though it was your example)?

I personally still do not believe that there is any evidence that "indie" play, in which backstory is established through play, discourages "thinking outside the box". Setting things on fire with a Burning Hands spell is certainly not such evidence, and you now seem to be agreeing given that you seem to agree that it is no different across editions of D&D.

When did 4e become an indie game.... it has at best, indie trappings.

You're conflating two separate issues, I was giving an example of thinking outside the box in 4e that does not mean said example was meant to show how thinking outside the box is lessened in 4e. Honestly it's my opinion about 4e and many indie games and I think we both know there's no evidence either way except anecdotal... so let's not pretend it can be proven... that's why I stated it as downsides I see.

 

[cross ofth carpenter]

Unfortunately you've played under some GMs who didn't take the time to understand the trap/hazard/terrain system.......The trap/terrain/hazard system appears to be as oft-used as the Disease/Curse/Condition Track system. Both are great tools for facilitating various aspects of play.

I would like to commemorate the 1600th post on this thread, posted by Manbearcat on Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 9:24 AM.

 

[TwoSix]

I would like to commemorate the 1600th post on this thread, posted by Manbearcat on Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 9:24 AM.

I think we've passed some of the big hullaballo threads of the past; kudos to all involved!