Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Campbell]

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

I think this is one area where our desire to categorize and quantify things as geeks gets in our way. There is no platonic indie game or traditional game. The degree to which a given game or gaming group will use certain techniques will depend on what is right for that game in particular. I don't believe we really value different things over all, we just value them to different extents. I like the feeling of a living and breathing world, but not at the cost of meaningful player choices and flexibility in fictional positioning. I assume N'raac values his player's ability to have a meaningful impact on the game's setting - he just values causal process simulation slightly more.

I hope that comes off the right way. I'm not sure what exactly N'raac values. I do know that there are significant differences between me and pemerton. He is interested in broad thematic high fantasy play, whereas I'm more interested in more human psychological stories that include a stronger sand box element, although not to the extend of LostSoul's hex crawl.

 

[pemerton]

I do know that there are significant differences between me and pemerton. He is interested in broad thematic high fantasy play, whereas I'm more interested in more human psychological stories that include a stronger sand box element, although not to the extend of LostSoul's hex crawl.

I have had players who are interest in human psychological stories, but you are right that that does not really describe my present group, and hence does not really describe my present play.

I see high fantasy as a way to externalise a lot of the standard thematic concerns (eg they get projected onto gods, demons, angels, fey etc) without having dramatic theme reduced to mere procedural obstacles. The result is character who tend somewhat towards being ciphers, defined by their loyalites and orientations in action rather than by their inner lives.

The last time I ran an "inner lives" game was the Rolemaster game I mentioned upthread in which the wizard's girlfriend was cut in half by his adventuring companion's rogue demon. I personally don't feel that D&D produces PCs with enough internal definition to really support this sort of play - that's part of what I'm getting at when I describe it as gonzo. But if others are doing that I'm interested to learn what/how.

These days if I was going to try and run that sort of game I would not use D&D or Rolemaster but rather Burning Wheel.

 

[N'raac]

Where is all this backstory coming from.

Much of the problem is that it is coming from nowhere. It does not matter how long the PC's have lived in the kingdom. They don't know whether the balcony on the King's palace faces the town. They have no means of knowing whether the king is an evil tyrant or a kind, benevolent ruler. His ongoing consorting with dragons exists only when the players roll it into existence, so they cannot plan for a king who consorts with dragons. The players have no actual knowledge to assess how their characters would plan to engage with the chancellor or the king. Instead, they create the king and country around them, so they can't actually have knowledge of the king and country that, logically, characters living there would have.

As Manbearcat spelled out in post 1532, the intention of the action was to impress the Chamberlain in a certain fashion. Not to save the city. And that intention was realised.

Here is probably where most of the confusion lies. I didn't write this well nor did I convey the most important info. The Rogue answered and began his Bluffed geas ritual threat in the arcane language spat out by the drake. He ended the formal threat by speaking in the common tongue so that the chamberlain could understand just what was taking place. The Bluff was both about threatening the drake to leave this place and never take any retribution on this kingdom nor any of its inhabitants for this specific defeat (and this is my assumption as it was a very broad threat...I could ask the player and confirm if anyone cares) lest he be magically ensorcelled with the curse...but its intent was relevant to the task at hand - convincing the chamberlain that he was capable of such a thing. As such, the fictional positioning changed (again) by the successful Bluff as it achieved its sought end; earning trust (they care about the city, its people, and even the chamberlain...and their motive is to protect it rather than to extort it for services rendered...much like the dragon is currently doing...so they aren't trading one master for another) and mettle credibility (this guy, and this group, can actually curse people with powerful rituals!) with the chamberlain.

Seems to me it had two purposes, and one was to ensure no retribution against the town and its people. And he succeeded, so by the Indie tenets, there should be no such retribution.

The answer to the first is "no", for two reasons: (i) it is already establsihed that there is a ruling king; and (ii) there are no formal mechanics for this in 4e (as I mentioned upthread) and in Manbearcat's explanation of his scene there was never any invitation to the players to contribute on this particular point.

The answer to the second presumably is "via GM narration".

"So the PC's decided to go see the King, whose reputation as a ruler and even as a man was completely unknown to them for perhaps he would agree to aid them on their quest" doesn't quite do it for me. Seriously, the King has NO reputation at all? If he has a reputation, at what point is it solid enough that the rolls can't change it? Maybe someone else actually directs the King, who is but a puppet/figurehead. Maybe the Drakes were truly Angels in disguise, testing the faith of the King. Perhaps the baby was a Shapechanged Lich. At what point is the backstory actually fixed?

Are they mechanically identical? They're both wizards - do they really use the same spell load-out all the time?

They certainly could. They would remain differentiated in play. Perhaps they have the same spell book and select different spells, as dictated by their personalities.

I don't really follow any of this. Because I don't know where you think player goals come from - though I get the sense you assume they come from the GM and the GM's story[./quote]

The PC's interact with the setting and set their goals in doing so. I may have a good ability to predict their goals (will you be surprised if your players who worship the Raven Queen take action to a threat against her?), but the players set their own goals. Altruistic PC's, if such were a requirement of the game, would set altruistic goals, or so one would expect.

- I don't know what you mean by "tactical excellence". Do you mean something like "mechanical efficiency in achieving the goals set for the PCs by the GM"?

I mean "the best tactical approach, with no influence from the character's personality". If any deviation from perfect tactics is a death sentence for the PC's then they will always strive for perfect tactics, whether or not it is in character. The Dwarven Berserker who loathes Goblins will nevertheless bypass the Goblin Guards if his best tactics are to attack the Human priest leading them.

I also don't know what you are talking about with "rewards". Upthread you suggested that Glabrezus won't do something for nothing, just as PCs typically don't. Now you seem to be asserting simply that both Glabrezus and PCs act for reasons. The first point is wrong in my experience. The second point is banal.

The PC's have goals - doing something to advance those goals is not "doing something for nothing" Same for the Glabrezu.

No, they planned the heist, so they should at least be allowed to attempt it. They planned the Demon summoning, SUCCEEDED at the demon summoning and the DM then cheese weasels his way out of that success by exploiting a loophole in the mechanics (Demon can only do it once/month) that, if a player does it (Astral Projection to get infinite wishes) is the sign of a poor player. Why is that not a sign of a bad DM?

Until the MoP ruling, the manner in which charged items interacted with AP was not set out in the rules. An expectation of infinite wishes was unreasonable. The MoP ruling eliminated any argument that the interpretation with an unreasonable result was correct. That a Glabrezu may grant a wish only every 30 days implies a possibility he has used this ability in the past 30 days. The likelihood depends a lot on how easy we think it is to get a Glabrezu to grant a wish.

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. You can Planar Bind a Glabrezu, yes? You can get a Wish from that bound Glabrezu, yes? Thus, you can cast higher level spells by using lower level ones. End of story.

As Wicht notes, you did not cast the spell. The Glabrezu did.

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.

Seems a reasonable approach. No reason a CE Glabrezu hauled off to this plane against his will should share that info, either.

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.

I like the approach that the source of the wish matters. A benevolent grantor will interpret the words to the wisher's favour. We had that arise some time ago with a character in mourning for his deceased wife wishing "to be with her once again". The wife was restored to life. A neutral grantor would probably kill the character. An evil one might teleport him to her moldering corpse.

 

[Hussar]

Where in my games anything goes; and if players want to play evil characters that's up to them, and if they decide to become jewel thieves at the Keep instead of visiting the caves of chaos I'll just have to roll with that.

The jeweller conveniently leaving town at the last minute isn't usually something I'd do unless I had a very good reason for it (e.g. he was the hook for another adventure) and in that case there'd be a breadcrumb trail of some sort.

All that said, there's still occasionally a time and place where a DM can bring down the hand of god and flat-out say "no, you can't go that way; it doesn't exist yet!" where the players have *really* caught her unprepared on a sharp left turn. Used in extreme moderation, this can provide a good war story to tell later.

Lan-"worldbuilding on the fly only really becomes an issue once the characters figure out how much fun 'planeshift' can be"-efan

Yuppers. My games tend to follow this sort of thing as well. The players determine what they want to do, rather than me telling them. Not always, true. Sometimes I run more focused games, but, they tend to be shorter in length. But, the players are expected to guide the game, rather than the DM dictating.

And, the game in the Keep on the Borderlands was that kind of game. We had free rein.

Additionally, I totally understand the need for DM's to say, "Ok, guys, smoke break/beverage/bathroom break. I need to do something for about 15 minutes." Not a problem.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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.

Not really. The 1st level character buying a magic item must somehow have the money to buy that magic item. It is not inherent to the character. The demon summoning wizard doesn't need anyone else to gain a wish. And Demons aren't in the wish granting business? Really? That directly contradicts the text of the monster. The opportunity for gaining that wish is 100% in the character's hands, and not in the hands of anyone else.

 

[Wicht]

Not really. The 1st level character buying a magic item must somehow have the money to buy that magic item. It is not inherent to the character. The demon summoning wizard doesn't need anyone else to gain a wish. And Demons aren't in the wish granting business? Really? That directly contradicts the text of the monster. The opportunity for gaining that wish is 100% in the character's hands, and not in the hands of anyone else.

Well, one would think the demon (as interpreted by the DM) has some say in it. And just because the price may not be gold does not mean there will not be a price. Simply put, the binding spell is not a guarantee of a wish, nor should it be, and any DM that allows it to be so is not exactly following the intended parameters of the whole business.

And Demons are in the wish granting business in much the same way that a fisherman is in the feeding-worms-to-fish business. Any PC thinking otherwise deserves all the nastiness they bring upon themselves.

 

[Hussar]

Well, one would think the demon (as interpreted by the DM) has some say in it. And just because the price may not be gold does not mean there will not be a price. Simply put, the binding spell is not a guarantee of a wish, nor should it be, and any DM that allows it to be so is not exactly following the intended parameters of the whole business.

And Demons are in the wish granting business in much the same way that a fisherman is in the feeding-worms-to-fish business. Any PC thinking otherwise deserves all the nastiness they bring upon themselves.

Look, bottom line. Can a wizard gain a wish through the use of a Planar Binding spell? Yes or no. Because, if the answer is yes, then you can gain higher level spells with lower level spells. Is it easy? Who cares? That's not the issue. Difficulty is only clouding the issue. Is it possible?

 

[Wicht]

Look, bottom line. Can a wizard gain a wish through the use of a Planar Binding spell? Yes or no. Because, if the answer is yes, then you can gain higher level spells with lower level spells. Is it easy? Who cares? That's not the issue. Difficulty is only clouding the issue. Is it possible?

It is possible but that is besides the point. I am genuinely surprised that you cannot see the distinction. Through the route cited you do not obtain the results of a higher level spell through the mere casting of the low level spell. It is the production of a higher level effect as a direct action of the lower level spell that is undesirable and it is this principle of design and DMing that you don't want to break.

Forgetting planar binding for a moment, take another example. You could use charm person to convince a wealthy woman to give you enough gold to buy a scroll of improved invisibility. You could use the improved invisibility to get a magic sword. You could use the magic sword to kill the dread beastie that just happens to own a ring of wishes. In a round about way it is possible then to obtain a wish through the casting of charm person. And that's fine. Because the casting of the first spell did not directly produce the improved invisibility effect nor did the casting of improved invisibility directly produce the magic sword, nor ultimately the wish effect. In each case there are other steps and actions which must be taken. In the same way, the planar binding does not directly produce the wish effect. There are intermediate actions that must be taken and the gaining of the wish involves additional risks and costs. That's acceptable and does not negate the point that casting astral projection cannot directly create, ex nihilo, 3 wishes.

 

[Wiseblood]

Look, bottom line. Can a wizard gain a wish through the use of a Planar Binding spell? Yes or no. Because, if the answer is yes, then you can gain higher level spells with lower level spells. Is it easy? Who cares? That's not the issue. Difficulty is only clouding the issue. Is it possible?

It would appear so. Yes.

Efreeti would be subject to the spell.

In this case though the wizard must convince the planar creature to do so. The difference is a matter of force. Anyone can gain a wish when it's granted by an NPC. The Wizard simply can force the situation into existence where it can happen by preparing a spell. Just as the fighter Can survive a fall of any height at level one if things go well.

 

[Hussar]

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. I summon the demon, I choose a sufficiently destructive wish, I get a free wish. End of story. There are no intermediate risks, no intermediate actions.

Astral Projection, as written, can actually grant you 3 wishes. You actually admitted that you were going beyond the spell to limit that. Now, it's a perfectly acceptable limitation, but, as written, you can use Astral Projection that way.

Now, it's a terribly written spell and needs to be revised to prevent this. Fair enough. But, that's beside the point. You claimed you cannot use a lower level spell to cast a higher level spell. That's not true. You certainly can, without any significant intermediate steps.

I mean, heck, I can use Monster Summoning spells to gain access to clerical (or wizard if I'm a cleric) spells. Healing, Neutralize Poison, Create Food and Water, etc.

Heck, Planar Binding is a 6th level spell. I can Bind a Coatl and get it to cast Plane Shift (7th level spell). There, I just cast a 6th level spell to gain a 7th level spell.

And the point is, no non-caster can EVER get access to this kind of thing. There is nothing a fighter can do to gain higher level abilities. A fighter cannot gain a given feat without moving up the feat chain first. Yet, my wizard can gain higher level abilities.