D&D General Poll: As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
When my buddy wanted to run a '1's always crit fail... and on attacks you deal damage to yourself and drop your weapon' I tried to explain how this penelized melee combatants... when he didn't listen I made a hafling for his game.

it took 5 sessions before he asked why I never crit failed like everyone else... by then I had hit 4th level and told him I was taking lucky and he almost flipped the table.
That reminds me of something posted a long time ago, about a 3rd edition game.

A new player joined the group and wanted to play a Wizard.

The DM spent a long time explaining how he was very harsh on wizards - in particular there was no such thing as a generic "spell component pouch"; the player would have to keep track of what was in the pouch, and re-supply as and when the situation allowed. No re-supply, no spells.

The player took Eschew Materials as his first level feat.

The DM had a melt-down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
So, even if the DM accidentally left open a major loophole, you would in fact pass up on using it? Just to be clear. 'Cause that sort of thing, doing something technically rules-legal despite knowing, for sure, that it would upset the DM if you did it, was part of why I posted this poll--someone said pretty much exactly that.
I might consider it, if both a) I had raised the issue with the DM beforehand and they denied that it would be a problem (for the purpose of illustrating the point and helping the problem get fixed sooner), and b) I thought I could do so without ruining the game for the other players. But those are conditions, so not "no matter what"....
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
That reminds me of something posted a long time ago, about a 3rd edition game.

A new player joined the group and wanted to play a Wizard.

The DM spent a long time explaining how he was very harsh on wizards - in particular there was no such thing as a generic "spell component pouch"; the player would have to keep track of what was in the pouch, and re-supply as and when the situation allowed. No re-supply, no spells.

The player took Eschew Materials as his first level feat.

The DM had a melt-down.
I mean, the fact that he didn't know that was a Feat amuses me. And really, it's sad that it needed to be a Feat. That you have to give up something just to opt out of keeping an inventory of the various bits of bat guano, bull dung, glass rods, fur, scraps of blessed parchment, and insect legs you have on you just to actually use your class abilities to contribute to an adventure.

I know that's how some people play, but it's like saying "I don't allow for generic Thieves' Tools; I expect you to keep a careful inventory of every pick, torque wrench, hammer, knife, jigger, shim, hook, and plug spinner before you attempt to open any lock in my campaign." Never did cotton to the idea.

Or, to paraphrase Grod's Law: "You cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use."
 

That reminds me of something posted a long time ago, about a 3rd edition game.

A new player joined the group and wanted to play a Wizard.

The DM spent a long time explaining how he was very harsh on wizards - in particular there was no such thing as a generic "spell component pouch"; the player would have to keep track of what was in the pouch, and re-supply as and when the situation allowed. No re-supply, no spells.

The player took Eschew Materials as his first level feat.

The DM had a melt-down.
perfect
 

I might consider it, if both a) I had raised the issue with the DM beforehand and they denied that it would be a problem (for the purpose of illustrating the point and helping the problem get fixed sooner), and b) I thought I could do so without ruining the game for the other players. But those are conditions, so not "no matter what"....
i will give another example... stacking templates.

I had a DM in 3e (i think it was right before 3.5 but maybe it was 3.5) that had a house rule that level adjustment overlaped not stacked... but you had to make the character make sense... I told him it was a bad idea. I told him it would cause even more imbalances then it would solve... his answer was it didn't make sense that a teifling half dragon would have +1 and +4 level adjustment the 4 was enough...

So everyone pitched at least 1 level adjustment races... I had my character be a human and straight wizard... but I helped my then girlfriend make her character and background... she was from his underdark city that was aligned with the black dragons... so she was a drow half dragon, but she also was a descendent of lolth 6 generations back and tiamat 9 generations back... but one of lolths handmaidens was her mother... so she had the following race (try to keep track of the halfs) Drow Half Dragon Half Fiend Half Celestial making all but the highest free...

(to be fair we also had a shadow half dragon and a half celestial centaur with the other players) but boy did my girl take the cake... her class was monk and she had more spells then I did as a MUCH higher level wizard.
 

I know that's how some people play, but it's like saying "I don't allow for generic Thieves' Tools; I expect you to keep a careful inventory of every pick, torque wrench, hammer, knife, jigger, shim, hook, and plug spinner before you attempt to open any lock in my campaign." Never did cotton to the idea.

oh god... why... why in the name of god did you type this!?! now somewhere someone is going to try to detail out all the 'tools'
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
I mean, the fact that he didn't know that was a Feat amuses me. And really, it's sad that it needed to be a Feat. That you have to give up something just to opt out of keeping an inventory of the various bits of bat guano, bull dung, glass rods, fur, scraps of blessed parchment, and insect legs you have on you just to actually use your class abilities to contribute to an adventure.

I know that's how some people play, but it's like saying "I don't allow for generic Thieves' Tools; I expect you to keep a careful inventory of every pick, torque wrench, hammer, knife, jigger, shim, hook, and plug spinner before you attempt to open any lock in my campaign." Never did cotton to the idea.

Or, to paraphrase Grod's Law: "You cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use."
There seems to be a small percentage of players/DMs who really want fine detail, though not nearly as many as there were during D&D's Silver Age (as Grognardia calls it) during the '80s. I remember there being a Dragon magazine article for 1E going into minute detail on all the spell components, giving exact costs, fabrication times, % chances for finding them at a magic shop/guild, alchemist, temple, etc.

Found it. Dragon #81, December 1983. Living in a material world by Michael Dobson. I think it must have been reprinted in Best of Dragon, because I don't think I ever had the original issue. It stretches out over ten pages! Here's a summary of the system in use, from the end of the article:

Using the system

Greycloak, a 5th level magic-user, is preparing for a several-week expedition to defeat the evil wizard Ashlock, who inhabits an old, evil dungeon in the mountains. Because he must travel light, he has obtained and prepared a travelling spell book (500 gp) with the spells charm person, magic missile, sleep, stinking cloud, forget, and phantasmal force (1000 gp to inscribe). Fortunately, charm person, magic missile, and forget have no material components.

Using the spell descriptions in the Players Handbook and the tables in this article, Greycloak makes the following list:
  • Sleep: a pinch of fine sand (Uncommon; 1 gp/oz.), rose petals (Common; 2 sp/ea.), or a live cricket (Uncommon; 1 gp/ea.)
  • Stinking cloud: a rotten egg (Uncommon; 1 cp/ea.) or several skunk cabbage leaves (Uncommon; 1 gp/cabbage).
  • Phantasmal force: a bit of fleece (Common; 1 gp/lb.)
Greycloak has paid 500 gp to the local magician's guild in dues to use the guild's private magic shop. In order to make sure he has ample supplies for the upcoming
adventure, he wants to buy ten sets of ingredients for each spell. The magic shop is located in a medium sized town (-10%), and is run by a 3rd level magic-user (no adjustment). Sleep is a first level spell, so the base chance to have the most rare item (Uncommon, -10%) is 80%. Greycloak rolls less than 80% ten times, and receives ten packets of fine sand and/or rose petals in a waterproof box, for which he pays 100 gp.

The next item on Greycloak's shopping list is the ingredients for stinking cloud, a second-level spell with Uncommon components. Again, there is an 80% chance that the components will be in stock, but this time Greycloak rolls an 85% on his fifth roll, meaning that he can only buy four sets of components here, for a price of 20 gp each, or 80 gp. Make sure they're packaged tightly, Greycloak growls. Last time the party made me stay twenty feet downwind!

Because he still needs six rotten eggs (or skunk cabbage leaves), he decides to visit the local alchemist. He could, of course, visit a farm or a food dealer, but he wants to
make sure that the ingredients are prepackaged. There is a base 40% chance that the local alchemist will sell material spell components; the roll is successful. The chance of the items being in stock is 100% (base) -20% (alchemist) -10% (medium town) -10% (Uncommon component) = 60%. This time, Greycloak succeeds in making six rolls, and finishes his purchase for a price of 15 gp/level x 2 levels x 6 sets = 180 gp. He grumbles at paying the higher price, but likes the odor-proof containers.

The third item on his list, fleece for the phantasmal force spell, would cost 30 gp for each casting. Outrageous, what these magic dealers get away with, Greycloak
mutters. He visits the local fuller, which is 90% likely to sell fleece, a Common item. He buys a pound of fleece for 1 gp, and spends another gold piece to have his Purchase wrapped.

Finally, all the preparation is complete. His horse has been groomed and fed by stableboys, his dagger sharpened, all his magic items carefully checked and ready for use. Now for a good night's sleep, Greycloak says to himself, and yawns. And on the morrow, the adventure begins!

Conclusion
I hope this information will allow the more active use of material spell component rules in your campaign. Properly used, material spell components add to the romance and realism of magic use, and somewhat restrict the power of spell casters. They also provide an interesting method of siphoning off excess cash, and ways for a clever party to obtain extra gold pieces. And, by giving people a reason to visit more stores and shops in your favorite city or town, they will meet more non-player characters, hear more rumors, and become more involved in the day-to-day life of your world.

This one goes super hard into "realism" / verisimilitude, and I remember being intrigued by it as a teenager. But most of the time I can't imagine wanting to spend this kind of time on it.
 

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin.

If you as a player see an advantage you could exploit, whatever it might be, whether in the rules or outside them, are you always justified in pursuing it?

Edit: To be clear, this is not any form of cheating, in the sense of breaking any gameplay rules. No falsifying rolls, "misremembering" HP or GP, "accidentally" (read: on purpose) giving yourself features you shouldn't have at your level, etc.
side question (maybe even something you can use if you can shorten it for your next poll)

You are talking (from what I can tell) about gaming the system (See peasant rail gun) but what about playing the DM...

"Jon is running this game and he hates trapped doors so no need to check for traps most times"
or
"GMforpowergamers loves surprise face heal turns... I bet this wizard that is hiring us will turn on us better prep for that"
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
There seems to be a small percentage of players/DMs who really want fine detail, though not nearly as many as there were during D&D's Silver Age (as Grognardia calls it) during the '80s. I remember there being a Dragon magazine article for 1E going into minute detail on all the spell components, giving exact costs, fabrication times, % chances for finding them at a magic shop/guild, alchemist, temple, etc.

Its often a roundabout way to try and weaken mages by people who want a more sword-and-sorcery style experience than D&D is normally prone to give, but are living with the system as presented (where, honestly, too many spells are too powerful for that to be the effect you get in most S&S and can be applied too reliably). I.e. its a symptom of people essentially trying to use the tool for a job its not really suited to.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
Its often a roundabout way to try and weaken mages by people who want a more sword-and-sorcery style experience than D&D is normally prone to give, but are living with the system as presented (where, honestly, too many spells are too powerful for that to be the effect you get in most S&S and can be applied too reliably). I.e. its a symptom of people essentially trying to use the tool for a job its not really suited to.
If we are really wanting balance and for each person to have a position on the team, I vote against components and vote for more mechanisms for spell interruption.

Not just concentration.
 

Remove ads

Top