DM-dependent PC abilities

[Driddle]

Leaving the table to use the bathroom can be a DM-dependent ability.

I really like the Anim.Emp. concept, but it's darned frustrating to rarely have an opportunity to put it to use. As I suggested elsewhere, it's possible to force the DM's hand a little -- you could regularly (repeatedly) declare you're wandering off to see if there are any animals around, for example. And in essence that's not much different than rolling for bardic knowledge every time you enter a room or declaring that you're going to shuffle around the room until you see someone's back turned to you or hitting every tavern in town asking if any of the locals have seen your favored enemy, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

So DM-dependence can be either the mark of a bad DM or an insufficiently proactive player? For example, with Favored Enemy: Ooze, I search out oozes -- but if the DM never provides any, good play/bad DM? I agree the good DM adapts the adventure to suit players and provides opportunities for PCs to use their abilities -- but doesn't that just highlight DM-dependent abilities, versus those that the player can employ whether the DM's scenario encourages it or not?

You got it in the first sentence. I think the disconnect comes from the DMs not choosing the scenario or adventure. Sure they populate the world and drop in adventure plots all over the place, but there was nothing stopping our PCs in Mistledale from hunting down some oozes or befriending some animals. If we had stuck to urban-only adventures, Ooze Masters and Animals Empaths would be at a loss. The best way to change that is to change the will of the group as a player.

Paladins are going to desire certain types of adventure. Vampire hunters will want to hunt down vampires. Ooze masters desire oozes for... their own purposes. Etc. The group chooses what they want to do. That's part of teambuilding.

It's not really a DM's job to provide the spectrum of choice (based on character abilities) in every corner of the world. For one, it's not very realistic. Secondly, it promotes the "I can only do what the rules/powers in the books say I can" mentality. Most challenges can be overcome via creative thinking instead of choose the right ability. Just because swordplay and sorcery appear to always be options doesn't mean that they really are. Games get dull when every challenge can either be "killed or magicked".

Also, if a DM allows a player to run a Vampire Hunter and then presents a world without vampires, I think there's something going wrong there. As well, if the DM has ladened the world with only non-vampire adventures, he shouldn't try and stop the Vampire Hunter character when they decide to hunt some down. Imagine the negation as an additional ruleset that is offered, but not actually implemented. "Sure your sword is a legacy weapon! Only... it's not and neither are any others. Ever."

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Leaving the table to use the bathroom can be a DM-dependent ability.

I really like the Anim.Emp. concept, but it's darned frustrating to rarely have an opportunity to put it to use. As I suggested elsewhere, it's possible to force the DM's hand a little -- you could regularly (repeatedly) declare you're wandering off to see if there are any animals around, for example. And in essence that's not much different than rolling for bardic knowledge every time you enter a room or declaring that you're going to shuffle around the room until you see someone's back turned to you or hitting every tavern in town asking if any of the locals have seen your favored enemy, etc.

I quite agree - although I'd tone it as reminding the GM, rather than forcing his hand.

Guess, running for a table full of PCs, it's entirely possible to forget one of them has specific DM dependant class ability? A gentle IC reminder every now and again and I figure most GMs will throw something the players way?

 

[Mark CMG]

Doesn't this discussion boil down to the question of whether a DM should mold the game to suit the player choices or if the players should make choices based on what type of world the DM wants to present?

 

[Cor Azer]

Doesn't this discussion boil down to the question of whether a DM should mold the game to suit the player choices or if the players should make choices based on what type of world the DM wants to present?

Both, I feel.

The DM's job is to make the game fun for the players - and part of that is making sure player's feel like their abilities are useful.

The players' job is to make the game fun for the other players and the DM - and part of that is making sure their character concept/abilities fit in with what everyone (including the DM) want to run.

Unfortunately, this is all much easier said than done.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Driddle's latest poll got me thinking about PC ability design -- specifically, those PC abilities that are DM-dependent, rather than player dependent. That is, they come in to play only when the DM sets conditions that allow them to be used, rather than when the player wants them to be used. The quintessential example is Favored Enemy, which only comes in to play when a certain type of creature is encountered. Other examples might include Wild Empathy and Turn Undead. I don't consider abilities like Bardic Knowledge to fall into this category -- a player caqn always choose to make a bardic knowledge check, though the DM still adjuducates its results.

- What are some other DM-dependent abilities?

Barbarian - Weak vs ranged and flyers. Not a big deal, IMO.
Bard - Bardic Lore is sort of DM dependent. The lack of broad spellcasting also makes them somewhat DM dependant. Mind you, mind control and illusions work on most things anyway.
Cleric - already listed. Mostly free of them.
Druid - Wild empathy, a fair number of spells. Note that druids do have a lot of spells that can be used in any environment, though, so I don't know why people sometimes say druids are useless indoors.
Fighter - Almost entirely DM-independent. A fighter who uses a spiked chain might get annoyed if their enemies are always large four-legged monsters, though (as a counter-example). Some feats, like Improved Disarm, are somewhat DM-dependent.
Monk - Some abilties, like immunity to poison and slow fall are quite DM-dependent.
Paladin - their anti-evil abilities show up in most games. The use of the mount is somewhat DM-dependent; being immune to disease and being able to relieve disease is very DM-dependent.
Ranger - favored enemy is very DM-dependent, and since rangers have few ways of boosting damage, this is a big part of the class.
Rogue - sneak attack is a little DM-dependent and a huge part of the class. Trap finding is much more DM-dependent. Fortunately, trap finding is rarely a big part of their concept (IMO). Some of the special abilities (10th-level+) are a bit DM-dependent.
Sorcerer/Wizard - like a fighter, they're most DM-independent. Some feats and spells are more DM-dependent than others, and this hurts the sorcerer more than the wizard (fewer spells known, no bonus feats).

- Do DM-dependent abilities make for good design?

As stated numerous times already, all abilities are to some extent DM-dependent. "DM-dependent!" abilities are abilities that a player has little choice about whether they can use it or not and is (usually) hard for the DM to make available, sometimes leading to frustration.

Still, it wouldn't be so bad, except some classes have lots of these abilities, and some don't. Rangers have a lot of them, whereas wizards that chose broad-brush spells don't really have to worry about it.

- Are character classes better off with more or fewer of these abilities? For example, is the ranger worse off with two of them, or are these good benefits that are more easily balanced.

You're better off with fewer (or, perhaps more precisely, with an equal amount of these abilities per class).

- How might you create player-initiated substitutes for these types of abilities? A good example here might be the use of "Turn Undead" to power other feats or abilities when the player wants.

Provided the feats in questions are balanced, I like the idea. Also substitution; there's no thematic feats that I can think of that would apply to favored enemy, so why not substitute the ability for something else instead?

A ranger is actually better at seeking monsters than any other class around. "Not fighting enough ------? Who's more qualified to find them?"

I disagree. What reason does the ranger have to enter a cave and go shoot oozes? It doesn't advance any sort of plot, it doesn't weaken the bad guys, or anything like that, it just gives the ranger a few more XP. The DM has to create a scenario where the oozes are dangerous to ordinary people, instead of just hiding in a cave where they only hurt spelunkers and adventurers.

It's even worse with intelligent beings. A ranger who chose elves as his favored enemy had better not go around killing elves for no reason. Eventually the elven armed forces will come after him!

If a ranger took ooze as a favored enemy, the DM should use oozes alongside regular villains. (Oozes, being unintelligent generally, can't be villains by themselves. Unless the DM makes a cool new monster type. Or at least give villainous spellcasters a tame ooze spell.) The MM doesn't have things like intelligent oozes, I believe, however, so it's harder for the DM to make favored enemy (ooze) useful.

I would suggest sneak-attack is somewhat DM dependant, since so many creatures (including all undead) are immune to its effects.

Even if a DM doesn't pay attention to the "distribution of monster types", almost every campaign will use mostly enemies that can be sneak attacked. So while it's DM-dependent like most game abilities, it's not "DM-dependent!". Any player of a rogue should be able to use sneak attack on a regular basis. (There are obvious exceptions, like a heavy undead campaign.)

you could regularly (repeatedly) declare you're wandering off to see if there are any animals around, for example.

I don't think that works, actually. So you found a bear. What are you going do, try to tame it? Shoot it for no reason? Even if it attacks, was it going to attack if you hadn't gotten into its face? The player would be better off asking the DM about these things, and hopefully the DM will get the hint and use some overly aggressive dire animals that have been eating travellers in this area or maybe include an evil druid (with animal companion and summons and maybe animals he charmed) in an upcoming encounter or something like that. Or maybe there's a curse on this town that can only be cured when a certain locket is returned to the town ... and the locket is on a collar around an escaped dog's neck, so now the ranger PC has to track that specific dog down, get the animal to approach using wild empathy, and bring the dog and locket back. (It's the best I could come up with in about ten seconds.)

In campaigns I've run, players almost never ask me about rarely-used skills. I'll try to work them in, but being a fallible human beings I need reminders. Maybe DMs need to be better about communicating to players that the players can remind them of these things.

 

[Mark CMG]

In campaigns I've run, players almost never ask me about rarely-used skills. I'll try to work them in, but being a fallible human beings I need reminders. Maybe DMs need to be better about communicating to players that the players can remind them of these things.

I keep up to date copies of the player character sheets in my games (having a private board where the players keep them updated themselves helps, but just a quick scan every couple of sessions works, too).

One of the first things I do before prepping is look over the player characters and muse on what I might add that addresses little used abilities, skills, feats, class features, items or talents. I make a few notes and try to do this for all of the player characters on a more or less equal basis, even if they are just little things or a number of things that anyone in the group could accomplish.

When I am done prepping for a session I go back through and make little abbreviated notes about who is capable of stepping up in particular challenges, just in case the PCs need a nudge or have forgotten about an item or talent they have. This might take the form of a Listen or Spot check, e.g. The ranger hears a low growl that cen only be a bear or other animal of similar size or The rogue notices the whole thing is held up by a winch nearly hidden by a tapestry and it looks like it has been jammed by a spike.

IME, reminding someone to remind you only doubles the chances that everyone will forget.

 

[Templetroll]

One of the best GMs I've ever played with was one of my first group back in 79. He is vocal about preferring 1e and sees no point in all the added things since. What actually occurs in play, in his homebrew campaign is that he provided lots of what was later incorporated into the rules. he just doesn't understand why everyone can't do that!

As examples - he created a class that would permit a character to become anything that the player could concieve. The concept had to be approved and with each level the DM would provide a step along the way that the player could see some advancement towards the concept goal.

This led to players becoming The Silver Surfer, witht he party working to get the admantine and LOTS of mithril needed for the surfboard! Another player had created a character based on Travis McGee, a detective, 'finder of lost items' etc who was essential in locating enough mithril and other items for the surfboard; a different player had a dwarf super-crafter, and he ended up being the only one in the world that could work that much magical metal for the desired effect. That was another aspect of that DMs campaign, he would often blend in various characters storylines or look for a PC to take on a task instead of setting up just another NPC.

For characters that did not set out to be unusual like that, he would set up storylines based on some small aspect of the character but adjusted by things that occurred in play. I had a dwarf character that picked up a trapped box during an adventure. The party had set off the trap, took the ring inside the box and tossed it aside. My dwarf assassin thought any trap that well-done should be used again, and for profit! He realized he need to test the parameters of the box. The plan he came up with was to buy some slaves and have them open the box, setting off the trap and the dwarf could determine how it worked. If the slaves died, that was fine because then he would not need to feed them anymore. If they survived he would have some slaves. The twist the DM set up was that the dwarf was offered two girls, 11 and 15 years old and he would be charged less if the dwarf married the older girl! The dwarf was greedy and expected them to die so agreed immediately.

To shorten the tale, during the next adventure the wife used the box to save the dwarf's life and neither girl died! Later on, after training the two girls in roguish skills, the dwarf got killed. The wife claimed his things as her spousal inheritance. The group took the trapped box from her for 'safety's sake' but let her hang on to what they all knew was a necklace of strangulation! (I never understood that) In the dungeon they encountered ogres and the wife used the necklace to kill the ogre that was about to smash her. They then snuck up on the ogres that had walked past and were attacking the party and made successful attacks from behind! The DM said to roll up their stats and I had two new characters with nice backgrounds ready to go!

Now, where the DM added his stuff, the younger sister got a magic sword and used it until she got adopted by the Elven King and Queen. (she had pluses to charisma when dealing with elvenkind) Being a princess the younger sister gave her sword to the assassin. The Elven King forced her to convert from LE to LG and become a fighter instead of an assassin. Since the sword was LN and still worked for her and it made her sister happy the woman went along with it. Then the dreams started....

Dreams about a strange city of heroes, and that she had been some of these heroes in different times in different lives and... she found out she was the Eternal Champion of Law!

In this DM's campaign it was perfectly acceptable for such overwhelming 'power' to be tossed onto a character. Another guy ended up being the eternal Champion of Chaos and naturally (?) they got married, went to the Demonweb pits for the honeymoon and led extraordinary lives for a good bit of time.

Speaking of time, one of her children gained mastery over Time and became the TimeLady. It just goes on and on, adventure all the way!

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings…

Well, not that I’m looking to put anyone down, but I think this is needlessly splitting hairs. Combative abilities, or magick could be considered ‘DM-dependent’ if the players are put into situations where they aren’t encountering things to fight, or places where they could be casting spells. Hell, the whole game is DM-dependent.

I feel that it is the job of the GM to place characters into situations where their abilities will come into play every now and then. A ranger that doesn’t get a chance to occasionally fight a favoured enemy, or a cleric that doesn’t get to once in a while turn a few undead is of course not getting to use their character’s abilities to their full potential.

Just as a fighter that has Cleave/Greater Cleave that doesn’t occasionally get to mow through a few kobolds or goblins. If the GM isn’t letting you shine in the limelight every now and then, then there are really only two things that can be done about it…

One: Tell the DM out of game that their character isn’t getting the love and attention that you need.

Two: Tell the DM, and convince the other characters that your going to go somewhere in-game/in-character that you get to do some fancy things. ”Yeah, I’m heading off to goblin territory and look to slay me a few of those pug-nosed vermin! Maybe we’ll find some undead for the cleric to play with!”

I would argue that beyond GMs not setting up situations where you get to use Gather Information, it’s probably one of the most proactive skills in the game. Especially if there is any information to be gathered from any NPCs. “Where is the best blacksmith in town? Where can I find the temple of Pho? How much is that blink dog in the window?”

 

[Olaf the Stout]

One of my PC's has a feat from Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might. It basically lets the player benefit from a Bless spell for a certain amount of time once per day when the GM decides that the player is acting in accordance with the wishes of his diety. It is very definitely a GM dependant feat. Unfortunately both myself and my player keep forgetting about it. I can't remember when the last time was that it was used.

Olaf the Stout