NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6238234" data-attributes="member: 6681948">As Ahnehnois notes, I don't see reading the spells and applying the rules logically as "secret backstory" or "adversarial DMing".  I don't assume the PC's are privy to details of the Royal Court's comings and goings, nor do I allow their adversaries to plan tactics with a perfect knowledge of the plans and abilities of the PC's (both subject to exception where they possess and use resources which provide them with such information).Charm Person as written overrides the target's free will.  That is an action logically seen as an attack.  A spell which enhances diplomacy would be a fine spell, but it is a different spell.  How it would be received by the general population would need to be assessed, but a spell that simply enhances the caster's persuasiveness (ie a buff spell) seems less likely to attract a negative reaction.  That said, in a world where magic is not all that rare, would people with a variety of magical auras be allowed to wander into the King's court, or would we have some magic detection systems at the entry points (much like we have metal detectors, security scans, etc. in many locations in our modern world), and a "no magic allowed" policy?  This is a world where any wizard with an interest can locate the Charm Person spell.  If it is that common, then it seems likely societal rules have built up around it.  Why, for example, would the King not have a court caster who starts the day off buffing all of his mental stats, enhancing his ability to Sense Motive and carrying out any number of other functions designed to make the King, and key members of his court, much more resistant to social skills, magically augmented or otherwise?Finally, if we wish to focus more on interaction skills, including magical augmentation of same, I think we should also be removing PC immunity to interaction skills.  PC's should not be immune to persuasion - if they want resistance or immunity, let them also dedicate character resources to that advantage.  If it is possible for the PC's to persuade the Chamberlain to grant them immediate access to the King, it should also be possible for the Chamberlain to persuade the PC's into some other course of action which he finds more desirable.  Now we get into a "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" which has some meat to it - if the PC's are trying to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King immediately, with the only down side being they don't get to see the King immediately, this seems pretty one sided.  If failure means that, instead, the Chamberlain persuades the PC's to undertake a task to prove their merit, heroism and battle proficiency, perhaps seeing out some magic artifact lost to history and returning it to the King's rightful possession, suddenly there is actual risk the PC's must consider. "OK, if you succeed, you persuade the Chamberlain that an immediate audience with the King is appropriate, but if he wins, then you are persuaded by his arguments that the +5 Holy Longsword the paladin presently wields, which you seized from the Dragon Hoard, ought properly to be returned to the King as it was originally crafted for his ancestor." sounds like a more interesting challenge than "Roll 30+ to be granted an audience, otherwise you are turned away and will have to wait a day for every point short before you can try again."Teleport is getting a lot of attention.  So, [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], how would your Teleport spell read?  The current rules say "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.", so the players need to get that clear idea or the spell fails automatically.  How clear their idea is will determine the likelihood of a mischance.  But even here, we may have that secret backstory (for example, the PC's do not know that the temple they seek to Teleport to was sacked and burned in the recent past).  I expect that may be the fallout of a failed roll, rather than an idea preconceived by the GM, in the indy type game suggested, so what are the odds that the players' teleport succeeds, and what are the odds it fails and such a complication may arise?  The 3e rules provide an 11% chance for some sort of complication if the area has been "seen casually", with possible complications including injury, an off-target arrival and arrival in a similar location which was not desired.  How will the complications of a failed roll be determined under your revised Teleport spell?  I suspect your "perfect teleport spell" will be perfect to you, but carry flaws for other gamers' playstyles, but I am interested to see how you would modify the spell to make it fit your indy approach.I'd also be interested to know how the Fighter or Rogue gets instantaneous transport to the King's Court, 1,500 miles away, using his skills or abilities, since the ability of the non-spellcaster to attain the same results seems to be crucial to your vision of a balanced game.</blockquote>

Verification