Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6238573" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It seems like it IS in dispute.  If they are not privy to every detail of the comings and goings of the Royal Court, then this is "secret backstory", which you dismiss.  "Knowing everything relevant to anything they might wish to attempt" is, to me, "knowing everything about the gameworld", or its functional equivalent.  We're not discussing indie play.  We're discussing 3.5 Fighters vs Spellcasters (see title of thread).  No amount of skilled diplomacy, knowledge of nobility, etc. will make the King reappear at the Royal Court from a retreat to a hunting lodge, so I don't want a high enough d20 roll to force the King to be in attendance and available at the drop of a hat to receive a group of scruffy-looking adventurers who just happen to drop in unannounced.Here, I would say there should be no secret.  If Charm Person is viewed as an offensive action that overrides free will, or casting a spell at someone is viewed similarly to drawing a weapon and threatening that individual, this should be known to the characters - they live in this world.  If the Royal Court views spellcasting differently than the population with which the PC's normally interact, that would be a different matter, but this implies they are out of their element, so effectively exploring a culture foreign to them where they clearly should not have a solid knowledge of the cultural norms.Each time someone has suggested the Chamberlain refuses any action requested by the PC's, this has been dismissed as excessive GM force - "he is friendly, so clearly he would do this for me".  Examples where this is clearly ludicrous (someone mentioned having a friend on the Secret Service not granting instant access to the President) have simply been ignored by those perceiving this simple little L1 spell as an "I win" button for bypassing the Chamberlain and being granted an immediate audience with the King. I suggest it includes using foul sorcery to make the target perceive you as a friend, rather than earning such friendship.  The fact the target gets a saving throw (and not one marked "harmless") indicates that this is something the target will resist, so it is an override of free will.I question whether it would be perceived as acceptable, in whatever culture we are envisioning, to magically influence the perceptions of third parties.  Would your version of Charm Person, if unwittingly cast upon a Helpful person, render him Friendly (that is less inclined to provide you with assistance)?  Diplomacy is the art of persuasion.  Someone not wishing to be persuaded could, in my view, refuse to listen (another area broadly debated in this thread).  It is not Bluff (a con exercise which quickly wears off), nor is it Intimidation (forcing the target to go along with our desires by physical, emotional or other threat).  Again, as written, Diplomacy changes the target's attitude towards you, not what he may or may not be willing to do.  Even when Diplomacy renders the King Friendly or Helpful, he is not going to name you Crown Prince.  There is, similarly, no reason to believe that Friendly or even Helpful Chamberlain will automatically and immediately grant you an audience with the King.Now, if we create a different spell (whether or not one with the same name) which makes you, the caster (or the target of the spell) a smoother talker, a better orator, etc., then we are no longer casting a spell to override free will, but to enhance the target's persuasive abilities.  Here, skill bonuses seem appropriate, and it may be more reasonable to assume a societal norm which is accepting of such magical augmentation.  But it seems no less reasonable that society might not view magic so positively, and this is still a foul enchantment (much like a professional athlete using performance-enhancing drugs is viewed in our own society).  In the latter case, we might see a screening for magic at the entrance to the Royal Palace.  If you have a magical aura, you will not be admitted, just as armed and armored persons will not be admitted into the King's presence (and certain items cannot be taken on the airplane in your carry on baggage).  Here again, I would expect this backstory not to be a secret, assuming this is a society the PC's have interacted with, whether in game or in backstory.Here again, I expect it is the GM who is determining what DC is appropriate, possibly influenced by factors the PC's are unaware of.  For example, they may be unaware that an opposing spellcaster has recently set a Teleport Block over the area they wish to travel to.  Of course, we would need the actual spell writeup.  Assuming we wish to depart as little as possible from the present vision of Teleport, I question how Knowledge:  Arcana makes you any more familiar with the location to which you wish to travel.  I like Sheadunne's approach to some extent.  You want to travel to a far distant land?  KS: Geography will determine how familiar you are with some location to be able to travel there.  But KS: Geography will not grant you familiarity with the main temple of the Cult of the Dark One, so you can get to the city, but not into the Temple (or the Kings Chambers) with your Teleport spell by making an appropriate KS:  Geography check.  Don't HAVE KS: Geography?  Then you follow the Untrained rule that you cannot get a success better than DC 10 (common knowledge), which may or may not be adequate to allow teleportation to that region at all.That doesn't seem like it will get me to the King's Court in time to capture the fellow who will attempt to assassinate the King tonight, which would mean it is not comparable in its capacity to meaningfully influence the gameworld, would it?I keep asking people to show me how they use Scrying spells to get the required one hour of careful study required to push up the person's familiarity with the location to "studied carefully", getting the odds of error dropped down to 6%.  Every example so far has been constrained by its area of vision, its duration, etc.  So I suggest "I can teleport anywhere with precision" is not the manner in which the spell is written in 3e.  It is the manner in which those wishing to overpower the spell assert it should be interpreted, but I do not find that interpretation consistent with the writeup of the spell.  "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination."  All four categories for odds of success require you to have seen the location.  That makes the King's Court or the Temple of the Dark One possible Teleport locations only if you have seen those locations at least once.  And Seen Once leaves a 24% failure chance, so I would not recommend it as a common tactic.  And we have the altering of the familiar area to make it a false destination - in a world where teleportation is a common ability for viable opponents, it seems like this would be done a lot to frustrate such attempts - especially where magic at a similar level can also "renovate" the area pretty quickly and efficiently.  Just as our society adjusts to new technologies, I would expect D&D societies to adjust to magical abilities.  If they do not, then the spellcaster definitely becomes more powerful, but the 3E+ assumption of ready access to new spells and magic items carries a reasonable conclusion that magic is pretty common, so people will be aware of the abilities magic can grant, and how they can be frustrated, much as we know your computer should have a virus checker and a firewall, and that you should not provide your identification and bank account information to people who email you suggesting you are entitled to receive a tax refund (but someone from 1950 would not know these things).</blockquote>

Verification