Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6874539" data-attributes="member: 42582">But not in a way that breaks the game.Gygax, in his DMG, gives the example of the low-DEX character who is nevertheless agile. Playing that character will produce different fiction from playing the low-DEX character who neverthless has (say) good hand-eye co-ordination; or the low-DEX character who is an all-rounder in respect of his/her physical inadequacies.But these are all permissible, because none of the narrations actually gives the player a gameplay advantage: s/he still has to suffer the AC penalty, the saving throw penalty, the ranged weapon attack penalty, etc. The low-DEX but agile character (whom Gygax describes as "slippery in the grasp") even suffers the same consequences for grappling as the low-DEX character who is narrated as not agile at all. Gygax doesn't tell us what ad hoc narration is required to explain, in the fiction, this particular outcome: I assume that he thought D&D players were capable of handling it on their own.The same is true in the case of Eloelle. Changing the fiction generated by the ZoT spell doesn't actually confer any gameplay benefit. Nothing is making me think that it's fundamentally any different from Gygax's example of a low-DEX character who is nevertheless slippery in the grasp, and yet is mechanically as vulnerable to being grappled as any other low-DEX character.First, in the context of ZoT this is handing over narration to the GM - who has to actually tell you what your character says, and hence what you (and everyone else present in the fiction) hears and learns.Second, in the Eloelle scenario this would be cheating, because it would be giving the player (and other players whose PCs are present, and NPCs) access to information to which the mechanics of the game don't entitle them. (Because Eloelle has a 5 INT.) It would be like the player of the low-DEX but "slippery in the grasp" character trying to claim an ad hoc bonus against grappling attacks.No.In [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s application of ZoT to Eloelle, on a failed saving throw roll Eloelle's player hands over all the information to which s/he is entitled to have gameplay access (ie none, or its the false information that the GM handed over when the player rolled poorly on knowledge checks due to having 5 INT).But this is not all the information to which, in the fiction, Eloelle has access. In the fiction, it is Eloelle continuing to lie and relay information she knows to be false, in accordance with the commands of her patron.In the fiction, therefore, in Elfcrusher's narration, Eloelle is not prevented from telling falsehoods. Which means that, in the fiction, Eloelle did not fall victim to the ZoT spell - although, at the table, Eloelle's player failed the saving throw roll. Hence the narration that, in the fiction, Eloelle's patron interceded to block the enchantment effect.Whereas your posited action declaration is "Eloelle tells them the truth that she knows." In the Eloelle scenario as Elfcrusher has laid it out, this would be tantamount to cheating because an attempt to circumvent the burden of having a 5 INT. (Indeed, the whole reason we are discussing ZoT is because, quite some way upthread, someone put it forward as a way to break the Eloelle concept. And Elfcrusher put forward a non-standard application of ZoT as a solution to the threatened breakage.)I don't understand why you are talking about the patron lying. That is some odd interpolation of yours that has no connection to the original scenario as outlined by Elfcrusher.Anyway - the ZoT thing is only going to come up if the player has been allowed to play Eloelle at the table. At that point, we have two options: allow a 2nd level spell to break the game and break the character concept; or find a narration of the spell that will preserve both the gameplay status quo and the integrity of the character concept. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] has identified a simple solution that does both these things: at the level of gameplay, the evil cleric who casts the spell gets all the information s/he is entitled to get from ZoTing a 5 INT character (namely, little or none); and within the fiction, Eloelle keeps her secrets (thereby both preserving the integrity of the character concept and making sure that Eloelle's player continues to labour under the ignorance that follows from playing a 5 INT character who fails a good number of knowledge checks) because her patron protects her from the evil cleric's puny enchantment.This is confusing. I think you are using "true" to mean "believed" and are using "know" to mean "believed" but I'm not sure.Anyway - it would be broken to allow a 2nd level spell to circumvent the penalties that accrue from having a 5 INT.And (everything else being equal) it is boring gameplay for the GM to play with him-/herself - in this case, by taking the role of Eloelle and telling all the secrets that she hitherto has not revealed, and which her player has no knowledge of and (quite properly, given the 5 INT stat) hitherto has had no gameplay access to. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s suggested narration of ZoT, as applied to the 5 INT Eloelle, avoids both these problems, while preserving the gameplay status quo. I therefore think it's quite elegant.</blockquote>

Verification