High-Level Play: Nightmare for DMs?

[Tessarael]

Unique is an AD&Dism. The Tarrasque for example was unique. It wasn't rare or very rare, it was unique. Unfortunately, it seems the 3E D&D has failed to really define unique in this sense.

 

[rushlight]

When the spell says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." it says this because if you are calling a particular being then it is implied that you are calling a single creature. If I could specify a particular being and get multiples of him/her/it then the spell would be cloning the particular being as well as calling him/her/it. If I am calling a kind of being, though, then this clause is making it clear that I can call multiple creatures of that kind.

As calling a particular being implies that we are calling a single creature, we then read on to find that "In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can't be controlled.". So, when I call a particular being that creature is called to me but will only be controlled by me if its HD is not more than twice my caster level. (I admit I am at a loss to explain why they repeated, albeit with rewording, the same sentence. Perhaps it was an effort to enhance clarity.)

This is a different view of the text than I had - but I can see your viewpoint. If I concede to your view, then I believe that the calling feature of Gate would indeed be problematic at best - more likely broken. The text of the spell certainly becomes more muddled the closer you examine it. Thankfully, you took your time to explain your view, rather than make snide comments.

You seem to be saying that the author of the spell text does not use the word "unique" in an absolute sense but in a more watered down form common to modern sales or self affirmation language (eg/ "This rundown shack offers a unique renovation challenge", "You are a unique individual", etc). If this is what you're getting at then it's an issue that is impossible for us to settle without the intent being made clear by WotC. If it turns out that the use of the word "unique" is intended the way you suggest then it's actually a misuse of the word because they don't mean unique at all, they mean particular. In the meantime, it's more reasonable to assume that they mean what they've written rather than assuming they mean something else, isn't it?

More problematic is that once you apply this watered down redefinition of "unique" then what creature isn't unique? And so, if every creature is unique then specifying a "kind of being" becomes impossible because they are all unique beings. Furthermore, because they are all unique only a single creature can be called and those single creatures can never be controlled by this spell, rendering the clauses discussing calling multiple creatures and the control of creatures irrelevant. At this point continuing with this reading of the spell is starting to resemble a kline bottle as it turns itself inside out.

It seems reasonable to me to design the spell such that calling a "balor" (and getting a random balor) which you can control while calling a *particular* balor (the one named Hoho who stole the candles from the temple) results in no control (or even no balor). That allows the use of "generic" monsters in the same manner of the Summon Monster spells while preventing the use of Gate in a manner that would harm the integrity of the game.

In the end, while the way I interpreted Gate may or may not have been the way they intended - it will be the way the spell functions in my game world.

And I'm curious where those other capital-U "Unique" creatures are out there...

 

[Majere]

If you allow gate to summon named beings at will you break the game.

E.g.
NPC: The rogue Archmange Raistlin is going to destroy the world.. Stop him !!
Mage: No problem, I cast gate to plane of daffodils
(Party goes to plane of Daffodils)
Mage&Cleric: Time to Buff !!!
(Party Buffs)
Mage:Cleric readies to Dim anchor Raistlin. Fighters ready to attack him when he tries to cast. I gate in raistlin.
(Raistlin appears is dim anchored then dying horribly as the fighters co-oprdinate to always break up raistlins casting with readied attacks.)

Even worse, your PCs will only last until the make an enemy who can cast gate. The enemy NPC can just gate them in one at a time to a death trap and kill them at his leisure.

What a game breaker

Majere

 

[Tzarevitch]

This is a different view of the text than I had - but I can see your viewpoint. If I concede to your view, then I believe that the calling feature of Gate would indeed be problematic at best - more likely broken. The text of the spell certainly becomes more muddled the closer you examine it. Thankfully, you took your time to explain your view, rather than make snide comments.

It seems reasonable to me to design the spell such that calling a "balor" (and getting a random balor) which you can control while calling a *particular* balor (the one named Hoho who stole the candles from the temple) results in no control (or even no balor). That allows the use of "generic" monsters in the same manner of the Summon Monster spells while preventing the use of Gate in a manner that would harm the integrity of the game.

In the end, while the way I interpreted Gate may or may not have been the way they intended - it will be the way the spell functions in my game world.

And I'm curious where those other capital-U "Unique" creatures are out there...

Tessarael already pointed this out: "Unique" is an old AD&D term that appeared under the entry for number of a particular of type of creatures, that appeared in the old AD&D stat blocks. It meant simply that that creature was the only one of its kind. For instance, Graz'zt while a demon, is the only demon of his kind. Under the number of appearing line in the old monster manuals it read "unique" or something like that.

Unique refers to a handful of adversaries who are singular (and usually very powerful) beings and functionally have their own type and technically belong to a group of 1. Demon princes, arch devils, slaad lords, the celestial hepdomad, the animal lords, Primus etc. are unique beings.

Demon, Balor is a type. All balors share traits in common. Tarnhem the Balor and Errtu the Balor are individual beings with their own goals and sometimes different capabilities but they share the same base type (Demon, Balor) and therefore are not "unique".

Demon prince is not a real category. It is a rank used to refer to a group of unique demons of similar power level. Graz'zt, Demogorgon and Orcus have nothing in common except being loosely part of the "demon race". They have trancended the normal classifications of their type and are now each "unique".

Ssendam, Ygorl, Renbuu and Chorst have trancended the categories of the slaad race. They are not red, green, blue, black, white, gray, mud or death slaad. They are now each belong to a category of 1 and are therefore "unique".

Rastlin is a human. He is a great and mighty human by virtue of his levels and perhaps templates that he may have but he is still a human and therefore not "unique".

That said, the spell has some serious clarity issues. I find it easier to deal with if you add a saving throw and SR to it and let the caster TRY to call whatever extraplanar creature of non-deific status or equivalent power level (demon princes, slaadi lords etc. which in my campaign all have at least divine rank 0) he chooses. If the spell fails, the creature is free to try to figure out who was trying to gate in and obliterate him.

Tzarevitch

 

[Droid101]

I'm just continually amazed at people who actually use the polymorph spells and shapechange in their games.

...

If I were running a D&D game, I doubt I'd ban those spells outright. But I certainly wouldn't be encouraging anyone to pick them, and I wouldn't feel obligated to make someone feel comfortable about using them if it meant stopping the game for a few minutes while he worked out the stats on his new form. I don't know how the rest of you guys manage it, to be honest.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I've run a campaign from 1st to 21st level, and my PC sorcerer has only used the polymorph spell ONCE, and in quite an ingenious way. He morphed into a troll to trick a green dragon into using his acid breath on him (he had acid protection cast on him). That action saved the party.

Anyway. As for high level play... if you are seamless about it, the players don't even notice things are changing. My campaign went from chasing down a guy (fighting orcs/gobs/etc on the way) all the way to deciding to sacrifice themselves with an epic spell casting to destroy a castle that has been taken over by dark elves in an attempt to sack the overworld with a gigantic darkness-creating spire and hordes of forces. You just gotta know how to spin it.

 

[Cheerful Coffin]

18th level?!

I've never dm'd before but I'd be consulting my manuals for heavy hitters and be making plot-lines of an insane religous cult opening several gates of hell unleashing extra-planar dragons and the like to invade/pillage our mortal realm.

Eat chaos breath panzies! Mwahahahaha!

 

[Lela]

18th level?!

I've never dm'd before but I'd be consulting my manuals for heavy hitters and be making plot-lines of an insane religous cult opening several gates of hell unleashing extra-planar dragons and the like to invade/pillage our mortal realm.

Eat chaos breath panzies! Mwahahahaha!

And they're wearing the souls of tortured babies for armor. Plus swords made from the skulls of foustian (sp?) 8 year olds.

It's a very deadly group. And they smell funny. Make a fort save.