Instant Friends

[Gradine]

Perhaps, if you believe my intent was to make a perfect parallel between the two of them, when I wanted to showcase why the spell's wording is so wrong. Someday I'll learn not to make examples or comparisons when postng on forums: people tend to concentrate on the diferences and ignore the point.

State the point instead of making wild, baseless comparisons then

What I'm saying is that the spell is so badly worded as to be virtually irrelevant. Two DMs, given the same exact situation where Instant Friends is used, can and probably will rule vastly different outcomes as how the spell works. The wording is so vage as to be useless (let's be generous and say virtually useless). The DM, faced with the spell, has to rule based on how powerful it is (2nd level), what should the role of a utility power be in the grand scheme of skill challenges, how unexpected uses of the spell can affect his campaing, and finally, after doing the game's designer job, how much trusted friends do for their buddies, with the unntentional consequence that now the whole continent is populated with kings that woud backstab their best friend before 1d4 hours. Even Thomas Moore lasted more than that.

The fact that you, the DM, has to completely rule the spell's effect from the ground up every single time is cast goes beyond a sing of bad game design and enters the realm of failing at basic communication.

And I'm arguing in my post (which you've somehow determined to be a red herring) that the DM having to rule the spell's effects from the ground up isn't bad game design and in fact used to be the hallmark of non-combat magic in D&D. You may not particularly miss this aspect of D&D of yore, but that does not make it bad game design.

Inconsistent with 4e to this point? Yeah, that's inarguable. But something that, I think anyway, 4e has been sorely missing.

Also inarguable is how overblown the effectiveness of this power has been in the thread. No, you can't charm level 30+ solo creatures. No, you can't make somebody murder their best friend. Would you murder your close friend (or really, anybody) at the behest of your trusted friends? "Aiding somebody any way you can" does not mean "betraying everyone else close to them as well as your own core principles."

This is not a mental domination effect and its need to be stopped being treated as such.

The problem with the way the power's effects are worded, I believe, comes from the listing of exceptions. When you list exceptions what you're indirectly saying is that everything else you haven't listed as an exception flies. That's the only reason the power could possibly be interpreted as broken. Once again Wizards underestimates the ability of DMs to fear the sky falling.

And nothing changes the fact that any potential problems with the power can be mitigated by proper DMing. I won't even go so far to say "good" DMing; any DM worth playing with should be able to easily keep the power within the bounds of "effective, but not broken."

 

[Gradine]

Sure you can, you just have to have some sort of aplicable save penalty. It'd have to be a /really/ big penalty or just you're hoping he'll roll a '1,' but it's theoretically possible.

Okay, so it's vaguely possible, but I wonder how Orcus treats his friends.

"I like you, I'm not going obliterate the very core of your being and turn your lifeless corpse into a mindless husk and mockery of all that you once stood for in life. Right now."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have already demonstrated exactly how Instant Friends is only a scenario-breaker if the DM lets it be and you have yet again completely ignored me. You can't just restate your unsupported claims while ignoring the ways in which I've refuted them.

Something that can be a scenario-breaker if the DM allows it to be is a bad rule (MO), since good rules don't depend so heavily on DM judgement.

Shield cannot be a scenario-breaker, even in "average DM" hands, so it is a good rule.

Instant Friends can be a scenario-breaker, in "average DM" hands, so it is not as good of a rule as Shield is.

You keep claiming that it's fine under a good DM.

I'm telling you the fact that you need a "good DM" for it to be fine means that I think it's a bad rule.

Because a "good DM" can make anything fine. Rules aren't there for "good DM's." They're there for the vast majority of average-to-middling DM's that represent the bulk of the bell curve.

 

[MrMyth]

So you're saying a single Diplomacy check can get someone to treat you as a trusted friend?

Well, it could in past editions. But no, that's not what I'm saying.

If, in the game, the party needs a Skill Challenge to join a merchant's caravan, there has to be a reason why a single Diplomacy check doesn't do the job. After all, if no other issues are involved, and you can argue your case convincingly, a well-argued and convincing speech should be all you need.

So, typically, other factors will be in play. The merchant is paranoid and fears saboteurs, for example. So even if one person can convince him to let them join, you still need to convince him of the trustworthiness of the others.

Instant Friends doesn't change that. You rarely are just trying to befriend someone in a Skill Challenge. You are usually asking something of them - typically something that will cause some risk to them or their property. That's generally why one check is rarely enough, and more persuasion is necessary. The same remains true even once you have used Instant Friends.

If you believe that Instant Friends delivers the effects of a single successful diplomacy check, then it's going to work just fine when your players use it, fitting seamlessly into any skill challenge that you'd accept a use of Diplomacy in. Many other DMs may interpret it differently, leading to it bypassing skill challenges or being more or less useless.

I don't believe Instant Friends always equals a single free diplomacy check - you portray that as my interpretation several times, and I just want to make clear that this is absolutely not what I am saying.

It is the effect I would likely give it in many Skill Challenges. But that's already often how I handle powers in Skill Challenges - a fitting or clever use of a challenge will often earn one or two successes as appropriate. That doesn't mean I'm saying the rest of the power gets removed. A clever illusion might give a free success in a skill challenge - yet I'd hate if they changed an Illusion power to read, "This power grants an automatic successfull Bluff check!"

Which seems, basically, to be what you are advocating.

Don't forget that the subject may react negatively if the power fails or after it wears off. These are all things that were tried - some from the very beginning - to keep the old spells Instant Friends emulates from being problematic. They never worked consistently. Some DMs might really lean on the limitations, or have different feelings about what 'trusted friend' constitutes, and make the spell useless, other's might let it be far too powerful. It's just a badly formed non-mechanic mechanic.

If a DM ignores the limitations, that is just as much a problem as if they ignore the limitations on other powers. It is true that how important 'being a friend' will be can change from one DM to the next, but the same is true for skills themselves.

In Jon's campaign, my thief walks up to a barkeep and begins a friendly conversation in an attempt to get a discount on my meal. I go to roll a Diplomacy check, but Jon decides my charming conversation does the job on its own, and gives me a discount.

In Jim's campaign, my thief walks up to a barkeep and does the same. I go ahead and roll my Diplomacy check, Jim gives me a bonus for my chatter, and I roll well, and get a discount.

In Joe's campaign, my thief walks up to a barkeep, and I know Joe just cares about the roll, so I just declare I'm trying to get a cheap meal and roll my Diplomacy check. I fail, so no discount.

In Jack's campaign, I try the same thing. Jack says the barkeep isn't won over by my talk, and that you can never use Diplomacy checks to get someone to reduce any prices for you.

In Josh's campaign, I try the same thing, and he decides to run it as a full-fledged skill challenge require multiple Bluff and Diplomacy checks, and some knowledge checks about the bar's history, in order to get the discount.

Does the game fall apart because all the DMs run social interactions differently?

Of course not. Instant Friends doesn't change that, and doesn't need to be fixed any more than the core skill system needs to be completely revamped to ensure that all DMs run campaigns absolutely identically. It isn't possible to do so, and honestly, isn't needed.

Movement-based challenges are typically 'low level.' Take 'climbing a cliff' as a Skill Challenge, cliffs are cliffs, climbing is climbing, before too long, climb checks aren't going to be much of an issue even for those not trained in Athletics - bypassing such a minor inconvenience at 10th level isn't such a big deal. Social Challenges increase in difficulty more smoothly, as the beings you deal with can simply be much highter level. A utility of any level that /helps/ with social skill challenges is fine. One that bypasses them isn't really apropriate at any level.

Well, at least for myself, I have enjoyed running and playing in movement-based challenges at Paragon and Epic levels. At epic levels, you aren't scaling an ordinary cliff, you are scaling the flaming spiked pits of the nine Hells. Climb checks scale as appropriate - that's part of the game! Unless you can fly, of course, and simply bypass it.

It seems hypocritical to say that it is ok for certain powers to clearly bypass such challenges beyond low-levels, but that a power that has only the potential to bypass challenges (and, as I've shown, rarely does that) is unacceptable.

Really? So 'make an Arcana Check instead of a Bluff Check,' say, would vary radically from one DM to the next? Skills aren't the most tightly-defined part of the game, with DMs often needing to make judgement call about which skills might be used to accomplish what tasks.

That's what I mean. A power that gives me +5 on a Diplomacy check might be great in one game - or useless if the DM doesn't let Diplomacy accomplish anything. I like having a power that I know will accomplish what I want - Instant Friends seems more defined for me than most skill-based checks, since it lays out clearly what it accomplishes, along with what is needed for it to succeed, and what limitations the power has.

It will still be subject to DM fiat, but honestly, not as much as the use of skills themselves.

 

[MrMyth]

Which means that, unless the DM explicitly makes it clear that it will be useful, it is a power that should never be selected.

Because Shield is always going to be useful, with any DM that has combat (which is going to be nearly any DM).

There are plenty of utility powers that aren't 'always useful'. Ones that help you in specific situations, such as escaping grabs, or ending certain conditions. Ones that give resistance to specific elements. Or the many that already help you with various skills.

There is no guarantee a specific session will involve diplomacy, or insight, or climbing.

I find that poor rational for saying that all such powers should be excised from the game. I like being able to take conditional powers, since when they are useful, they tend to be really handy.

If I take a power and discover it will never come up in my DM's game? I can swap it out at a later level. That remains just as true for Instant Friends as for hundreds of other powers out there.

Feel free to not take it if you don't like it - but declaring it should "never be selected" seems to me to be condeming the vast majority of Utility Powers already out there. Either way, it strikes me as no more conditional than all those others. If a player wants it available as an option - as, clearly, many in this thread do - I think it worth keeping it in the game.

 

[Someone]

State the point instead of making wild, baseless comparisons then

I, and other, stated it many times. You simply not like it.

And I'm arguing in my post (which you've somehow determined to be a red herring) that the DM having to rule the spell's effects from the ground up isn't bad game design

You were adressing the point with something totally irrelevant, though it's better to eave that now, and yes, it is bad design. The power's wording is as useful as if it said "This power allows you to be moderately cool, but not too awesome". If I have to literally write the spell's effect every time is cast then the wording isn't better than a blank space.

Also inarguable is how overblown the effectiveness of this power has been in the thread. No, you can't charm level 30+ solo creatures. No, you can't make somebody murder their best friend.

Where is or isn't worded what a person can do for his trusted friend? Merry and Pippin where ready to enter Mordor with Frodo, a by all accounts a suicidal mission well beyond of what you think a friend would do so hey, perhaps they were "more than friends" *wink, wink*. The rest of he people in this thread have read the powers effect and made their interpretation, and guess what, most of them are technically correct and radically different than yours. To me that's proof of the power's wording failing it's basic intent, namely accurately informing DMs and players of what the power does.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, it could in past editions. But no, that's not what I'm saying.

OK, well, if 'winning friendship' or 'winning trust' or both is beyond a single Diplomacy check, then they're not unsuitable goals for a Skill Challenge. Just getting someone to trust you enough to give up information or stand asside and let you continue on your quest can easily be the goal of a skill challenge. Instant Friends can do that for you.

So, it has the potential to obviate legitimate skill challenges.

 

[nookiemonster]

If it simply obviates the skill challenge, doesn't that mean you get no XP for the challenge? If you sneak past the dragon using Stealth without confronting it, you don't get XP. Seems like Instant Friends is in the same category.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If it simply obviates the skill challenge, doesn't that mean you get no XP for the challenge? If you sneak past the dragon using Stealth without confronting it, you don't get XP. Seems like Instant Friends is in the same category.

The skill challenge rules say to specifically give out free successes without rolls for actions that would result in success even if they aren't a skill check. The idea being that if you offer a bribe of 500 gp to a guard as part of the skill challenge to convince a guard to pass...well, you should get a success for it, maybe two or three successes without rolling any skill checks.

Most of the articles published about Skill Challenges on the Wizards website say the same thing. Normally skill challenges are one skill=one success, but if PCs come up with ways that SHOULD result in successes, they get them.

In the case of this power...I'd read it as "You get as many successes as you want with Diplomacy with the target."

I already dislike skill challenges that allow you to get all the successes with one skill, so I'd avoid them in general. However, not all DMs will and in those games this spell is going to be very power.

 

[MrMyth]

OK, well, if 'winning friendship' or 'winning trust' or both is beyond a single Diplomacy check, then they're not unsuitable goals for a Skill Challenge. Just getting someone to trust you enough to give up information or stand asside and let you continue on your quest can easily be the goal of a skill challenge. Instant Friends can do that for you.

But, honestly, those situations sound more like one component of a skill challenge rather than room for a full skill challenge in and of itself. Or, if the situation is complex enough to be a skill challenge in and of itself, there has to be reasons for that. Why is this person not willing to part with the information? Is it dangerous for them to do so? Do they consider it valuable and require payment for it? Etc.

Look, let's take the example of convincing someone to let you pass. What happens when you present him a forged note from his superior, and make a successful Bluff check to convince him that it is legit? Or the Bard creates an Illusion to draw him away for a few moments? Or you just go around back and find a place where people can teleport in?

Why does that not end the challenge right there? In most cases, for one of two reasons:
1) Because there are other factors already designed as part of the challenge that the party still needs to overcome; or
2) Because you have decided this is a skill challenge that requires 4 successes, and thus you come up with reasons on the spot why they need to make a few more successful rolls.

Both of which should apply just as well to Instant Friends.

Say I need to know a way some specific landmark in the local woods. A hunter in town knows this info. It isn't particularly sensitive information, but he generally doesn't like adventures, so isn't going to just give it up freely.

If we go up to him, why does it take 4 Diplomacy checks instead of one to get him to share that info?

If our Bard walks up and politely asks him for these directions, and rolls a successful Diplomacy check, why is he still holding out?

If we instead just send our Ranger, who walks up and rolls a Bluff check to convince him that he's just another woodsman in the area, why doesn't the hunter share what he knows?

If our Fighter walks up and says he can tell us what we want, or get punched in the face, and rolls a successful Intimidate check, why does he still refuse to tell us?

If your goal is simply to get someone to tell you a single piece of information that they have no real reasons not to part with anyway, I continue to hold that this is probably more fitting as a single check rather than a full skill challenge.

Now, maybe the skill challenge consists of finding the appropriate contact, getting the information from him, and then figuring out how to use the information he has. First you need to ask questions around town to find out that the hunter is the one with the knowledge you need (Streetwise). Then you need to convince him to share it (Diplomacy). Then you need to actually go into the woods and actually follow the directions (Nature).

Instant Friends might help with one portion of that, but not the whole thing.

I will concede that some challenges may exist where the conditions are just right for it to trump all other factors. But I don't find it particularly likely. And I find the same is true of plenty of other things out there - there may be challenges where a single clever Illusion will be all you need, or a single disguise spell for the party, or various uses of skills or rituals or items.

I suspect that will usually only happen when a Skill Challenge is too limited to begin with. And when presented with something that would overcome a simple Skill Challenge, the DM can either let it happen, or come up with developments on the spot for the party to overcome.