Instant Friends

[ExploderWizard]

It's not, though. You can charm Orcus with it. If you were supposed to fight him, that breaks the adventure.

Or the DM rules that you can't charm Orcus with it and breaks your character instead.

Rule #1: There is no such thing as "supposed to" with regard to actions taken by the PC's. If you find yourself doing this then go ahead and write an ending to your novel and run something else for your game.

Rules that rely on DM quality to arbitrate are not well-designed rules, IMO. Shield doesn't require a "good DM" to get some use out of. The use is built right into the rules for combat, so if a DM uses combat, it will be useful.

Instant Friends is as much a scenario-breaker as Know Alignment and Fly are.

So the major factor that contributes to TTRPG's being much more dynamic and flexible than computer games means that the rules are poorly designed?

Any set of rules written so tightly as to not require arbitration also prohibit creativity and the meaningful application of imagination. If the rules themselves run the game why is the DM there? Does he/she simply function as a server or an AI antagonist? It is precisely this kind of philosophy being popularized that leads to a shortage of people wanting to DM. If the game being offered to a prospective DM is to run the engine by the book, and just roll dice for the other side it's no small wonder that you have a ton of people looking to play and no one wanting to run.

If the person behind the screen isn't engaged, and excited to be there then nobody at that table has much of a chance at a truly great session.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'd imagine the challenge would become convincing the fey to let the wizard leave - a sadistic, powerful and capricious fey might want to hold on to his newfound friend, rather than let it go off into danger.

Genius! And, that's why this power is SO great!

 

[P1NBACK]

The reason we don't have powers like that is because it would drive everyone crazy. It's seems that when they write a power that says "The target treats you like his best friend" which is just as ambiguous, no one seems to see the problem with it.

This power is specifically for out of combat.

Let's look at some out of combat rules:

Bluff
You can make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary. You make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies.

That's it. ...

What is outrageous? Depends on the DM and players. What is suspicious? Depends on the DM and the players. It's ambiguous because it's supposed to be. What you may need to call for a Bluff check at one table, you might not need to at another.

More appropriately, let's look at:

Diplomacy
You can influence others with your tact, subtlety, and social grace. Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal in good faith.
A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.

That's it... Also.

What does Instant Friends do?

It makes the "target's general attitude toward you" become "friendly" and answer any questions you have. That's it.

At best, it alters the DC set by the DM.

If you're against the ambiguity of this spell, you should be against the ambiguity of social skills in general.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

We've been down that road. No, Instant Friends does not just deliver the effects of a single skill check, it delivers much more. Yes, winning trust or friendship - let alone both - is a valid goal for a skill challenge, and quite a lot of other potential social skill challenges wouldn't be necessary if someone was already a trusted friend. As written, this power could very easily be interpreted as 'winning' such skill challenges by itself. That's not a good idea, and it could be updated, quite easily, to avoid it.

You can argue all you want that the skill challenges it could potentially break might have been better as part of a larger skill challenge, or as a single diplomacy check, or whatever - that's fine, that's more interpretation. That some interpretations of the power could situationally render it broken, others reasonably balanceable, and others worthless is just further evidence that it could be better worded.

I'll grant that if you're a sophisticated enough DM to split hairs over what constitutes a skill challenge like we're doing, and to nest simple skill challenges into complex ones, you probably won't have much trouble dealing with a utility like Instant Friends, and keeping it in line with the level of effectiveness a level 2 utility deserves.

 

[Gradine]

Rule #1: There is no such thing as "supposed to" with regard to actions taken by the PC's. If you find yourself doing this then go ahead and write an ending to your novel and run something else for your game.



So the major factor that contributes to TTRPG's being much more dynamic and flexible than computer games means that the rules are poorly designed?

Any set of rules written so tightly as to not require arbitration also prohibit creativity and the meaningful application of imagination. If the rules themselves run the game why is the DM there? Does he/she simply function as a server or an AI antagonist? It is precisely this kind of philosophy being popularized that leads to a shortage of people wanting to DM. If the game being offered to a prospective DM is to run the engine by the book, and just roll dice for the other side it's no small wonder that you have a ton of people looking to play and no one wanting to run.

If the person behind the screen isn't engaged, and excited to be there then nobody at that table has much of a chance at a truly great session.

Probably the most rational post in the thread, which I unfortunately cannot give XP to.

Re: "Instant Friends" v. "Shield"

The question I would pose to you, concerning your reasons why "Shield" is such a better designed power than "Instant Friends", is what your opinion on other non-combat utilities like Glib Tongue or Arcane Mutterings. Okay, Glib Tongue has that +2 to attack with Charm spells, but let's focus on skill check aspect of it. Sure, they have a clear mechanical benefit to a skill (+5 Diplomacy for Glib Tongue, as much as a +9 or +10 to any social skill for Arcane Mutterings), but as P1nback has pointed out: what's the clear mechanical benefit to having a better Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate? How can you defend the existence of any skill-boosting utility (many classes have them) against other same-leveled utilities with clearer combat benefits?

What's more, how can you defend the existence of cantrips? Sure, these powers are more detailed and defined in what they're capable of than Instant Friends, but the idea that this kind of "DM has to determine the effectiveness" power was not without precedent. And before you point out that those are class features and you don't have to choose between cantrips and something with more clear-cut benefits, I point you to exhibit B: the level 6 utility Disguise Self. Is Disguise Self worse than say, Dimension Door? The Char Op board seems to think so, but I think we can all agree there's more to roleplaying games than character optimization.

Let's dial it back an edition or two. What's the "better designed" 1st level spell: Magic Missile or Silent Image? Keep in mind; my Beguiler may take issue with your answer. Let's keep it in in-school: Cloudkill or Major Creation?

Conditional use does not a bad power make.

The only situation in which taking such a power is a bad idea is when your DM creates railroad "adventures" filled with fights and encounters the players are "supposed to" go through, constructed with absolutely no regard to party makeup. Think the DM who, despite having a Party Face and a Dungeoneering Rogue in the party, refuses to insert social encounters or bother with traps. Even the "average" DM can figure out that this is terrible DMing.

Yeah, Instant Friends is a terrible power in a campaign where a DM doesn't really have social encounters or doesn't like the power and therefore doesn't let it impact anything, but then, a lot of powers and skills are useless in such a situation. A lot of the Wizard's Area powers are terrible in a campaign in which the DM doesn't like minions and never uses them, but that doesn't make those terrible powers either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Genius! And, that's why this power is SO great!

See, my reaction to that is more: "If I wanted to take the Go Screw Yourself power, I would not have taken Instant Friends."

Rule #1: There is no such thing as "supposed to" with regard to actions taken by the PC's. If you find yourself doing this then go ahead and write an ending to your novel and run something else for your game.

Not all games are your games. 4e already includes NPC and monster advice that says, basically, "Anticipate how your players will use this character, and design this character to be used in that way." It's part of the reason 4e dropped things like NPC classes and PC/NPC equivalence, and why a PC minotaur and an NPC minotaur do different things. 4e also got rid of or marginalized sequence-breaking effects like PC flight. Specifically so that DM's wouldn't have their plans thwarted by simple powers. 4e is very comfortable with a fairly narrative approach to rules design. There's nothing about the game that indicates that DMs have to play the game like a sandbox.

So the major factor that contributes to TTRPG's being much more dynamic and flexible than computer games means that the rules are poorly designed?

I don't see the DM judgment call as "the major factor."

Indeed, as a DM, I see the DM judgment call as "Ah, I see the designers failed to actually give me rules I could use."

It's possible for reasonable people to disagree on this, which is why I made sure to point out that it is my opinion.

If you disagree with my opinion, start a thread about it.

If the person behind the screen isn't engaged, and excited to be there then nobody at that table has much of a chance at a truly great session.

I am not engaged or excited when I have to puzzle out how to ride that razor line between making my power boringly powerful, or boringly weak. I buy books made by professional designers so that I don't have to make that judgement call. Since I don't spend 40 hours a week on D&D, I figure they have a better idea than I do about what might ride that line in most situations.

How can you defend the existence of any skill-boosting utility (many classes have them) against other same-leveled utilities with clearer combat benefits?

Generally, you can't.

The mechanical bonuses have a marginal benefit over simple vague wording simply because if I say "I have a Diplomacy roll of 25," it is more likely to be interpreted the same way by different DM's in different situations than if I say "I make it my friend."

Mechanical skill bonuses also give things you can roll against, or elements to put on a continuum, so you can compare it against known quantities.

But ultimately, they still suffer from the same problem: how effective it is depends mostly on how the current DM is feeling that day.

Which is why we don't describe the Shield spell as "giving you protection as if you were approximately 2/5ths covered by a solid object such as a plane of metal." We just give you a bonus.

What's the "better designed" 1st level spell: Magic Missile or Silent Image? Keep in mind; my Beguiler may take issue with your answer. Let's keep it in in-school: Cloudkill or Major Creation?

I don't know of any wizards -- ever -- who did not take Magic Missile. I also don't know of any -- ever -- who took Major Creation.

That's anecdotal, of course, but it speaks to the fact that, as far as I'm aware, people want game effects that have codified rules results that aren't up to the DM's whim as to how effective it is.

Because people, generally, don't like to play a game of "Mother May I?" or "Is My DM Still Angry That I Took The Last Slice Of Pizza?" or "Am I Going To Get Boned For No Reason?" or "Am I Lucky Enough To Have A Good DM?"

Generally, as far as I can tell, people wanna roll some dice and go on adventures and maybe be a big fat hero when it's all said and done.

And asking the DM for permission to be awesome basically pre-empts the awesome. Instead, I get to tell the DM that I am awesome.

But this is really far abroad of Instant Friends itself, and more about design theory in general, so it should probably be spun off if we're going to keep grinding this axe.

 

[AngryMojo]

I don't know of any wizards -- ever -- who did not take Magic Missile. I also don't know of any -- ever -- who took Major Creation.

Well, there's those who took Evocation as a barred school back in the day. Like I did every time. And nearly every one of my players did too. But that's just anecdotal.

That's anecdotal, of course, but it speaks to the fact that, as far as I'm aware, people want game effects that have codified rules results that aren't up to the DM's whim as to how effective it is.

Because people, generally, don't like to play a game of "Mother May I?" or "Is My DM Still Angry That I Took The Last Slice Of Pizza?" or "Am I Going To Get Boned For No Reason?" or "Am I Lucky Enough To Have A Good DM?"

Truth be told, if you've got a DM that will rule against you because you took the last slice of pizza, you've got bigger problems than a single power having fuzzy wording.

Using the "A bad DM can misinterpret the power" as a justification for labeling it poor design is just as weak an argument as "A good DM will never have a problem with it." When it gets right down to it, a bad DM can make a bad ruling on any power, even Magic Missile. Technically speaking, every power is up to the DM's whim on how effective it is at all times.

 

[Gradine]

Generally, you can't.

The mechanical bonuses have a marginal benefit over simple vague wording simply because if I say "I have a Diplomacy roll of 25," it is more likely to be interpreted the same way by different DM's in different situations than if I say "I make it my friend."

Mechanical skill bonuses also give things you can roll against, or elements to put on a continuum, so you can compare it against known quantities.

But ultimately, they still suffer from the same problem: how effective it is depends mostly on how the current DM is feeling that day.

Welcome to the fascinating world of RPGs.

I don't know of any wizards -- ever -- who did not take Magic Missile. I also don't know of any -- ever -- who took Major Creation.

That's anecdotal, of course, but it speaks to the fact that, as far as I'm aware, people want game effects that have codified rules results that aren't up to the DM's whim as to how effective it is.

I've played many Wizards (well, Sorcerers and Beguilers, never much liked spell memorization) without Magic Missile. I've played several (and know people who've played characters) that have taken Magic Missile mainly because it seemed forced. The generally consensus from my anecdotal viewpoint was that a spell like Magic Missile was "Necessary but boring." I always had much more fun with spells like Silent Image and Major Creation, because they engaged my imagination, which is whole point in playing D&D over, say a board game or computer game.

Hell, even given Magic Missile's "necessary" status, if you told me I was making a 3.x spellcaster and had to choose between Magic Missile or Grease, I can guarantee I'm picking Grease every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Not all games are your games. 4e already includes NPC and monster advice that says, basically, "Anticipate how your players will use this character, and design this character to be used in that way." It's part of the reason 4e dropped things like NPC classes and PC/NPC equivalence, and why a PC minotaur and an NPC minotaur do different things. 4e also got rid of or marginalized sequence-breaking effects like PC flight. Specifically so that DM's wouldn't have their plans thwarted by simple powers. 4e is very comfortable with a fairly narrative approach to rules design. There's nothing about the game that indicates that DMs have to play the game like a sandbox.

There is a mile of difference between the line you quoted and the kind of situations you've been describing. Obviously if you design a combat encounter you're anticipating the PCs will be fighting it. But that isn't anywhere close to saying that PCs "are supposed" or "must" fight it. That's called "railroading" which is not, has never been and one can hope never will be advocated in any DMG. There's a HUGE difference between a sandbox game and players solving your challenges in ways you never anticipated. And there's a HUGE difference between that and sequence breaking.

If a group of players come up with a clever solution to a situation that a DM has designed, and that solution isn't the solution that DM intended, and the DM decides that the players' solution simply doesn't work just because it isn't the "right" solution, then that is TERRIBLE DMing by every virtually standard that exists, including, I'm willing to bet, every DMG ever printed. Well, DMG's are usually more tactful then this... but suffice to say I'm fairly certain every DMG strongly discourages such behavior.

But you're right about one thing; we've strayed quite a ways from the original topic here, though I wouldn't go so far as to say we've gone completely off topic. And no, I won't be creating a another thread on the subject or likely participating in it should such a thread be created. I'm fairly certain the discussion has been exhausted, and I certainly don't know what more I'd have to add.

The mindset that considers "railroading" to be a virtue and "open-endedness" as a vice is simply one that is so antithetical to what I hold to be the core of tabletop roleplaying that I cannot at all comprehend it. I can't even think of a value-free term for the concept "railroading" encompasses, because the idea of praising or even defending such a concept is so abhorrent to me. When I have to go over my post and edit it to include more third-person hypothetical and fewer instances of the word "you" so as to not appear that I'm making any direct personal attacks (apart from the usual levels of snark required to pass off as "wit" on the internet, which I also hope you understand I mean no offense), that's when I'm done with a discussion.

I can usually see both sides to an argument (at least eventually), and try to hash out a middle ground from there, but on this I cannot. If this is the way that you and friends play the game and you all enjoy playing it that way, then I certainly must applaud you. But it bears such little resemblance to the game I play that I can't imagine a middle ground existing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Players sometimes - no, often - come up with things you never thought of that derail your plot train. That's just part of DMing, learning how to deal with that without making your game suck. It's not easy, but it's not entirely unrewarding, either.

You can just go the 'sandbox' route and not worry about your plot being derailed because you have no plot and no rails... but, then, you're really depending on your players being pretty self-directing, which not all of 'em are. As a matter of fact, you're lucky to get one player in any given group who can /really/ consistently handle a completely undirected campaign... and they usually end up 'dominating' it.

So, sure, railroading is often seen as 'bad,' but some direction can be good.

As a DM, you learn to work with your players, there's some plot-derailing but it's in a good cause, because the players did do something clever or cool or unexpected.

Powers that blow your plot train's rails, just because they're badly worded, though, they're not your players doing something cool or clever or unexpected - they're just bad rules. The DM has to deal with bad rules, but doing so doesn't make his game any better, it just (hopefully) saves it from being wrecked. The system should try to /minimize/ the bad rules, so the DM can concentrate on all the cool/clever/unexpected curve balls the players throw his way, because those are the things that turn the plot train into a plot ATV and actually add to the fun of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would have a lot to quote here, so I'm just going to address points individually.

@kamikaze Midgit:
Most of your examples represent poor uses of the power, and all of them represent poor DMing. First off, I want to know who's trying to use this power to get out of combats. Seriously, trying it on the goblin boss is bad enough, but a black dragon? These are absurd hyperboles set up as straw arguments. Is the Wizard trying to get this spell in the few seconds before the DM gets to say "The goblins notice you and immediately draw their weapons!"? The DM is well within their rights to say "Sorry, that power does not work in this way." The only way the power would work in this situation is if the Goblin Boss and the PCs were in negotiations, and the only way the DM would allow such negotiations to take place is if they planned (or at the very least imagined and accepted) that there would be a way for players to get out of the fight in the first place.

If the DM says "Well, I put all this work into this combat encounter, so anything you do to try to get out of it will meet with instant failure", then that is vindictive, and poor DMing. Saying that the power takes effect and thereby expending the daily use (as in your example) and then having the goblins attack anyway is even worse. If it was my first time playing with a DM I'd never met before and they pulled that garbage on us, I'm probably not coming back for a second session.

So too is your second example. This political intrigue scenario is obviously something the power was designed to be useful for. Any DM who has to search for excuses for it not to be useful is being vindictive. If I'm designing this sort of scenario, and I've got a Wizard in the party who has the power, I am most definitely taking this into account; thinking about who the Wizard might try to use the power on, and what that power use would benefit. I'll probably design a few "targets" for whom using the power on will greatly aid the party (though leave open the use of skill checks if the Wizard saves the power.) If there are figures for whom using the power on will essentially break the scenario (such as the monarch or powerful duke at the center of the intrigue), then I am doing two things:
1: Protect such NPCs with powerful magic antispies or other magical macguffins that make the power ineffective
2: Provide this information to the PCs (either directly via allied NPCs or through multiple hints) before they get a chance to waste the spell
If the wizard uses the power on someone I hadn't anticipated (and I'd make sure I'm anticipating a lot) then I'll likely fall back on the DM's best friend. This is the kind of planning that should be second nature to DMs. In your example, the DM has decided the power has no use in a situation where it clearly should provide some benefit (even if it's minor), basically on a whim. Once again, this is poor, vindictive DMing. If you don't want to have to put this kind of work into your adventure planning, then just tell your wizard player they can't take the power and be done with it. Don't let the poor schmuck take the power and then constantly make them waste it because you can't be bothered to design encounters around your party's build or, perish the thought, improvise and adjudicate on the spot. Poor planning can still be salvaged by judicious use of the DM's best friend. Saying "Well I don't want it to work so it doesn't, sorry" is vindictive. This is the farthest thing from "rational DMing" and anyone who claims that it is has no clue what the term means.

The only thing "old-school" about the power is that it brings back the open-endedness of magic from older editions. "Old-school arguments" over spells like Charm Person and its more powerful ilk only when poor DMs failed to plan around the fact that their players had access to these spells. I'm not saying we should bring back obvious intrigue-scenario-breakers like Know Alignment or other various mind-reading or mind-controlling stuff, but then Instant Friends is incredibly tame and reasonable in comparison to these.

Good design is not pandering to the lowest common denominator. Any design, good or otherwise, that gets broken as the result of poor DMing is the squarely the fault of the DM. Poor DMing leads to poor games, period.

@Someone (and others)
Your initial example of "rocks fall and maybe somebody dies perhaps" is another ludicrous strawman that is, at best, comparing apples to howitzers. Combat is resolved by a detailed and very clearly defined system based on precise mathematics and numbers, punctuated by tactical choices and dice rolls. Because 4e has a carefully balanced system it requires such precise mathematics, which is obviously why there is not nor will there ever be a "rocks fall and maybe somebody dies perhaps" power.

Noncombat is (or at least should be) primarily resolved through roleplaying. These situations are sometimes aided by skills (and sometimes rituals, feats and powers) but they are, by their very nature, open-ended. They require imagination on the part of the player and improvisational adjudication on the part of the DM. I had assumed (I suppose incorrectly) that this was a given. Skill challenges (and especially social challenges) should not just be the players saying "I use [Skill]" and rolling a d20, followed by the DM feeding them the results. They should be acted out, both by player and DM, as descriptively as the individual in question is capable of mustering. I mean, I'm not wrong, am I? Most 4e games aren't just Battle, Battle, Skill Challenge, Battle, maybe some sparse conversation with an important NPC, Battle, Skill Challenge, Battle, are they?

If I'm right (and I desperately hope, for the sake of the game, that I am), then there is simply no need to hem in every non-combat aspect of the game to anywhere close to same level as combat is. Even the DMG's skill challenges, the most structured non-combat scenario possible, have in every iteration come with the caveat that players will attempt things you hadn't accounted for, and encourage DMs to award players for their creativity appropriately. Non-combat is open-ended by necessity, and thus they absolutely require careful and fair DMG adjudication. That giving players more tools in these scenarios causes more work for the DM is a positively poor reason against giving players more tools. And practically every reason I've seen levied against introducing powers like Instant Friends have been to this effect. The only other reason I could find was the even more absurd declaration that D&D, even in non-combat situations, should look and be played the exact same way at every table.

You understand that this ENTIRE POST is virtually a poster for why this power should NOT EXIST IN THIS FORM, right?

First of all the very existence of this kind of extended argument illustrates the entire problem in all its glory. These are EXACTLY the debates that go on and on in endless circles around the table whenever it comes up.

Secondly you've illustrated perfectly what the distorting effects are on the DM's planning. The very fact that a DM would have to contemplate putting "magical wards" on all his plot critical NPCs is EXACTLY WHAT WE HATED ABOUT PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS POWER!!!!!

You can call the DMing examples of Kamikaze Midget examples of bad DMing and that isn't an entirely bad characterization. The problem is it is exactly the way DMs generally DO think and operate when faced with plot busting open-ended mechanics like this. Saying it isn't broken because "any good DM" can deal with it is just an "Any Good Scottsman" fallacy. A rule which is difficult to implement and is either a worthless trap or a panacea needs to be looked at with a very leery eye. My experience furthermore tells me that even GOOD DMs will run into these problems. No DM is going to anticipate everything the players are going to do or the ways they are going to try to twist this thing into an advantage. Some of them are going to bugger the works. With a power who's consequences are well-defined at least the issues can mostly be anticipated and if it isn't open-ended at WORST it might trivialize some encounter or other.

All the arguments you make about the limitations of the power also just say to me that basically it isn't going to be worth much at your table. I don't get why we have to have a power which has to be ruled against the players so much to make it in line with where it should be. This is another indication of a problem. What I see is that everyone defending this thing is basically making it into "Effect: You get a +2 on all Diplomacy, Bluff, Streetwise, and Insight checks involving the target. Alternately you can score one success in any challenge which allows these skills to be used." How is that a WORSE version? The fluff text can say "The target treats you like a friend for the next 4 hours." Nothing creative is lost at all. Most arguments that might arise WRT to the power vanish. Its effectiveness is going to be almost exactly what it is now. The long and short of it is that the mechanics of this thing are just stupidly designed. Insufficient consideration went into designing the power. The CONCEPT is OK, but the execution is lacking.

Finally if THIS is a level 2 Utility, what does a level 28 (whatever the highest level of utility power is, I forget) utility along the same lines look like? I mean what we have here is already in most respects the upper bound of what can reasonably be allowed with a power. By putting it at level 2 the designers have basically boxed themselves in. Sure they can make a version that affects a bunch of targets, works in combat, lasts longer, etc. but those will just cause WORSE problems. This is why the level of the power is inappropriate. You can't build a rational power progression for a mage school around this power as designed.