Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5339955" data-attributes="member: 2067">True. And if the DM determines that, in every situation it is actually used it, it is not actually useful, the DM has (perhaps unwittingly) hosed the player that took the power. Completely Reasonable Scenario: The DM has planned a dungeon crawl for tonight's adventure, and in comes the level 2 mage with Instant Friends. The mage proceeds to use it on the Goblin Boss, in an attempt to avoid a combat that the party isn't ready for. The DM already has this combat planned out, and is imagining all the traps and minions and the like, and the mage comes along and tries to say "no, this combat does not occur." So the DM says "Goblins treat their best friends no better than their worst enemies! You are attacked!"Later, it happens when the mage tries to use it on some Kobold Guardians, and then it happens when the mage tries to use it on the Adult Black Dragon at the center of the dungeon, too. Back in town, the next adventure is a political intrigue, but when the mage uses Instant Friends to hopefully gain some temporary allies in the courtly drama, the DM rules that the courtly tensions a stretched too thin and that kings have killed their best friends historically, so the spell does basically nothing there, too.The DM, in hoping to preserve the tension of her encounters, has unwittingly hosed the mage. The mage should have taken Shield, which would have been at least useful in the combats that the party had. The mage has kind of wasted their power choice and has felt like they had a useless albatross around their neck for an entire level. That's pretty rational on the part of the DM. They're not being vindictive, they just don't think that one power should invalidate their entire encounter or skill challenge. That's a pretty reasonable view. You can't balance powers on the hope that everyone who is playing is sitting down at their table with a Good DM. Because a Good DM can make FATAL playable. That's not good rules design.Now, it's also old-school rules design, which I think is the operation here. These are the same problems people would have with Charm Person back in the day. It's intentional. It's supposed to bring back that "old school feel," which is part of Essentials. The problem with this is that, in this case, the "old school feel" results in old-school arguments about how effective the power really should be. Well, my belief is that this magical divide between "combat needs rules" and "not combat needs you just to talk with your DM" is nonexistent. You need rules for things you want your characters to be doing, because if they have to ask DM permission and risk DM arbitration each time they try to do something, it makes most people not want to bother doing it. If you want your characters to be able to charm people and enchant enemies and manipulate kings and gods, you need rules for that. If your character is some "Enchanting Wizard" archetype, you want rules for it, because your character is going to be doing it all the time, in many places instead of combat. Rules give players an expected result for an expected investment. Without knowing what the expected result can be, the investment becomes "too risky." The only way a player knows what the expected result can be with a "DM judgement call" is if their DM is a Good DM. And most DMs are just Average DMs, so most players don't know really waht to expect when they ask their DM to make a judgement call.</blockquote>

Verification