Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Ahnehnois]

My gut analysis is a bit different. Eg use Confusion (perhaps Heightened to 5th level to increase the DC) and have a 60% chance of hitting the rogue who then has an 80% chance of being taken out, plus some (lesser) chance of hitting the other PCs - even if those chances are only 20% (ie save on a 5+) that would be only a 5% chance or so of doing nothing, assuming 3 targets in addition to the rogue. Which to me looks pretty strong.

Confusion is kind of a bad example; you still have a 20% chance of acting normally (and another chance of attacking randomly, which may help or hurt) and still have your defenses. There's Hold Person, which could be lethal but which allows another save each round. Most of the nastier effects (flesh to stone, slay living) are tied to fort saves. Even so, at this level many of these effects are subject to being removed, situational bonuses abound, and SR is even in play at this point.

That being said, if you look at what a solid martial character can do, his chance of disabling or killing the weakest target isn't much worse. I'm of the mind that there should be more disabling effects, but even in our level 10 example, a full attack from a decent attacker can kill opponents in 1 round. A high-damage character (say a barbarian with a x3 crit weapon) can very realistically kill a spellcaster in one hit.

And there are a lot of variables as to how much time and space is available and how much the characters know about each other's strengths and weaknesses and what their abilities are, so it's hard to make blanket conclusions, but I often find that the chance of save-based effects is barely high enough to allow spellcasters to remain competitive in a fight.

 

[Starfox]

No, Starfox, no!

I like your "narrative space" formulation much better than a "3 pillars" formulation - even though, as I posted upthread, I want to break narrative space into a "plot determined by action resolution mechanics" component and a "scene framing determined by scene framing guidelines/mechanics" component.

Hm, good point you make here. What I meant to say about the three pillars is that the word "narrative" in this context is so badly defined that it is actually useless. We spent pages on this thread just trying to find a definition, and the best we came up with was "non-combat". Compared to that, the three pillars do seem like an improvement - and the pillars being three (not just combat/noncombat) implies there might be more, so there is room for considerations like "investigation". Still, we can't make the pillars too many, or they outweigh combat - a lot of table time is spent on combat, and thus combat abilities matter alot.

But as you point out, there is another possible meaning of "narrative powers", and that is what you call scene framing. Like the infiltration power mentioned upthread, which is really a subplot resolved in an abstract manner. And some spells fall into that category, but DnD mainly shies away from such powers, especially for martial characters. DnD has traditionally been much too stimulationist to include off-stage events as powers. Perhaps those who deride this discussion and say martial characters should use what abilities they have instead of complaining have a point here - if you want to get the effect of as spell through hard work and skill, you should play that out and not ask the rules to give it to you for free. At the same time, if there are two possible ways to do something - one involving an hour or more of difficult role-play, the other involving a simple spell, most parties will take the spell, letting the spellcaster outshine the rouge. In 4E when many of these powers were made into lengthy rituals, some of my players complained that the magic got pre-empted by cruder but faster mundane solutions - a complete turnaround from earlier editions. Balance is so hard to achieve.

So, where does this lead us? Well, primarily it lets us refine our language, breaking up the fuzzy term "narrative" into different sub-meanings that are more useful and comprehensible, such as the "three pillars" and "scene framing" - tough I still think we need a better term for the later. We need to develop the concepts and tools before we can come to grips with the problem itself.

 

[Starfox]

Saves in 3.5 was also made easier by the frequent use of prestige classes and multiclassing.

It is worth noting with regards to the latter example, though, that because monster HD are weaker than levels, players tend to face giants and the like who have way more HD than them, to the point where even their bad saves are pretty good.

This is a particular problem with the low challenge rating per HD critters, like undead and vermin - a Colossal vermin almost always makes it's saving throw. And it's own HD-based saving throw DCs get ridiculous too - or at least it was like that in 3.5. Now when I check it seems they upped the challenge rating of these critters in Pathfinder.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, that calls into question the very idea that monster Hit Dice are "weaker" than class levels. This mainly seems to come from the idea that class levels have special class features, whereas monster Hit Dice only have the basics (e.g. hit points, BAB, saves, and skill points), though this is somewhat ameliorated by monsters having special powers to buoy them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, that calls into question the very idea that monster Hit Dice are "weaker" than class levels. This mainly seems to come from the idea that class levels have special class features, whereas monster Hit Dice only have the basics (e.g. hit points, BAB, saves, and skill points), though this is somewhat ameliorated by monsters having special powers to buoy them.

On a one-for-one basis, they generally are, though the variation between dragons and constructs is rather large. It's only the idea of CRs that confuses the issue.

 

[Alzrius]

On a one-for-one basis, they generally are, though the variation between dragons and constructs is rather large. It's only the idea of CRs that confuses the issue.

True. In that regard, I quite enjoyed the distinction that the Trailblazer Teratologue made between "CR" and "spine CR."

The latter denoted its CR based purely on the "spine" of the monster - that is, the aforementioned BAB, Hit Dice/points, and saves (and, I suppose, the derived stats, like its total attack bonuses, etc.) - whereas the latter took into account everything, including the "spine" of the monster and its special powers, spell-like abilities, etc. By comparing the ratio of the spine CR to the full CR, you could get a sense of how much of the monster needed to rely on hanging back and using its special abilities, rather than just wading into melee, to get the full effect of its CR.

I found that to be a very useful guide on how to put the monsters to best effect, and get them to perform at their Challenge Rating.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION]
I don't use CRs at all, but I do find this idea interesting, and despite having the original TB, I haven't check out the Teratologue.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones (1/2 move, d8 damage/5 feet moved in a giant AoE field around them), Large/Huge (uncrittable and non-sneakable) Air Elementals that can pick them up and drop them to the ground for massive damage threshold, Reach Poisons attacking Fort at DC 25ish with Owls Wisdom (level 10 characters shouldn't have much more than a 12 as their best save - maybe 14 with feat investment - and more likely a 10ish), against an enemy that can fly, behind a Wind Wall, with Stoneskin, and Regeneration...and summon a horde of animals (including some that can shoot touch ranged attacks at the PCs) and lob touch fire grenades at them (or just take a nap if they want to and do it again tomorrow after that obstacle course of death is laid out). There is no reason to ever engage the PC's only strength; melee.

That...is narrative control.

 

[Alzrius]

[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION]
I don't use CRs at all, but I do find this idea interesting, and despite having the original TB, I haven't check out the Teratologue.

I'd recommend it on that alone; it was shocking just how many powerful monsters had a spine CR that was far below their full CR. A balor, for instance, is a CR 20 creature with a spine CR of 11 - so if it's not using its many spell-like abilities to their fullest effect, and instead just charging in to melee combat, then it's not going to be much of a challenge for your level 20 party.

 

[Starfox]

I would really be curious how these 3 martial, melee characters with no legitimate vertical axis mobility are going to deal with a giant field of no-save Spike Stones

If you want to make the case that area movement impairment spells (Web, spike stones, wall of thorns mainly) are overpowered, yeah, point conceded. Flight is somewhat different, as it is something players recognize and prepare for, but yes that can also be overpowered. These spells (like most of 3E) were designed with a dungeon environment in mind, where there simply is not enough space to use them well. On the other hand, considering the catastrophic consequences of having a melee character come into contact with a spellcaster, something along these lines is needed.

Perhaps what you are extolling here is the benefits of surprise, ambush, selecting your battlefield, and preparation. In the context of no prep time, a straight initiative roll and a 20 ft. distance between opponents (bash in the door style play), the caster is so dead. And if you reverse the situation above; the team has infiltrated the druid's sanctum when he returns to rest and jumps him as he steps out of his plant door - smack, no contest at all. Martial characters can also ambush.