Spell Detente'

[Velenne]

I agree with Darkness. If it comes to that point out-of-game where it's the players deciding not to use the spell because they're afraid of what it might do to the game, then there's something wrong with the spell.

But if it's done in game, that's awesome! I play a sorceror with a celestial matron and he refuses to summon devils and demons. That's not a restriction my DM placed on me or anything implicit in the rules, it's something that helps define the character and give him more flavor.

That's this man's opinion.

 

[Arravis]

Our group does this as well. Edvard's Black Tentacles (since DM'ng that many grapple checks is a nightmare), Detect Thoughts (a plot killer if there ever was one), and a few others I can't recall at this moment.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Spell Detente'

No matter how many times I read it, I just can't conceive of playing D&D with anyone who gets really, truly angry when something unfortunate happens to their character. People like that are asked to leave and not invited back.

None of my players do, but it's a fun-stealer. In general, it's viewed as a 'DM screws the players' spell, as it costs them much more than it does the NPCs, from a metagame standpoint. When I said angry, I should have said was 'not happy'. But I can see how somone who's invested 3 years of weekly games might be disappointed at the loss or severe disabling of a character. Especially to a single bad die-roll. Different folks have different tastes.

I don't think I understand why you would do that, WizarDru.


If I consider a spell more trouble that it's worth for a certain world, it just doesn't exist, or is modified to fit better, in that specific campaign world (and maybe others, as the case may be).
Otherwise, it's available and NPCs might use it. And if the PCs choose not to use a spell they have access to, that's their choice...

*shrug* If it's causing problems, fix it or eliminate it. If not, let it be used.

Well, a couple of reasons. One, I worry, perhaps needlessly, that some spells, like Time Stop, would become 'must haves'. As it is, I've nerfed Time Stop fairly severely, so it's not nearly as valuable.

Mostly, I don't like limiting the player's options. If I thought it would mess up the game, I would outlaw it in a moment. After a reasoned discussion of Blindness/Deafness, we decided it wasn't a problem, for example. There was also never a conscious decision by either party to treat them that way, per se. It was more of an evolving issue of the course of a 3-year game. Time Stop wasn't worth worrying about until 17th level rolled around. The number of NPCs who can actually use such power in my game is quit small as well, so it's really something of a non-issue. I was more curious if anyone else had experienced a similar situation.

 

[Voadam]

Sort of similar, I avoided gaining some spells for a long time to try to distinguish myself from the wizard in the game I DM. Looking at our spells there was something like a 75% overlap (both are characters we have had for years who converted to 3e) so I tried very hard as I advanced in 3e to choose different spells and tactics to keep us distinct.

For example, he was known for years as always using invisibility, so I opted not to get it for a long while until a recent adventure required us to break into a fortress at which point I broke down and spent the money to learn the spell.

Likewise I have stuck with lightning bolts because he is a habitual fireball thrower and I have become known as an air mage with my constant flying and lightning spells and items.

So not detente to prevent the spells being used against us, but refraining from choosing available ones for metagame reasons.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, we already used the B-S-T Tactic in one of our campaigns to great extend... But actually, in most the adventures, the enemy could as well have been prepared for it, unfortunately, the DM didn`t know how to handle this...

And I used the tactic against my players in the adventure "If thougts could kill" - but it is described there as the standard approach...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Mark]

Not in MY group. Those guys will take any conceivable oppurtunity to do the most devestating amount of damage possible. All except one who has a tendency to make his characters weaker in the name of Role-play.

Heh. I've got one of those too. He called me yesterday, agonizing over whether he should take Improved Critical. He was convinced that taking the feat would make him a min/maxer.

Did you talk him down...?

I don't recall anytime that a group has purposefully ignored spells for fear of excalating the level of danger to their characters, nor have I ever pulled punches in that way.

 

[Zhure]

I'm aware of a gentlemen's agreement in a few games I'm in, most 1e/2e.

Stoneskin is the big bugaboo. The casters don't use it on the tanks and the DM doesn't use it on the bad guy tanks.

Greg

 

[dagger]

We use every spell and every spell is used against us. Our DM's are able to adapt to high level spells just fine.

 

[Gez]

For BST, I like the name from Mostin's player (read Sep's storyhour if you don't do it already): Scry 'n' Fry.

I havn't especially noticed this, although I'll try to get it... Lately, I've been annoyed by web. I hesitate between webbing back at the PCs, or sending them monsters with 60 Str so the Str check DC 25 will always be a success... (I won't use ring of freedom of movement, because I don't want PCs to loot these items, and I can't use driders because there are no drows IMC.)

 

[maddman75]

We have the Gentleman's Agreement as well, though both sides have broken it at different times. You should have seen the look on their faces when the archer got an AoO on her and I sundered her stupid bow . Now its a common tactic - especially for striking items like scrolls when a spellcaster gets desperate.