times they are a changen....

[Mathew_Freeman]

I used to focus exclusively on making my characters powerful to the extreme. After a long while of this I realised that I thought that the roleplayers in the group were having more fun and also getting more out of the story than me.

So eventually I have adapted my style to include characters with character, so to speak. However, put a +5 sword in front of me and I'd still grab it - I'd just have some sort of dodgy reason why, now.

 

[Forrester]

Um, I'm sorry, but "that passage" does not seem well defined. Which passage, exactly? Can you give a page reference? Barsoomcore over there is choimping at the bit looking for attributions....

I'm not sure about a passage in the DMG, but there's this from Monte:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

He starts by talking about his recent module:

"In my adventure Demon God's Fane, the scenario begins with a murder mystery. So I thought of all the ways the PCs could use spells to solve it and presented a summary for the DM:

The PCs can call upon a number of divination spells to help them solve the murders. In fact, after only a little investigation, the spells they possess should make short work of the "mystery." That's fine -- do not feel that the players are "cheating" by doing this."

and then kindly gives us some tips on How To Be A Good DM In A High-Level Campaign:

"Don't Negate, Embrace.
It's a tendency for DMs (and module writers) to do everything mentioned in Step 1 and then systematically eliminate the possibility of the PCs using those abilities. If they have a clever trap in the adventure that requires the characters to be on the ground, they make it impossible to fly. That's lazy design."

and concludes by saying

"The whole point of these suggestions is to avoid punishing characters for being high level."

This, combined with comments I have read elsewhere, strongly suggest that DMs shouldn't change ("negate") high level spells, because it would be "punishing" the characters.

Which directly implies that Monte thinks the characters are entitled to any and all spells in the PHB, exactly as written . . . yes, changes made to these spells in order to help the DM tell his story are "lazy design" and "punishment". You want to do a murder mystery? Too f'ing bad. LokiDR is entitled to his Commune spell, as written. Shame on you for even thinking about changing it.

I'll add that it's possible that I'm overinterpreting Monte's column here. It's possible. But I doubt it. And certainly, there are plenty of players out there (not that I'm mentioning any names) that whine like hell any time the GM thinks about taking or changing any of their toys.

You know what the problem is? In 3E, the players think that the PHB/DMG/MM triumvirate is God.

Guess what, folks. It's not. I think I speak for all the DMs where when I say that WE ARE GOD. DMs put ten times as much work into campaigns, if not more, than the players do. A little damn respect is in order.

I'm not saying that you can't have problems with your DM, especially if his rules changes are inconsistent or illogical. There are just gods and there are unjust gods.

But it's not the pile of books that is going to determine what you face next. It's not the pile of books that is going to figure out how to work all of your backstories into the plotline. It's not the pile of books that is going to be tailoring all of the encounters to give adequate challenges to your particular party. It's not the pile of books that is going to be trying to figure out how in the hell to entertain three or four or five or six different types of players at once.

Meaning it's the DM, not some pile of books, that is the Alpha and the Omega. And if you trust him enough to allow him to work ten times as hard as you do, crafting the campaign, maybe you should shut your yap when he decides that a particular spell, as written in the PHB, won't work well with the story he's creating.

Your DM is God. Remember that when you say your prayers at night .

 

[jgbrowning]

i guess i'll jump in here

the only problem i have with many of these "cheating" spells.. commune scry etc.... is this...

as a DM i am almost required to force my NPC's to be stupid in order to allow the PC's to live. An NPC with these same abilites who is the "enemy" of the PC's will use them just as much as the PC's and since the "enemy" ususally has more total resources.. (men/monsters/social standing whatever) the PC's should be damn quick work for most of those "continueing" villians types.

really it can be just as simple as a scry, teleport, mass damage spells, and teleprot away while the party is making camp... most powerful NPC's will have that ability.

I dont want to kill my PC's yet to play with these abilities used against them it is almost certain. So i'm left with few choices.

Not to dis on monte, but the return to elemental evil invasion of a temple complex type of module just wouldn't happen. the damn NPC's would magically find out who's doing it, where they are, and then they would crush them. The only way to keep high level PC's alive when they are fighting high level NPC's is really to just play the NPC's more like straw men than living breathing intelligent creatures.

I know a DM can make a lot of "in game" reasons why that wouldnt happen (iternal confusion, internecine war, etc) there are a few reasons why this gets old real quick. Mostly how did they get so powerful to begin with if a simple attack by 4-6 people would tear down the whole orgainization?.. it just stretches plausible beliveablity a little to much for me.

joe b.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Oh please...

Divinations give players a great deal of flexibility, but given that this is a GAME, that comes at the price of martial ability. Its an option the game provides, and a reasonable one at that.

The fact that you would like to see your players 'play' out one of your cliched wet dreams doesn't invalidate the inclusion of these facets into the game.

And may i add, you have a balanced option in simply limiting teleport, scry, etc to the pcs if you want to maintain the 'integrity' of your world, though 9 in 10 players wouldn't notice to begin with. You can do this and still maintain combat balance without limiting the strategies available to players in a game which they wish to play..

Please, reply to this. The dms ego is always a sight to behold...

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Oh please...

Divinations give players a great deal of flexibility, but given that this is a GAME, that comes at the price of martial ability. Its an option the game provides, and a reasonable one at that.

this is true if and only if you believe that proper intelligence is not one of the most important aspects of any conflict.

personally, i'd like better information any day, as would most who have to fight.

So what is talk of divinations REDUCING martial ability? Divinations increase the effectiveness of martial ability because it allows martial ability to be more focused and therefore more powerfull.

joe b.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Oh please...

[blah blah blah . . . ]

You can do this and still maintain combat balance without limiting the strategies available to players in a game which they wish to play..

Please, reply to this. The dms ego is always a sight to behold...

That sounds about the level of "strategy" of most players -- they're stymied unless they can ask God yes-or-no questions.

The stupidity of players is also always a sign to behold. Heaven forbid you have to figure out a puzzle without God on your speed-dial.


EDIT: So how would YOU handle the problem of a group of powerful enemies of the PCs having Commune, Scry, and Teleport? In a realistic fashion, of course? Or is that just a "wet dream" of ours?

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure about a passage in the DMG, but there's this from Monte:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

Yes, this I knew about, and went back and re-read it, just to be sure. I guess we'll have to wait on that alleged DMG attribution.

I'll add that it's possible that I'm overinterpreting Monte's column here. It's possible. But I doubt it.

Actually, to me it seems certain that you are, in a couple ways.

You seem to have missed this quote from the essay:

"That doesn't mean that anti-magic fields (or whatever) are always bad. Sometimes it's interesting to strip away a character's magical abilities. But only once in a while -- as the exception, not the rule. If the PCs are always having their good abilities taken away from them, they will become frustrated."

That right there suggests that his position is not nearly as extreme as people seem to think. You want to run a murder mystery, or have a particular trap that needs certain magical abilities set aside for a while? That's okay by him. He says so.

His reason for the advice is also made clear - and it isn't an egomaniacal "My rules are good, don't mess with them." He clearly states that it's to avoid player frustration. And remembering that, it does make sense.

The context also makes this fairly clear - Monte is talking about adventure design, not campaign design. He's talking about allowing a PC to earn an ability, and then systematically eliminating the PC's ability to use it.

 

[Tharkun]

Hm...interesting discussions. If I decide to play a fighter I would be expected to take fighting related feats and any feats I had in mind for my character.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Uh, no.....

Consider the number of cases where players would actually be able to glean immunities and weaknesses from a scry...not many. Especially given the fact the even as the rules are written, the dm has a large degree of discretion over what traits and npc/monster demonstrates during the scry. This is what Monte and others refer to as a 'passive' ability, one in which the effect of the ability is largly framed by dm action. In this case, its not provided the pcs with other forms of clues, thus placing an inordinate emphasis on scry. On the other hand, the removal of that spell slot from play takes away a real, active resource that could be used on evocation or abjuration spells, which are much less 'passive'.

You obviously to tell a story which the rules as written would trounce..i personally don't think that is a bad thing, nore probably your players. But please don't try to undermine the game that is provided with markers such as 'silly'. The game is balanced primarily for tactical combat and resource managment, two aspects which are the most popular for the majority of players/dms out there. Its up to the individual dm to add whatever 'dramatic tension' he feels is neccessary, but the rules are hardly poor for not catering to minority taste...

 

[Forrester]

Hm...interesting discussions. If I decide to play a fighter I would be expected to take fighting related feats and any feats I had in mind for my character.

Well, of course you would. But would you have a hissy fit if the GM read these boards one day and realized just how stupid Whirlwind/Great Cleave/Bag o' Blind Kobolds is? And then decided to ban it?

Let's assume that you didn't have Whirlwind/Great Cleave at that time; maybe you had one part of the chain, but not the other.