Scry-and-Die Tactics [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

King of Nowhere

2009-05-20, 04:14 PM

"Scry and die tactics" describes the point at which D&D 3.x breaks down. It is no longer an adventure game at this point, but a series of escalating spell tactics between players of casters and the GM.

The "a smart GM can get around this tactic" counter becomes trite when every single villain has to take the exact same preventive measures or fall to the tactic, and it eliminates any opponent who doesn't have access to potent magics of their own. You want a high level Fighter to be your main villain, and for his potent martial abilities to be the keypoint of the challenges the party faces when trying to overcome him? Tough. If the martial character doesn't have a caster lackey who could easily displace him as the leader of whatever he is the leader of, the martial character is going to die one round after the Time Stop expires. The same applies to monstrous opponents who don't possess spell casting abilities. If it's not a caster or has access to casters, it's not a challenge at this level of play under the D&D 3.x rules.

Actually I use a different (and, in my opinion, better) way to avoid the spam of scry and die.
To teleport somwhere you must have a "connection" with that place, that is not defined in detail, so I choose to read it in a restrictive way: you need to know where this place is. As a guideline, I take that you should be able to fly to that zone without much troubles.
So, if you scry on the big bad and he's in a room, and you know this is a room in his fortress, and you know where this fortress is, you can teleport. But if he stays in a humble house he took for cover, and you didn't knew of, you have no idea where he really is: to you, this house is absolutely indistinguishable from every other house in the town (assuming you know which town it is), and your only way of finding it would be trying everyplace one by one. Therefore, no teleport. Unless, during your scry, you see a window open, and can read the name of the street (or see any other easily recognizable marker): thus you could locate the place, and teleport works.

If someone hides in a forest, no teleport because you have absolutely no idea where is the particular place you're seeing. You may locate (and teleport) if you recognize a particular tree you already saw, or if this guy turns on a fire and it's the only fire in the forest, or if he fights a battle and it's the only place of the forest full of corpses.

I did it because my campaign needed that the pcs (at the time 3rd level) became enemies of a guy whose resources included a 9th level wizard at his disposal (and I needed said wizard to be able to teleport for story purposes, not to mention that the big bad also has a wand of teleport with him, and enough money to buy almost evey magic equipment), and I needed to find a reason for the wizard to not just scry on them and "fly. Greater invisibility. Teleport. Fireball. Someone still moves? Another fireball" at them.
But I think it allows a more intersting game when teleport is involved.

EDIT: Oh, and it don't feel forced when the players can't use that tactic.
I think it also makes the gathering of intelligence a bit more intersting

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 04:16 PM

So, for the game not to be "ruined", both the players and the DM have to actively ignore a huge potential source of power for all characters, NPCs and PCs alike. That's metagaming at its finest.

If you want to run your game that way... well, have fun, person. I'll be over here actually roleplaying my characters instead of pretending that everyone's an idiot.There are two ironies here. First, the type of play you're describing is just what V thinks "ultimate arcane power" would bring him, and he was wrong. Second, your .sig.

There are ways of patching 3.x without making everyone hold an idiot ball. But without the patches, it can be effectively argued that "our heroes" could never defeat an arcane caster with a few levels on the party. He would destroy them as soon as they conceived to destroy him, or maybe before they were even informed of his existence. To have the game you describe not be a joke, the opponents of the players have to use their spells just as effectively as the players intend to.

Zherog

2009-05-20, 04:18 PM

We'll just ignore that wand of teleport isn't a legal item... :smallwink:

King of Nowhere

2009-05-20, 04:31 PM

We'll just ignore that wand of teleport isn't a legal item... :smallwink:

Why not? I read the book, and it never states anywhere that you can't make wands of spells higher than level 4. The listed wands are only up to level 4, but that don't mean you can't craft them.
And if there is that rule and it has escaped me, just call it an houseruling that you can make every wand you want.

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 04:36 PM

Craft Wand feat "You can create a wand of any 4th level or lower spell that you know..."

Zherog

2009-05-20, 04:44 PM

Why not? I read the book, and it never states anywhere that you can't make wands of spells higher than level 4. The listed wands are only up to level 4, but that don't mean you can't craft them.

hamishspence covered this part.

And if there is that rule and it has escaped me, just call it an houseruling that you can make every wand you want.

Sure. No problem. Like just about every DM, I have house rules too. Nothing at all wrong with 'em -- I even encourage them.

However... you were justifying your restrictive reading of teleport* in part on the fact that your BBEG had this wand. So while I don't mind house rules at all, I don't particularly like the justification of one house rule because of the existence of another house rule.

* I do find this rigid interpretation to be interesting, and I think you could certainly make a case for it within the rules as they currently exist.

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 04:49 PM

That was King of Nowere.

But a mildly restrictive reading of teleport does make sense- after all it tends to teleport the caster a bit off-course unless target is sufficiently well known.

Zherog

2009-05-20, 04:53 PM

That was King of Nowere.

Nevermind. I see what you're saying. Going to fix it now...

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 04:55 PM

That was King of Nowere.

But a mildly restrictive reading of teleport does make sense- after all it tends to teleport the caster a bit off-course unless target is sufficiently well known.Thanks, ham. :smallsmile:

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 04:55 PM

Sorry, was answer to "BillyJimBoBob provided justification for his restrictive reading of teleport"- he wasn't the one with the re-reading.

EDIT: Looks like that was already spotted.

Zherog

2009-05-20, 04:56 PM

Yeah, I caught on eventually. See my edit. :smallwink: I'm just a bit slow on the up-take some days. :)

hamishspence

2009-05-20, 04:57 PM

on teleport- I suspect that bringing back accidental air/underground arrival would not be popular.

Zherog

2009-05-20, 04:58 PM

Heh. I had a character die that way once. Teleported into solid rock. *shakes head*

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 05:05 PM

If people (a group.... players, dm, does not matter) wants to ruin their game that way... well, have fun, people.

Again with this...

*If you play smart, you ruin the game*, is that it?

Or is it *if you play smarter than me, because you invested more time and effort into the game, you ruin the game for me, because I am a poor sport and cannot appreciate the efforts and successes of others*?

"Scry and die tactics" describes the point at which D&D 3.x breaks down. It is no longer an adventure game at this point, but a series of escalating spell tactics between players of casters and the GM.

And up until this point it's been what, a picnic?

The entire game is a series of escalating tactics between players and the GM.

Have you ever tried taking on CR 1 goblins (kobolds, etc) as a 1st level party? It's right in the Manual:

Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society. They favor ambushes, overwhelming odds, dirty tricks, and any other edge they can devise. Goblins have a poor grasp of strategy and are cowardly by nature, tending to flee the field if a battle turns against them. With proper supervision, though, they can implement reasonably complex plans, and in such circumstances their numbers can be a deadly advantage.

Ever tried "kicking the door" on a goblin lair? Doesn't help that they live in settlements with over a hundred in population... prefer caves... and have darkvision.

Now consider that you're a level 1 wizard with 6 hp, no armor, and only three 1st level spells per day (and four cantrips). Your starting gear is 75 gp: spellbook, component pouch, crossbow, robe... basically, that's it.

But without taking the fight to the lair, you'll never get your hands on that sweet level-appropriate loot.

Don't you think this basic scenario would require some wicked tactics?

The "a smart GM can get around this tactic" counter becomes trite when every single villain has to take the exact same preventive measures or fall to the tactic

1. A smart GM can also get around the tactic of "sharp stick through the innards" by equipping his villains with plate armour and/or magical shielding. Is melee thus made trite as well?

2. Nothing "trite" in wanting to survive. If in a certain setting doing X would get you killed, no one would be doing it. E.g. when you cross a busy road, you look left, right, then cross. If you don't do the looking before the crossing, your chances of winning the survival game drop substantially. It's not trite, it's part of the world.

3. Don't have to be the same protective measures.

A careful wizard might favour Dimension Lock and Contingency [teleport away].

A more XP-thirsty type would prefer Anticipate Teleportation and Contingency [Time Stop or another buff].

An evil cleric or dread necromancer may rely on his never-sleeping undead bodyguards to take care of incoming threats.

A crafter/artisan would develop traps and populate the area with innocious-looking objects which are actually powerful constructs.

Some insidious villains might even lure adventurers into attempting to "scry-and-die" them, feeding off the rich loot & XP of such encounters.

The possibilities are endless.

and it eliminates any opponent who doesn't have access to potent magics of their own. You want a high level Fighter to be your main villain, and for his potent martial abilities to be the keypoint of the challenges the party faces when trying to overcome him? Tough. If the martial character doesn't have a caster lackey who could easily displace him as the leader of whatever he is the leader of, the martial character is going to die one round after the Time Stop expires.

1. The martial character can have a caster lackey. It's a single feat. And the key word is lackey - cohorts come because they want to serve, not rule. Besides, specialisation is the pillar of DnD. Even the almighty wizard needs allies (cohorts, hirelings, undead minions, constructs, dominated slaves...) Why should fighters be any different?

2. Have you forgotten about magic items? That can copy any spell? Including various anti-scry-and-dies? At higher levels, a well-built crafter cohort can make you a command word activated Anti-Magic Field item for only about 33,264 gp and a Mind Blank for 60,480 gp.

3. If you don't know how to make a powerful anti-caster melee build, do not assume they are nonexistent. There are entire prestige classes designed around that concept, not to mention feats, abilities and items. The two basic ways of going at it I'm more or less familiar with (myself being on the other side of the caster/melee dichotomy):

a) Gish - melee, but with good casting capacity; tons of builds around.

b) Hard-core anti-magic (example: Occult Slayer [Complete Warrior] + various anti-mage feats from Complete Arcane).

Throw in the Varoot Nera race (Fiend Folio), the Vecna-blooded template if you're a gish, magic items that your crafter cohort makes you at basically 1/4 marketprice, and you're set against the robed perils.

For more ideas, you can take a look at this discussion (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9O_iHknw_ngJ:www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-38698.html+best+anti-caster+melee+build+prestige+class&cd=26&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=fr&lr=lang_en), for instance.

I am sure there are plenty more builds.

Even without the special feats, prestige classes, and cohorts:

A 20th level Fighter with only Core to work from would have 760,000 gp worth of shop-bought magic items, which would give him continuous Anti-Magic Field (132k gp), Mind Blank (240k gp), Fly (30k), True Seeing (90 k), and a command word Greater Teleport (163,800k), with over 100,000 gp left for weapons & armor. Most casters of identical level would have a hard time getting around that. The continuous AMF alone would be enough to thwart most efforts. If the enemy mage somehow manages to find you, he can attack with called, undead, construct or other minions; but you can fight them, you're a fighter, after all.

The same applies to monstrous opponents who don't possess spell casting abilities. If it's not a caster or has access to casters, it's not a challenge at this level of play under the D&D 3.x rules.

At which level of play? Are you talking epic here? Because then you should be looking at the epic monsters.

And only animals/brutes "don't have access to casters". A high-ranking hero should be able to deal with animals, wouldn't you think?

But, I'm not going too deep here. Obviously there are various tactics for the GM to use even with non-spellcasting enemies.

In fact, from personal DnD experience, I have to say that animals are often the PCs only hope of getting XP without being mercilessly mauled by the powerful organisations that sentient enemies have aligned themselves with. Unfortunately, animals also very rarely have any loot.

Although, there's nothing like killing a few cats to get that much-needed crafting XP at 1st level 8=)) However, I digress.

Melee builds are viable. Just how far can they be taken in terms of optimisation is a pointless debate; they can be powerful, and hold their own against casters pretty well.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 05:06 PM

on teleport- I suspect that bringing back accidental air/underground arrival would not be popular.Yeah, I agree. Motion spells are a challenge for GMs to overcome, starting with Flight opening up a third dimension and all the associated issues with that (Flying characters + monsters w/o missile weapons = Free EXP + Free treasure), but a chance to die on every casting of a spell is just a lame mechanic.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 05:14 PM

*If you play smart, you ruin the game*, is that it?No, that's not it. What is "it" is that the 3.x rules are broken, and themselves ruin play if played by RAW.

Rant all you like about how you like to play. If you find it enjoyable, great. Just realize that what "*if you play smarter than me, because you invested more time and effort into the game, you ruin the game for me, because I am a poor sport and cannot appreciate the efforts and successes of others*" really means is that your character wakes up dead some day, and the GM tells you to roll up another character. Because in the game you describe, unless the GM deliberately hobbles the opponents, you don't stand a chance.

So, if you really enjoy playing what you think is "smart", but you're only alive because the opponents are played stupid, are you really all that smart after all?
Melee builds are viable. Just how far can they be taken in terms of optimisation is a pointless debate; they can be powerful, and hold their own against casters pretty well.No, melee builds are not viable. What is viable is a melee build with a pile of magic items created by, what was that? Ah, yes. Casters. Take away the propping up of unforgivable balance issues with magic items created by the very class you have to struggle to hope to match in spotlight time and your martial character is a joke.

King of Nowhere

2009-05-20, 05:26 PM

hamishspence covered this part.

However... you were justifying your restrictive reading of teleport* in part on the fact that your BBEG had this wand. So while I don't mind house rules at all, I don't particularly like the justification of one house rule because of the existence of another house rule.

The problem was not the guy with the wand (and he's a political leader, physically weak (tecnically, a bard 5/aristocrat 3 with low physical stats and genius-like mental stats), so him teleporting into the action woulnd't make much sense), but the wizard (allied with the guy) that can teleport.
Still, if I had reminded that rule about wands, I would have given him a bunch of scrolls for the same effect.

The entire game is a series of escalating tactics between players and the GM
Actually, this seems like the master playing against the players, which is pointless because the master always wins. I'm sure you didn't intended it that way.
I think you intended "the master should conceive encounters that can be won only with a clever tactic from the pc's part, to really challenge them; if they can go in blindly and still smash every opposition the game becomes boring". If that was you idea, that's also mine

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 05:50 PM

No, that's not it. What is "it" is that the 3.x rules are broken, and themselves ruin play if played by RAW.

Rant all you like about how you like to play.

And you, sir, rant all you like about how you can't succeed in 3.5. The edition does not *ruin* the game for me, nor for plenty of other players around the world. Most of the "broken" stuff only takes a decent DM to make balanced - even without houseruling, just by logically applying the consequences.

If you find it enjoyable, great. Just realize that what "*if you play smarter than me, because you invested more time and effort into the game, you ruin the game for me, because I am a poor sport and cannot appreciate the efforts and successes of others*" really means is that your character wakes up dead some day, and the GM tells you to roll up another character. Because in the game you describe, unless the GM deliberately hobbles the opponents, you don't stand a chance.

Deliberately hobbles opponents? You mean your melee char, in a party, cannot succeed against level-appropriate encounters in official adventures?

Perhaps you just need to read up on some DnD strategy guides?

However, it would be helpful if you could offer a real example out of your gameplay experience. Mayhap I am misjudging the situation somehow.

So, if you really enjoy playing what you think is "smart", but you're only alive because the opponents are played stupid, are you really all that smart after all?

The simple tips I've given in the previous post concerning prestige classes, feats and items would make a melee char go a long way. If you really get into optimisation, the way people get with the caster builds, melee can be incredibly powerful. I suggest you look up the possibilities before giving up.

Or, post your setting and available books, perhaps we'll think of something here.

No, melee builds are not viable. What is viable is a melee build with a pile of magic items created by, what was that? Ah, yes. Casters.

You buy the stuff in the shops.

Do you make your own sword? [You could, but normally] you buy it in a shop. Same thing, armor, potions... magic items.

If you are for some reason prejudiced against crafter cohorts, you have to pay the full market price. That's all.

Take away the propping up of unforgivable balance issues with magic items created by the very class you have to struggle to hope to match in spotlight time and your martial character is a joke.

Spotlight time, is that's what you're after?

Well then, here's a few suggestions:

1. Choose a really wicked anti-caster build;

2. Take Leadership, with a cohort focused on crafting and trading (Magical Artisan from PGTF, Artisan feats from Eberron CS, and Merchant Background from PGTF are very welcome), and establish a business making money from the profit margins of making/selling items; your Followers will help here;

3. With the enormous amounts of $$$ you'll be making, and your cohort's crafting prowess, you'll be decked in the most powerful items;

4. Between your class abilities, feats, items, $$$, and sheer bling, neither your cohort (of whom you will not be afraid), nor your party members of the spellcasting persuasions will be a threat;

5. Your mighty anti-caster powers coupled with ultra-versatility offered by magic items (think Jarlaxle times 100) will make you a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield;

6. Your mercantile empire will be the envy of your companions during the downtime;

7. Add in some major role-playing, and the spotlight is yours.

Once you are satisfied, sacrifice a CR 1/4 cat to the darker gods. It's just good manners.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 06:32 PM

The entire game is a series of escalating tactics between players and the GMActually, this seems like the master playing against the players, which is pointless because the master always wins. I'm sure you didn't intended it that way.
I think you intended "the master should conceive encounters that can be won only with a clever tactic from the pc's part, to really challenge them; if they can go in blindly and still smash every opposition the game becomes boring". If that was you idea, that's also mineThat isn't what UP intended. He likes a game where he cobbles himself together a mashup of prestige classes, splat book races, Flaws, aging rules, and other obscure rules and tries to achieve, as he once outlined, infinite wishes at 5th level.

The logical flaw in his thinking is that he wants to be the sole being in existence with access to the game breaking combination. And when I pointed out that his 5th level wish-quester could be defeated by the single Core reference book (MM) use of the very high Intimidate ability of the Djinn he was trying to extort wishes out of? Well, then Intimidate is clearly a broken skill! Bwahahahahaha! So, a Core skill is broken but his character which probably requires at least 5 splat books to combine the poor research and editing issues of those 5 separate authors is just fine and dandy. More, he himself breaks several rules or assumes that his GM will not enforce those rules in his proposed climb to ultimate arcane power. And if this is how he likes to play, he is welcome to it.
And you, sir, rant all you like about how you can't succeed in 3.5.Oh, people can succeed in 3.x, they just have to house rule away all the brokenness. In the game you describe, however, you can not succeed. You rather are killed in your sleep by the NPC casters with access to all the cheesy goodness you wish to exploit, unless they are hobbled by GM fiat and fail to kill you when they should. Do you wish to roll up another character? Yes? Great! Um, he died in his sleep, too. How about another?

ericgrau

2009-05-20, 06:33 PM

Xykon is insulted because Vaarsuvius used something as basic as scry and die on him. Every villian who knows the slightest thing about magic has all the standard defenses prepared. It isn't "trite" nor "escalation" for every single high level villian or PC to do the same, it's just common sense by the time someone has that much experience in the D&D world. Even in a core-only, cheese-free game. Heck, Redcloak implied that it happens to them all the time. Nondetection is a 3rd level spell when V has 6th level spells, just to give one example out of many.

For the same reason the Ancient Black Dragon is surprised when Vaarsuvius doesn't protect herself against her scrying attempts. The dragon said that for Vaarsuvius to be so foolish, she must be so arrogant that she believes she hasn't made any enemies.

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 06:38 PM

The problem was not the guy with the wand (and he's a political leader, physically weak (tecnically, a bard 5/aristocrat 3 with low physical stats and genius-like mental stats), so him teleporting into the action woulnd't make much sense), but the wizard (allied with the guy) that can teleport.

Wait a sec, so your BBEG is an 8-level combination of two sucky classes, but his dragon is a 9th level wizard?

I'd say the aristocrat is the proxy for the wizard's machinations. He may be a lackey, or they may be partners - with wizard being the brains and the aristocrat being the face, but no way is that spellslinger gonna bow to an aristocrat-bard of a lower level and probably much lower intelligence.

In fact, the wizard probably already has him under Dominate Person.

Still, if I had reminded that rule about wands, I would have given him a bunch of scrolls for the same effect.

To increase the aristocrat's presence on the battlefield, give him an army. That's what a person in his position would have, and that's how he would prefer to fight. His own spellcasting (Bard 5? Scrolls? Come on!) is strictly inadequate, and his melee sucks as well, especially with the dreaded "elite array" (15 in the highest ability score).

However, due to him being a wealthy and powerful noble (I assume), he's got a large unit of guards at his disposal (see hireling costs in DMG/DMG2 for upkeep estimates). Most of them are low-level Warriors, but there are probably some Fighter sergeants, and a 6th level lieutenant if your aristocrat has Leadership. Equip them with longbows, tower shields, guisarmes and good armor, and use cohesive unit
+ concentrated force tactics (phalanx, archer volley etc). Against PCs of around lvl 5, this could be very effective, especially with the magical support from the wizard.

Plus, the noble probably has a keep, which the PCs would have to storm. Make them fight you on your terms.

Actually, this seems like the master playing against the players, which is pointless because the master always wins.

Huh? Why is that? The GM is roleplaying just the same as the players; he's providing the "other side". The rules are the same for everybody. The GM plays that drow raiding party within the rules (and within the scenario concept). If the PCs manage to defeat the drow, then so it is.

That's how the official (published) adventures are made, BTW. There are no Dei (Diaboli) ex Machinae, just a set of circumstances, locations and NPCs.

I'm sure you didn't intended it that way.
I think you intended "the master should conceive encounters that can be won only with a clever tactic from the pc's part, to really challenge them; if they can go in blindly and still smash every opposition the game becomes boring".

Not exactly. The GM plays the environment - enemies, allies, society, nature, etc. He plays it in accordance with its qualities (i.e. most drow are evil, characters with INT >10 are smart, water is wet etc.) and with a possible game scenario (e.g. drow raiding party attacks gnome village in search of a rogue traitor, etc). The GM should be able to learn and improvise in order to provide this world where the players are controlling their characters. He definitely should be able to evaluate the player characters; but tailoring encounters "just so" seems to be boring in my eyes. If a 3rd level party decided to visit the lair of the Red Wyrm and help themselves to the treasure, they're welcome to it, but the dragon won't be any less of a Wyrm just because of the party being out of their league. Stupidity is punished; but ingenuity and willingness to take calculated risks pays off with greater loot/XP. This is built into the game engine; all the GM has to do is follow the rules.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-20, 06:49 PM

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 07:04 PM

That isn't what UP intended. He likes a game where he cobbles himself together a mashup of prestige classes, splat book races, Flaws, aging rules, and other obscure rules and tries to achieve, as he once outlined, infinite wishes at 5th level.

Pfft. Instead of talking to me directly, you prefer to discuss my opinions with a third party. Bad form, sir.

Reading one of my threads doesn't make you an expert on my all-time preferences. In fact, quite recently I've examined in a series of posts the possibilities open to the characters of V and Roy, if using their known stats, and filling the gaps (missing feats etc) with stuff only from Core.

By the way, FYI, aging is about as Core as it gets. It's from PHB ("obscure", LOL). As for Flaws, whenever I use them, I try to provide an alternative build without them. And they're a great mechanic, because frankly, 1 feat at first level is not enough to flesh out a character.

The logical flaw in his thinking is that he wants to be the sole being in existence with access to the game breaking combination. And when I pointed out that his 5th level wish-quester could be defeated by the single Core reference book (MM) use of the very high Intimidate ability of the Djinn he was trying to extort wishes out of? Well, then Intimidate is clearly a broken skill! Bwahahahahaha!

I am sorry to see that our discussion had such a lamentable effect on your state of mind. I can only hope that, as time passes, you will eventually regain inner peace.

However unsettling for you it may be, I feel forced to remind you that the Djinni, or rather Efreeti, in question (you still haven't learned the proper singular for these creatures) would have had no chance to even attempt an Intimidate check, due to being instantly paralyzed by the infamous Ghoul Glyph. Thus, your claim that the Intimidation could have somehow thwarted the scheme is indeed quite laughable.

As for your treatment of the Intimidate skill, it was clearly out of line with both RAW and RAI. If you insist to reopen the debate, I am ready to once again point out your follies.

So, a Core skill is broken but his character which probably requires at least 5 splat books to combine the poor research and editing issues of those 5 separate authors is just fine and dandy.

1. Intimidate is not broken, but your out-of-this-world interpretation of it certainly was.

2. What's wrong with making a character with several books? They're all official WoTC 3.5 publications, not even setting-specific material. And a cleric without Complete Divine, a caster without Spell Compendium, a necromancer without Libris Mortis are just castrated.

3. I'd love to see you give any argument, except mindless rant, in support of your claim that the relevant passages from the books are "poor research and editing issues".

More, he himself breaks several rules or assumes that his GM will not enforce those rules in his proposed climb to ultimate arcane power.

I always proceed from RAW. If I make a mistake, I correct it. You have not had any success in disproving my scheme in that old thread; if you want to come back to the ancient debate, go ahead and reanimate it, but don't pollute other threads with the off-topics.

And if this is how he likes to play, he is welcome to it.

And I am also welcome to express my views on this board in accordance with its rules. You would do well to remember that.

Zherog

2009-05-20, 07:13 PM

So, a Core skill is broken but his character which probably requires at least 5 splat books to combine the poor research and editing issues of those 5 separate authors is just fine and dandy.

Not to necessarily defend WotC, because they really did release a lot of broken stuff in splat books -- stuff that absolutely should've been caught. But, I'll just take this moment to point out that one of the reasons this happens is that WotC had (in the 3.0/3.5 era) a design philosophy that said authors shouldn't take into account anything other than core books (and the Campaign Setting book if writing for Eberron or FR).

JaxGaret

2009-05-20, 07:30 PM

There are two ironies here. First, the type of play you're describing is just what V thinks "ultimate arcane power" would bring him, and he was wrong.

V's shortcomings in this battle had little to do with the power he acquired, and very much to do with how he utilized it, both in terms of arrogance and competence.

Second, your .sig.

If you'll note, I never said that metagaming was bad, or the wrong way to play the game. I did say that it was fine for the other poster to play the game the way they wanted to play it, metagaming and all. It was the other poster who stated that D&D is "ruined" by Scry-and-Die tactics, which is making the judgment that that type of play is wrong.

There are ways of patching 3.x without making everyone hold an idiot ball.

It depends on how far you're willing to go to patch the system. I prefer E6, as it is simple and works quite well.

A normal, high level 3.x game? Needs so much patching that IMO it's not worth the trouble.

But without the patches, it can be effectively argued that "our heroes" could never defeat an arcane caster with a few levels on the party. He would destroy them as soon as they conceived to destroy him, or maybe before they were even informed of his existence. To have the game you describe not be a joke, the opponents of the players have to use their spells just as effectively as the players intend to.

The 3.x rules are broken, and themselves ruin play if played by RAW.

Precisely, at a high enough level.

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 07:31 PM

That's a really good point. Kind of like how an 11th level Wizard wouldn't let himself be hired by a 5th level character to summon an Efriit, right?

Oh LOL.

Buying spellcasting services is provided for in the PHB. On page 132. Under SPELLCASTING AND SERVICES. It's the wizard's JOB to cast spells for money. It's what he does for a living. And it's thoroughly regulated by the rules.

I mean, once he asked why he was being paid to summon the Efriit, he'd just Dominate Person the poor hapless PC and carry out the plan himself so that he would be enjoying all those infinite wishes.

AGAIN, I don't want to pollute this thread with the old debate.

But, seeing as you're so eager, four considerations:

1. The wizard has no reliable way to command the Efreeti (when will you learn to spell the names correctly??) by himself; he needs the PC's help, because the PC has a reliable way to establish control over the creature;

2. The wizard does not know of the PC's scheme. He is being paid to summon the Efreeti; he performes the service, as per the PHB.

3. The wizard has been made Friendly by the PC's Diplomacy;

4. The wizard has succumbed to the PC's own heightened Suggestion.

See how thinking logically about things works out?

Your sarcasm is entirely lost, just as logic seems to be entirely lost on you.

In my case, the wizard is performing a one-time act of service (casts one spell for a fixed amount of money). In King of Nowhere's scenario, the wizard is the bad guy, right-hand man to the BBEG. But, he's more powerful and smarter than the BBEG. Which made me think that perhaps it is the wizard who's the main threat, and thus should be viewed as the head bad guy, with the aristocrat being his partner, and not boss.

But I appreciate your meta-game thinking. Levels are not detectable by any spell I'm aware of, but you've got this 9th level Wizard contemptuous of his lord for being a single level under him.

The wizard may not be aware of the precise numeric expression, but he sees the difference in experience. He also sees the obvious difference in power, and probably intelligence and wisdom as well.

Social rank means nothing in your roleplay, correct? Kings are always at least a level above every person in the kingdom, or they had better be or some gunslinger will be coming for their crown. And only smart people can be rulers, too. Odd, that never seems to work out in the real world, but then D&D is fantasy so I suppose the impossible might happen.

It seems you don't know history too well, as it has time and again demonstrated how intellect and ambition rises to the heights of power from the dredges of society, whereas mediocrity and decadence fails to hold on to power and meets a bloody end.

Also a good touch, comparing real world persons to a fantasy wizard, who at 9th level holds power no King or Pope could ever dream of.

But, that is irrelevant, as you have entirely missed my point, and consequently misrepresented my position.

The very thing I said was that even though the aristocrat is rather weak character-wise, he's got lots of money, guards, and a keep. This is what makes him strong - his wealth, status, and leadership abilities, not his pathetic Bard spellcasting; and this is what should be emphasized in the game.

Spiky

2009-05-20, 08:37 PM

Giant must dislike it quite a bit. So far the tactic is batting 0 out of 2 attempts in the comic.

Undead Prince

2009-05-20, 08:46 PM

Giant must dislike it quite a bit. So far the tactic is batting 0 out of 2 attempts in the comic.

It was successful against the ABD (although, again, V didn't bother to scry).

And other tactics also had a very uncertain rate of success:

Xykon's bouncing ball of doom almost ended in his demise;

Roy's jumping the zombie dragon did end in his demise;

V's "intelligent" attempts to resolve conundrums failed continuously;

Nale's "cunning plans" failed miserably;

etc. etc.

JaxGaret

2009-05-20, 08:50 PM

Xykon's bouncing ball of doom almost ended in his demise;

Technically, the Insanity ball did its job perfectly; all the Paladins died.

Dagren

2009-05-20, 08:59 PM

Giant must dislike it quite a bit. So far the tactic is batting 0 out of 2 attempts in the comic.I wouldn't say that. It seemed to work quite well for the Dragon in round 1. It's just that V, having banned Conjuration, has no idea how to enact one properly.

Texas_Ben

2009-05-20, 09:10 PM

NEENER NEENER NEENER THE WAY I PLAY IS AWESOME AND I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING FORVER!

Go away and stop derailing the thread.

tyckspoon

2009-05-20, 09:12 PM

I wouldn't say that. It seemed to work quite well for the Dragon in round 1. It's just that V, having banned Conjuration, has no idea how to enact one properly.

Right. Scry-and-die is 1 for 1 in situations where the Scry part was actually implemented (well, 1 for 2 if you count Dorukan coming out insufficiently prepared to fight Xykon.) V's failure to execute it properly does not mean the technique itself is flawed.

normalphil

2009-05-20, 09:14 PM

If the implications have been thought out and are adapted to throughout the campaign setting, one party's "Scry and Die" becomes another party's "Portal Assault". Omaha Beach, with instantaneous transport. And with much the same logic- if you take a big risk, you could make a decisive gain.

If it isn't the funnest thing you've ever done, you're doing it wrong.

Super_slash2

2009-05-20, 09:54 PM

Eldritch_Ent

2009-05-20, 10:05 PM

Go away and stop derailing the thread.

Oh that's not what he said at all... You shouldn't be so rude to someone just because they disagree with you.

Lamech

2009-05-21, 12:07 AM

Actually, Undead Prince, you didn't address how to stop the villain from using Scry-And-Die against you and your party. Maybe if you did, you'd be able to show that you don't need to handicap the strategy for the villains.
Rope trick? And being able to take the BBEG? If the BBEG can't track the party down those tactics won't work in the first place. And if he can he can strike at the party by another method. Nothing changes. And don't forget anti-scrying spells.

The MunchKING

2009-05-21, 01:04 AM

Even without the special feats, prestige classes, and cohorts:

A 20th level Fighter with only Core to work from would have 760,000 gp worth of shop-bought magic items, which would give him continuous Anti-Magic Field (132k gp), Mind Blank (240k gp), Fly (30k), True Seeing (90 k), and a command word Greater Teleport (163,800k), with over 100,000 gp left for weapons & armor. Most casters of identical level would have a hard time getting around that. The continuous AMF alone would be enough to thwart most efforts

How would his own Magic toys (such as the Mind Blank and Fly boots) work within his own antimagic feild?

Baalthazaq

2009-05-21, 02:30 AM

"You need to play as if everyone is holding an idiotball for 3.5 to not be broken".

Wrong. Play it as if no-one is holding an idiotball. You are making a level appropriate scenario. If you are asking "why doesn't the big bad have the power to just teleport to the good guys and end them?", answer it for yourself.

My last BBEG was a high powered demon possessed senator in a council of 200. There were 5 other high powered senators keeping their eye on her so she couldn't make the moves she wanted to make all the time until her other plans came to fruition.

As the players were gaining power, she was gaining influence, allies, abilities, and removing her genuine competitors.

She gave the party their first basic quest because it was an easy avenue to get rid of some questioning nobles. When they came back, she tried to have them assassinated because she didn't want to get her hands dirty.

The party were not her only problem, nor her biggest problem. As I see DMing, I always set up a scenario that is bigger than the players. The problem is, if my scenario were to play to it's conclusion, the bad guys win.

The objective, is always for the players to do enough, that it swings in favour of the good guys. At level 1, it's bringing a message to someone that can help, causing two forces that would have died alone, to unite and win together.

At level 10, they ally with a side to let them live rather than die.

At level 20 they are the reinforcements that turn the tide of a major battle.
*******

For other games, answer the question yourself, but why in the first place does your BBEG even care about the adventurers? Are they the only adventurers in the world? Why are they after the bad guy? Why are they a threat?

I find this particularly imbecillic:

In the game you describe, however, you can not succeed. You rather are killed in your sleep by the NPC casters with access to all the cheesy goodness you wish to exploit, unless they are hobbled by GM fiat and fail to kill you when they should. Do you wish to roll up another character? Yes? Great! Um, he died in his sleep, too. How about another?

Your BBEG is killing people who have nothing to do with anything, using up high level spells, for no reason. They die as they exist? Are they adventurers? Are they on a quest to kill the BBEG? Why are these people dying in their sleep? Why have the gods not come out of the sky and destroyed the BBEG for his insolence?

Who the hell is the BBEG that he spends the rest of his life teleporting around and killing level 1s in their sleep for fear they'll level and kill him, surely the main reason for being a BBEG is the wenches, the raping, the pillaging, the luxuries, that being a tyrannical despot or whatever he is. Not "I want to gain ultimate arcane power so I can spend the rest of my life swatting at flies in my every waking moment".

Your BBEG is not any longer logical, he is clinically retarded.

You're supposed to be building a story. You are the one who is supposed to answer the questions for BBEG motivation, not the rule system. Seriously, I can't stop ranting about this, I find it so ridiculous.

Why does your BBEG exist in a vacuum? Why are their no other sources of power? Fair enough he's the biggest, who cares, there should be someone else. Fair enough he's killing them all and the players need to stop him. If he's not done killing the big threat the players should be able to get to level 5 quite happily before "dying in their sleep".

STORY FFS, introduce a STORY somewhere! It's not all just numbers and character building via 3.5. That's why I play DND as opposed to coming home and doing fictional taxes for fun.

The MunchKING

2009-05-21, 02:39 AM

Frogpop

2009-05-21, 02:40 AM

That's why I play DND as opposed to coming home and doing fictional taxes for fun.
Tax prep has a glaring lack of die rolls.

..at least, it's supposed to! :smalltongue:

Baalthazaq

2009-05-21, 03:17 AM

Because the Good guys use anti-scrying techniques? Or teleport-proof areas?

I mean why should the DM be the only one that has to play defensive ball?
Ok, not the point at all. My point was you need to ask and answer the questions for how your world works. "Why has no-one just done X?". There should be a reason, either they can't for some reason, or won't for some reason.

This is a fine answer. He can't. That is not the only answer though.

Depends on the BBEG. Some are "Destroy the entire world/universe/creation" types, or "Destroy all Humans/Elves/Whatever's wronged mes" not everyone is in it for the perks.

Right, because Nhilists and people modivated by anything other than hedonism are clinically retarded. :Rolleyes:

Not what I was saying. He can be motivated by anything you want. Power, prestige, wealth, love, hate, anything.

He is an idiot for wanting to spend the rest of his life swatting at flies with his ultimate arcane power. Never sleeping, never resting, just fly swatting. Your bad guy now sucks like hell for motivation. His ultimate ambition is basically the punishment Sisyphus got from the Gods. If he wanted that why doesn't he stay the hell at adequate arcane power and make an item of continuous summon fly, a rod of continuous magic missile?

Fine he's a nihilist. Fine he is trying to wipe out everything.

You still haven't answered my specific question: Why are the party members dying? Does he know them? Does he hate them? If he is trying to kill everyone, why is there anyone left alive to begin a campaign?

In summary:
If there are people left, the players should be some of them or your campaign sucks.
If there are no people left, there is no campaign.

Well I think the idea wasn't Level 5, but "High end" play. Since "That's the level that 3.5 becomes unplayable" was the quote.

I was assuming that the players were not also high level. I was a assuming a party of players going from level 1, to 20, and a BBEG just wiping them out from the get go.

If the players are already level 20, fine, everything I've said still applies, except now the BBEG has even fewer options available to him. A scry and die has more chance of failure when you try to ambush a party of level 20s, starting with a mordikainen's disjunction and followed by an AMF, your BBEG can have the tar kicked out of him by 2 wizards with clubs.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-21, 03:18 AM

Tax prep has a glaring lack of die rolls.

..at least, it's supposed to! :smalltongue:

In fantasy taxes, you roll you starting income and whatnot. If you're using WFRP rules you roll to see your starting profession too. It all makes a difference.

The MunchKING

2009-05-21, 03:29 AM

Not what I was saying. He can be motivated by anything you want. Power, prestige, wealth, love, hate, anything.

He is an idiot for wanting to spend the rest of his life swatting at flies with his ultimate arcane power. Never sleeping, never resting, just fly swatting.

*shrug* He's got to kill the world some how. Scry-and-die on anyone capable of taking him out (or potentially becoming so) is as good a way as any.

Your bad guy now sucks like hell for motivation. His ultimate ambition is basically the punishment Sisyphus got from the Gods. If he wanted that why doesn't he stay the hell at adequate arcane power and make an item of continuous summon fly, a rod of continuous magic missile?

Because flies don't provide adiquate XP?

And thier skins aren't good material components, even if you can take them off while they are still living. :smallbiggrin:

Fine he's a nihilist. Fine he is trying to wipe out everything.

You still haven't answered my specific question: Why are the party members dying? Does he know them? Does he hate them? If he is trying to kill everyone, why is there anyone left alive to begin a campaign?

Beacause he just got to the PC's starting area?

In summary:
If there are people left, the players should be some of them or your campaign sucks.
If there are no people left, there is no campaign.

I was assuming that the players were not also high level. I was a assuming a party of players going from level 1, to 20, and a BBEG just wiping them out from the get go.

Well he was talking about BBEGs ranking the same kind of ubercheeze someone else was using to get infinate junk at level 5.

So while there is some impliccation that he's hitting lowlevel players, the original complaint was "High level play".

If the players are already level 20, fine, everything I've said still applies, except now the BBEG has even fewer options available to him. A scry and die has more chance of failure when you try to ambush a party of level 20s, starting with a mordikainen's disjunction and followed by an AMF, your BBEG can have the tar kicked out of him by 2 wizards with clubs.

Assuming your BBEG isn't a slightly better melleist. :smalltongue: You need at LEAST one "Hit things" class if you're going to take on a BBEG in an antimagic zone.

tKircher

2009-05-21, 03:37 AM

It seems this entire discussion is between people who understand high-level adventure, and those whose experience with it has been with an inexperienced group or DM.

High-level adventures are rough business, because you have so much magic (and maybe psionics) and complex effects and systems revolving around your characters. If you can't prepare for, and dish out, such things like scry and die, you're likely to either die or play a game where "everyone has to hold an idiotball."

It's just a different game at different levels. It's like growing up, you have to prepare for and resort to totally different tactics at 'higher levels'

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 03:49 AM

NEENER NEENER NEENER THE WAY I PLAY IS AWESOME AND I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING FORVER!

Go away and stop derailing the thread.

Daycare center called, they want you back under proper adult supervision ASAP 8=)

Oh and just FYI, it wasn't me who started beating the dead horse here. I even called on BillyJimBoBob (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6126314&postcount=50) to stop referencing the old thread and leave this discussion in peace. Barking up the wrong tree, pal.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 04:05 AM

Actually, Undead Prince, you didn't address how to stop the villain from using Scry-And-Die against you and your party. Maybe if you did, you'd be able to show that you don't need to handicap the strategy for the villains.

If you had used quotes in your posts, it would have perhaps helped you to realise that the issue I addressed was not of stopping the villain from scry-and-killing the PCs, but rather the question of stopping the PCs from scry-and-killing the villain. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6125833&postcount=45)

And I most definitely never said villains should be handicapped. Quoting would have precluded you from making this blunder as well, friend. Use it next time.

As for the question itself, may I introduce you to a simple thing called Analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy). The same anti-scry-and-die tactics I offered for the villains could be successfully used by the PCs.

Antacid

2009-05-21, 04:10 AM

Deliberately hobbles opponents? You mean your melee char, in a party, cannot succeed against level-appropriate encounters in official adventures?

Perhaps you just need to read up on some DnD strategy guides?

However, it would be helpful if you could offer a real example out of your gameplay experience. Mayhap I am misjudging the situation somehow.

I would just like to make the observation that Undead Prince comes across as one of those problem players who regard D&D as a competitive game of DM v.s. PCs, with the aim of glorifying the egos of the people who can squeeze the most lulz out of the rules sytem. Other people like to play it as group storytelling effort involving the characters created by everyone round the table.

He certainly has the right combination of encylopedic rules knowledge and pomposity to carry off a good rage-quit if the BBEGs started using the same exploits he uses to substitute for roleplaying ability. :smallbiggrin:

Thank God I play 4th edition where this kind of nonsense is more difficult to pull off.

Oh that's not what he said at all... You shouldn't be so rude to someone just because they disagree with you.

Yes it is. Ergo, yes he should.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 04:35 AM

I would just like to make the observation that Undead Prince comes across as one of those problem players who regard D&D as a competitive game of the DM v.s. the players; instead of a group storytelling game involving characters created by everyone round the table equally.

First, if DnD was just "group storytelling", there wouldn't have been any rules, only the collective writing of a fantasy story by a number of people.

Second, I never said it was a competition between the GM and the players; it's existence of the player characters in a world run by the GM according to the game rules. If the PCs come into competition with an NPC/monster, the GM would play the NPC/monster as "competing", employing the appropriate level of tactics. But he personally has nothing to prove to the players, and his goal is not killing the party but correctly replicating the world in which the PCs exist, which includes modeling events that serve as storylines/plot hooks.

He certainly has the right combination of encylopedic rules knowledge and pomposity to carry off a good rage-quit. :smallbiggrin:[/

I'll take the first part as a compliment, but as for rage-quits, would you care offering examples? I'm ready to remedy the situation for any opponents who believe they've been "rage-quitted" by yours truly. Except probably cases when the "rage" was mutual quiet acquiescence of the pointlessness of prolonging the debate further, and the "quit" was the consequent leaving of the debate by the participants in realisation that there is no hope for constructive results to come of it.

Fafnir13

2009-05-21, 04:39 AM

Thank God I play 4th edition where this kind of nonsense is more difficult to pull off.

So Far. Give it a few expansions. :smallwink:

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 04:49 AM

I see you've changed your post, Antacid. No matter, I will address the new text as well.

He certainly has the right combination of encylopedic rules knowledge and pomposity to carry off a good rage-quit if the BBEGs started using the same exploits he uses to substitute for roleplaying ability. :smallbiggrin:

Veering dangerously close to personal attack territory there, Antacid. What makes you think you know about my role-playing abilities? Have we ever shared a session? Not that I know of. Although judging by your character, it would have been an amusing experience indeed 8=)

If you had actually paid any attention to my posts, however, you would have noticed that one of the key points of my outlook on the way DnD games should be run is that villains should not be handicapped. If a PC uses certain tactics, it is only fair that the enemy, having seen the effectiveness of these tactics and having the means to replicate them, may do so.

Thank God I play 4th edition where this kind of nonsense is more difficult to pull off.

I am certain creativity and knowledge of the rules would succeed in any edition. Although the 4th is indeed much more geared towards casual players who don't like investing much time and effort into the game.

Oh that's not what he said at all... You shouldn't be so rude to someone just because they disagree with you.

Yes it is. Ergo, yes he should.

That indeed was not what I said at all. If you paid any attention to the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6128724&postcount=76), you would have noticed that.

And I am amused by your notion that posters should be rude to people just because there is a difference of opinion. I am very much inclined to see you implement this position in practice: it would be a daring feat of defying the rules of the forum.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 04:57 AM

How would his own Magic toys (such as the Mind Blank and Fly boots) work within his own antimagic feild?

The AMF need not be on at all times. At the very least, the character needs to get around (Fly, Greater Teleport). The AMF may be used in combat as the "big guns", and also used as a hedge during downtime, while your cohort is crafting magic items, and you're crafting mundane or just doing quests around town. There are various tactics here.

lord_khaine

2009-05-21, 05:00 AM

Thank God I play 4th edition where this kind of nonsense is more difficult to pull off.

i dont think the price of not really being able to pull anything off at all makes its worth it.

that aside, i support Baalthazaq's point of view on this matter.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 05:01 AM

Antacid

2009-05-21, 06:18 AM

Second, I never said it was a competition between the GM and the players; it's existence of the player characters in a world run by the GM according to the game rules.

The rules are only there to help everyone's suspension of disbelief by providing an impartial way to resolve challenges. Suspension of disbelief is a subjective thing, but the various techniques for uber-pwnery you've offered in this thread (and the whole "scry-and-die" tactic) are examples of where the classic rules fail at this.

That's not necessarily a result of munchkinism or rule-lawyering, it's a case where a full application of the rules system ends up overshadowing its real purpose.

If you had actually paid any attention to my posts, however, you would have noticed that one of the key points of my outlook on the way DnD games should be run is that villains should not be handicapped. If a PC uses certain tactics, it is only fair that the enemy, having seen the effectiveness of these tactics and having the means to replicate them, may do so.

To be truly "fair", given the usual power-imbalance between heroes and BBEG at the start of a campaign, the BBEG would have to start out with any of the munchkin'd-up capacities that the PCs could possibly come up with. That's necessary if you require truly plausible application of the rules-system. You'd also have to give the same powers to all other NPCs, or you're handing out idiot balls.

What that would do, of course, is prevent the situation that you've attempted to introduce to this thread, where the players and the DM compete to come up with ever-more-lulzy applications of the rules system. It would also make the campaign very short, as it ensures any BBEG worthy of the name has the tools to eliminate the PCs long before they become a threat, using exactly the tactics you are defending from the perspective of a player.

To use examples from the thread:

My last BBEG was a high powered demon possessed senator in a council of 200. There were 5 other high powered senators keeping their eye on her so she couldn't make the moves she wanted to make all the time until her other plans came to fruition.

In a game world where any PC can get infinite wishes at 5th level by hiring a guy (someone who can presumably also get infinite wishes for themselves, which makes it rather odd that they'd be hiring out their services in the first place, er...), there is no reason for high-powered demon-possessed senator to tolerate having anyone "keep an eye on them", or, indeed, bother holding onto a position of political power at all. They can just do what Undead Prince is suggesting PCs do, and solve every problem by directing level-inappropriate amounts of magic at it.

Concepts like a "level-appropriate encounter" or an "internally consistent campaign world" becomes inherantly laughable if you allow free application of the 3.5e magic system. Scry-and-die is just the tip of the iceburg.

What players such as yourself actually do is expect the DM to create an enjoyable story which incorporates counter-tactics for as many lulzy exploits as possible (else they're a "bad" DM); but avoids following those tactics through to their logical conclusions as regards the game world, the preconditions of your characters on day 1, the villain's evil scheme, and all the other elements that are necessary for an enjoyable story.

This guarantees that the player gets to feel special, as they're the only ones in the DM's universe who are allowed to metagame; but it's the opposite of roleplaying as it requires an inconsistent stage on which to play your role, and challenges which are grounded in applications of the rules rather than imagination. If Rich thought like you, none of us would be talking on this site, because OotS would suck as a story and we never would have come here.

Antacid

2009-05-21, 06:28 AM

Although the 4th is indeed much more geared towards casual players who don't like investing much time and effort into the part of the game I like the most.
Fixed it for you.

Antacid

2009-05-21, 06:43 AM

So Far. Give it a few expansions. :smallwink:

One of the unintentionally funny things about the original 4e core rulebook release was people frantically trying to come up with broken rules combinations, so they could get forum cred by claiming to have "beaten" the game system. Heh...

RebelRogue

2009-05-21, 06:58 AM

TSED

2009-05-21, 07:16 AM

Guys?

Yeah, you? Right there? Thumbing your nose and thinking you're awesome?

Stop that.

...

No seriously, RIGHT NOW.

Undead Prince does not share your opinion. He is allowed to do that. I guess you're technically allowed to slip him underhanded insults but that's really, really, REALLY bad form. Also, I'm pretty sure there are rules against that on the forum. You know. In that big list of FORUM RULES? That you supposedly read? And agreed to? Ringing any bells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)?

He is giving perfectly logical responses to everything you say. You are continually harassing him with 'la la la you play in a manner I have mentally ascribed to you (no matter how you actually play) and have negative experiences with therefore you are WRONG.' How you can continue to make 'arguments' with such a transparent strawman, I'll never know.

Seriously, this is sickeningly juvenile to watch. The cat calls and underhanded insults are disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You know who you are, and don't need me to call you out on it.

Can't you discuss this like a mature adult? You're not even giving him counterpoints to discuss. You're just flinging logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and he's left holding a shield and trying to make his reflex throws against your Invisible Arrow of Anti-credit +4. The counterpoints you DO provide him with he easily dismantles.

Seriously, when has he given an indication that he is a game breaker? He posted a theoretical exercise. Whoopty doo. He OBVIOUSLY has a lot of experience playing, because, well, just LISTEN to him! He likes to play games where they make use of resources to let their characters be powerful. His game mates (presumably) also follow this gameplay style. They're not ragequitting when the DM pulls it back on them - they like it! They're not trying to steal the spotlight from the entirety of the rest of the party. They're just making their characters competent. They're playing hockey and allowing checks. They're playing football and allowing tackles. They're not sugar coating the game so every one skips away into a lovely set of arching prismatic lights, they're playing hardball. They're ok with that. They don't expect you to want to play hardball, but they do.

Reality is, suddenly there's new avenues open. You can break plays you couldn't when you're allowed to knock the fancy puck-handler down. When you come out and say "this play always wins etc." and they turn around and go "what, no, just ram into the guy. Duh!" you are NOT allowed to throw a hissy fit because he's right.

THIS is why forums have a bad internet name. Jeez, just listen to yourselves - it's like a pack of school children harassing a teacher for trying to bring them back inside when recess is over.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-21, 07:25 AM

*shrug* He's got to kill the world some how. Scry-and-die on anyone capable of taking him out (or potentially becoming so) is as good a way as any.

Well, that is kinda random. Generally people have planning capabilities. I'd try to find better ways of doing that. It's what put manlike intelligences above those of animals.

Because flies don't provide adiquate XP?

That's one more reason than "Me smash world."

And thier skins aren't good material components, even if you can take them off while they are still living. :smallbiggrin:

That's another more reason than "Me smash world. Hard."

Beacause he just got to the PC's starting area?

See the randomness bit.

Well he was talking about BBEGs ranking the same kind of ubercheeze someone else was using to get infinate junk at level 5.

So while there is some impliccation that he's hitting lowlevel players, the original complaint was "High level play".

Assuming your BBEG isn't a slightly better melleist. :smalltongue: You need at LEAST one "Hit things" class if you're going to take on a BBEG in an antimagic zone.

Well, while I'm entering this discussion a bit late, I do see his point that the big bad evil guy has to have a motivation. If he's just randomly squatting stuff down, he might as well hold an int score of 2. That kind of stuff brings the question "why the hell?" from the players, and if the answer on something that harsh is "Well...he felt like doing it", you're up for disappointing people.
it's not very different than when you have to play the intelligence of a character that is smarter than you(yes, that lich with intelligence 29 is smarter than you). It takes planning, careful thought, a reasonable amount of creativity.

A campaign world does and does not revolve around the players. At the same time they know they are supposed to make the difference, they also have to know that nothing's gonna wait for them if they don't move. Countries won't stop for them. Ships won't wait for them, Villains have better stuff to do, and so on. The motivations of those involved with the heroes are very, very important.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 07:33 AM

The rules are only there to help everyone's suspension of disbelief by providing an impartial way to resolve conflicts.

The rules are there not just for conflicts. They establish how the world works. How much it costs for the PCs to eat, sleep and travel. How to make a living. How to influence people. How to make things. How to learn and progress in character development. Etc, etc, etc, almost ad infinitum.

If the rules were there only for conflicts, PCs would have been in a vacuum whenever they weren't fighting. But they are not, because the rules create a world both wide and deep, regulating its many various facets.

Suspension of disbelief is subjective thing, but the various techniques for uber-pwnery you've offered in this thread (and the whole "scry-and-die" tactic) are examples of where the classic rules fail at this.

It seems leet speak is often used to mask lack of knowledge in respect of the object of the discussion. It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, by myself and other posters, that "scry-and-die" is not an ultimate weapon and has many counters. It's just a simple, very basic tactic that does not in any way guarantee success by itself.

As for other "techniques", I suppose you're referring to this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6126073&postcount=49). May I remind you then, that I was replying to a poster's statement that casters rob him of his "spotlight". I merely offered a few tips on how to reclaim that ""spotlight" while playing a melee-oriented character.

And if you think these tips were "uber-pwnery", well, I can only say your game sessions must not be very demanding.

Actually, to be truly "fair", given the usual power-imbalance between heroes and BBEG at the start of a campaign, the BBEG would have to start out with any of the munchkin'd-up capacities that the PCs could possibly come up with. That's necessary if you require truly plausible application of the rules-system. You'd also have to give it to all other NPCs, or you're handing out idiot balls.

The BBEG may certainly be an optimised build. But there is no way, nor is there reason, to make one character with all of the possible powers PCs could obtain. That would violate the rules, and be pointless from a gaming perspective. The villain may have allies that complement his build, and that ought to be enough to adequately challenge the PCs.

As for other NPCs, they pursue their trades & professions. Not everyone wants to be an adventurer (a dangerous and risky profession if there ever was one), and there are not many with the actual physical and mental qualities to succeed as a PC class. Really, it's all well covered in the DMG/DMG2.

What that would do, of course, is prevent the situation that you've attempted to introduce to this thread, where the players and the DM compete to come up with ever-more-lulzy applications of the rules system.

That is just wrong.

The discussion of the "scry-and-die" tactic was introduced by the original poster, and it is the one and only topic of this thread.

Then, there was this:

"Scry and die tactics" describes the point at which D&D 3.x breaks down. It is no longer an adventure game at this point, but a series of escalating spell tactics between players of casters and the GM.

My first (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6125833&postcount=45) post on this thread was 29 hours and 1 whole page after this statement. So, in no way can I be considered to have introduced what you accuse me of introducing.

You would do well to read my posts so as to actually grasp my position. Tactics are employed by players and by the GM on all levels - in fact, they may even be more vicious at 1st level than at 20th. But this does not mean the GM is personally competing with the players. Him playing the monsters/NPCs is a way to provide a coherent world for the players playing their characters. The rules provide for valid interaction between the world and the PCs without the need for "idiot balls", the GM just has to be at least as good a player as the PCs. That's why usually the most experienced players are appointed GMs.

It would also make the campaign very short, as it ensures any BBEG worthy of the name has the tools to eliminate the PCs long before they become a threat, using exactly the tactics you are defending from the perspective of a player.

Really? How, exactly?

Or have you still not grasped that for every tactic there is a counter?

There is a reason the PHB and the DMG both insist that players should make a diverse party. That way, they have a lot of options at their disposal. The rest is just technique.

To use examples from the thread:

In a game world where any PC can get infinite wishes at 5th level by hiring a guy (someone who can presumably also get infinite wishes for themselves, which makes it rather odd that they'd be hiring out their services in the first place...)

Not only you have no idea of the strategy in question, you even managed to miss the description I gave in this very thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6126657&postcount=57). So, not "any" PC but a very specialised build, and the hired wizard cannot get the wishes for himself because he doesn't have the PC's abilities.

there is no reason for high-powered demon-possessed senator to tolerate having anyone "keep an eye on them", or, indeed, bother holding onto a position of political power at all. They can just do what Undead Prince is suggesting PCs do, and solve every problem by directing level-inappropriate amounts of magic at it.

If everyone knew about the scheme, it would quickly become useless.

E.g. I once read of a rather simple way of depriving the Efreeti of their wish-granting power: they are all bound by their leader the Sultan of Brass (a 20th level sorcerer, if I remember my sourcebooks) not to grant them.

My scheme of quick ascension to power is not waterproof, just like "scry-and-die" is not even close to an insta-win cheat code. There are many ways it can be foiled without any diabolus-ex-machina from the DM. For instance, the efreeti may all be under the Sultan's divinations, and whenever one is bound by a mage, a crack squad is teleported to the position to deal with the perpetrator.

Concepts like a "level-appropriate encounter" or an "internally consistent campaign world" becomes inherantly laughable if you allow free application of the 3.5e magic system.

In an "internally consistent campaign world" there are by definition "level-inappropriate encounters". The PCs can just go out and seek whatever it is they wish to find.

What players such as yourself actually do is expect the DM to create an enjoyable story which incorporates counter-tactics for as many lulzy exploits as possible (else they're a bad DM);

You're almost quoting the DMG there. Except, instead of "lulzy exploits" spells are considered adequate and reasonable tools.

but avoids following those tactics through to their logical conclusions as regards the game world, the preconditions of your characters on day 1, the villain's evil scheme, and all the other elements that are necessary for an enjoyable story.

Do you seriously believe the scry-and-die tactic was not incorporated into the DnD game world? Why then are there spells such as Nondetection, Mind Blank, Sequester, Dimension Lock, Anticipate Teleportation, Contingency, Moment of Prescience, Foresight and countless others? Why are there various items, feats, prestige classes and templates that offer protection against this precise tactic? Why is this tactic constantly referenced in sourcebooks, including the DMG itself?

That's precious. Scry-and-die is one of the bread-and-butters of DnD combat. It's about as widely known as a sword to the gut, and with almost as many defenses against.

This guarantees that the player gets to feel special, as they're the only ones in the DM's universe who are allowed to metagame

Intelligently using your character's abilities and knowledge is not metagaming.

Remember, Wizards have genius intelligence and many ranks in Spellcraft & Knowledge(arcana).

but it's the opposite of roleplaying, as it requires an inconsistent stage on which to play your role, and challenges which are grounded in applications of the rules rather than imagination.

In DnD, challenges are grounded on applications of the rules, starting from the fact that every creature has stats. If you want to only use imagination, games with rules are not for you. Go have a reading session or something.

That's not condusive to roleplaying

It is perfectly condusive to roleplaying, as the success of DnD and many other similar RPG systems has proven.

and if Rich believed it none of us would be talking on this site, because OotS would suck as a story and we never would have come here.

"None of us", huh. Quick you are to become the voice of the masses. Speak for yourself, or yourself and "that guy", but not all of us.

ImmortalAer

2009-05-21, 07:35 AM

Hey now, maybe I'm just not as bright as most of the DMs' out there (Well, admittedly I'm not that smart to begin with, I just have a penchant of writing out a huge idea and leaving it there for my players to sigh at me about.) but isn't there a VERY simple 0 level spell that BBEGs, or PCs, could use to save themselves at almost no cost?

That's right ladies and gentlemen, an Orb of Detect Magic that's set to use Ghost Sound to make a klaxon whenever it's active and detects magic!*

*Please note that the fighter with all the magic items will have to sleep outside the radius, as he likely has the HP to survive the first Surprise round, anyway. Baddies may consider switching Ghost Sound with Time Stop for a unnoticeable getaway.

derfenrirwolv

2009-05-21, 07:46 AM

but isn't there a VERY simple 0 level spell that BBEGs, or PCs, could use to save themselves at almost no cost?

That's right ladies and gentlemen, an Orb of Detect Magic that's set to use Ghost Sound to make a klaxon whenever it's active and detects magic!*

Then you simply keep scrying the enemy at random times and at best, drain the item or at worst make it the equivalent of a kid crying wolf. Sure, if the enemy gets ready for a full blown attack EVERY Time it goes off you'll loose your surprise round, but then its just a battle royale.

ImmortalAer

2009-05-21, 07:51 AM

Then you simply keep scrying the enemy at random times and at best, drain the item or at worst make it the equivalent of a kid crying wolf. Sure, if the enemy gets ready for a full blown attack EVERY Time it goes off you'll loose your surprise round, but then its just a battle royale.

But the spell description for Detect Magic says within 60', so unless your standing that close and scrying them, anyway? :smallconfused:

Or is it that the scry counts as magic 'being' that close, anyway? ...Ah, I see. The whole 'sensor' thing would count as magic, depending on how you took it.

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 07:54 AM

As long as everyone has fun, all is good.

However, personally, I don't like gaming where complete knowledge of every nook and cranny of exotic rules loop holes will eventually become essential for game play. When it all becomes an arms race of "rules creativity" (which in a lot of cases amounts to "having read up on standard cheese at char op-boards") it sounds like something that will get old very soon, for me at least. Again: if that (or more realistically: a less drastic version of this) is what your gaming group prefer, go for it by all means.

From personal experience, the "arms race" is kind of a variable thing. There definitely comes a time when everyone's tired of the complexities and wants to make things simple. And there are certainly ways to simplify the situation. Allow only Core + setting sources, replace the Polymorph line with the "polymorph subschool" from PHB2, start at level 1. As GM, focus on role-playing requirements, e.g. proper functioning in society, and play even the lowliest enemies with appropriate cunning, making combat encounters very risky, so that PCs have to search for other sources of gold and XP - such as quests. It makes for a different, but also satisfying, style of play.

I especially enjoy grounding into the Forgotten Realms setting in games like this - it's so well-developed and makes for a deep and expansive game even at level 1.

RebelRogue

2009-05-21, 08:48 AM

From personal experience, the "arms race" is kind of a variable thing. There definitely comes a time when everyone's tired of the complexities and wants to make things simple. And there are certainly ways to simplify the situation. Allow only Core + setting sources, replace the Polymorph line with the "polymorph subschool" from PHB2, start at level 1. As GM, focus on role-playing requirements, e.g. proper functioning in society, and play even the lowliest enemies with appropriate cunning, making combat encounters very risky, so that PCs have to search for other sources of gold and XP - such as quests. It makes for a different, but also satisfying, style of play.

I especially enjoy grounding into the Forgotten Realms setting in games like this - it's so well-developed and makes for a deep and expansive game even at level 1.
I agree with you in many ways here: that sounds like a perfectly enjoyable way to play the game to me as well. I was primarily thinking of stuff that happens at higher levels when casters gain access to the gigantic toolbox that is high-level spells. I think it's a shame if too much energy is spent on precautions to precautions to the casting of spell X.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-21, 09:35 AM

Undead Prince

2009-05-21, 09:47 AM

I agree with you in many ways here: that sounds like a perfectly enjoyable way to play the game to me as well. I was primarily thinking of stuff that happens at higher levels when casters gain access to the gigantic toolbox that is high-level spells. I think it's a shame if too much energy is spent on precautions to precautions to the casting of spell X.

Many vital spells, including anti-save-or-dies, last hours/level or can be made permanent. Once you establish the relevant routines, it's about as simple as "I allocate 1 minute every morning to cast these buffs".

And really, lower levels have gigantic toolboxes of their own. For many reasons, higher levels are easier on the head in this respect, because you get powerful tools to do whatever needs doing; at lower levels, people are often wracking their brains to achieve results which could be reached later on by merely applying a single spell.

For instance, the most basic issue of mage survivability is much easier to resolve at higher levels, when the caster has a plethora of protective spells at his disposal. At level 1, when a lowly kobold can kill you with one arrow, you don't have Fly, Insivibility and so on, can't buy a 0% arcane failure Full plate, and are stuck with three 1st level spells per day, this basic issue is really #1 on the agenda and requires some serious efforts to overcome.

Ancalagon

2009-05-21, 10:33 AM

King of Nowhere

2009-05-21, 12:23 PM

Wait a sec, so your BBEG is an 8-level combination of two sucky classes, but his dragon is a 9th level wizard?

I'd say the aristocrat is the proxy for the wizard's machinations. He may be a lackey, or they may be partners - with wizard being the brains and the aristocrat being the face, but no way is that spellslinger gonna bow to an aristocrat-bard of a lower level and probably much lower intelligence.

In fact, the wizard probably already has him under Dominate Person.

To increase the aristocrat's presence on the battlefield, give him an army. That's what a person in his position would have, and that's how he would prefer to fight. His own spellcasting (Bard 5? Scrolls? Come on!) is strictly inadequate, and his melee sucks as well, especially with the dreaded "elite array" (15 in the highest ability score).

However, due to him being a wealthy and powerful noble (I assume), he's got a large unit of guards at his disposal (see hireling costs in DMG/DMG2 for upkeep estimates). Most of them are low-level Warriors, but there are probably some Fighter sergeants, and a 6th level lieutenant if your aristocrat has Leadership. Equip them with longbows, tower shields, guisarmes and good armor, and use cohesive unit
+ concentrated force tactics (phalanx, archer volley etc). Against PCs of around lvl 5, this could be very effective, especially with the magical support from the wizard.

Plus, the noble probably has a keep, which the PCs would have to storm. Make them fight you on your terms.

Well, I supposed no one cared about the story of my campaign world, so I described only the fundamentals to show how the idea of restricting teleport came, and how it applies.
But since you show such interest, I'll give some more details.
If you guys are not intersted in the whereabouts of my campaign, just ignore the spoiler

1) The aristocrat was an adventurer and became ennobled by marring the widow of the old baron. The wizard was a member of his party, and they were friends (yes, even evil people can be friends sometimes). The aristocrat was never a good fighter (physical stats in the 10-13 range, before aging)), but is instead an excellent diplomatic, so he was still useful to any party (he can talk people into offering higher bounties, for example). He never cared to fight, prefering to persuade people they had to fight for him. Also, he's very smart. His mental stats are int 18, wis 17, cha 21 (first age modifier). The wizard has int 19 (started at 16 first level, first aging modifier: I rolled most of his stats), wis 9. So the aristocrat is the mind, being overall way smarter.

2) The wizard is mostly focused on research and playing the mighty wizard (he's not totally sane: he cast a permanent enlarge person on himself to be taller, wears a ridiculous stars-and-planets robe that fits his idea of mighty wizard, wears a fake beard and dyied his hairs in white because it's wizardy. He's got a wis penalty, after all). The aristocrat gives him everything he needs, in exchange of some spellcasting. The aristocrat is intersted in acquiring power through political control of people and whealt.

3) The aristocrat is evil, but he always based his tactic on cheats and pretended to be good. He's got a really good (houseruled) item that fools alignment detection, and always covered his misdeeds very well, to the point that even his wife and daughter never suspected he's evil, and never knew of the pit trap under the aristocrat's study or the other fancy stuff he's got.
In fact, the king would remove him from his place (and probably try to have him incarcerated and executed) if he knew the truth. So only few people know the truth. While he's got a decent army, he can really trust on only about 20 people in it, and none of them is above 3rd level (except the wizard, of course).
He can't even hire high level people to do his dirty job, because that would risk blow his cover; and that's why he has such little combat resources to use against the heroes.

4) He wanted to create a casus belli with a peaceful orcish population for economical reason. He could not attack right now, because he's not an absolute ruler, and such an invasion would require the permission of the central government. But the orcs never created any problem in 60 years, so such permission was denied.
So he contacted an hot-headed young orc chief, and bribed him into kidnapping his daughter. He then sent the heroes (who were low level, but already quite popular - he made sure of that) to rescue her, with the idea of having them killed by the orcs (and his daughter, too; she comes from a political marriage and is a "bastard" half elf, so she means nothing to him), to get a good excuse to attack them. Yet, the heroes could get away. When the heroes escaped, he tried to kill them in his castle and pretend the orcs did it, but they got lucky (in a planned way) and his wizard was away, so they could escape.
So he told everyone that the real heroes were killed, and that evil dopplegangers took their place, putting a big bounty (20000 gp each) on them. He didn't expect everyone to buy it (still, most of the population bought it: the aristocrat is very popular), but he figured the heroes would be killed just for the bounty and he would get enough time to cover the proof against him.
So, no army to kill them; he still need to play the "sorry, I wanted them alive to question them and such, but taking them alive would have meant additional risks, and I can't risk the life of my people", so he can't use his army to kill them.
He's also trying to not let news flow out of the region, because that will give him more time to cover the proofs.
Hiring high level guys from outside is risky, because it would spread the news and he would risk an official investigation before everything is settled, so he will use this option only for last.
And in his land there's no high level adventurers: no work for them, his wizard is the highest level guy in a range of some hundreds kilometers.

So, I hope that answered your doubts.
Probably you got bored before the end, and in case you read it all you'll probably come out with a bunch of reasons you don't find this believable. But I worked out every inconsistency that came to my mind, and that's believable enough for me. For my players, too.
I hope someone appreciated this and I didn't spent half an hour typing for nothing...

King of Nowhere

2009-05-21, 12:54 PM

Also, to add on the main discussion, I like Undead Prince's approach to the game (think what would happen in such a world, and how people would adapt, then make them act accordingly), even if I disagree in some of the details. I try that too, even if I'm much less skilled than him.
The main problem is that it requires for the whole group to be on a similar level of gaming ability, otherwise the less competitive players would keep dieing. Maybe they can ask help to the more skilled ones; it also would makes sense in terms of roleplaying, with the strong but not too smart barbarian (example) asking his teammates what he should do, and trusting their experience.
I don't understand why people get mad at him personally. It is true: if something ccan be done, don't pretend it can't be just because it fits you. Instead, find a belivable reason to show why it can't be done. There are surely lot of ways for creative (not in the sense of rules and maximizing) players or masters to find a believable reason.
If both the master and the players feel something works badly, or simply that they would enjoy more if things were different, they can houserule at will. The objective is the enjoyment of the party, and I would find hard to enjoy if I were asking "why the villain don't just teleport on us and kill us (or viceversa)" and was answered "just roll with it".
The answer could either be "we set some nasty traps just in case" or "he don't know where we are, so he can't telport to us" or "we houseruled that teleport has a casting time of 10 minutes and it gives a warning in the destination" or "the villain don't consider us a treath and don't want to waste resources after us", the impotant is that there is a coherent reason.

And about 4th edition, I think every complex set of rules like d&d is flawed. I don't think a rule sistem that is not flawed can exist, be it for d&d or for any other thing. Maybe 4th edition is less flawed than 3rd, but I care less about balancement and more about realism.
I know little of 4th, but I know characters are much more powerful than now, and I think characters are already too much powerful when they reach level 15. I read in this forum that 4th edition designers cared more about game mechanics than similarity with real life, and that's a step in the wrong direction for me.
And I hated how they messed with the alignment sistem.
I don't know any more about 4th edition, so I can't say more.

Simanos

2009-05-21, 12:59 PM

i dont think the price of not really being able to pull anything off at all makes its worth it.

that aside, i support Baalthazaq's point of view on this matter.
I get the feeling 4th edition is like a bad card game based on a boring MMORPG...

Antacid

2009-05-21, 01:11 PM

TSED, if I were a troll, you'd have just given me a 100 carat platinum award for trolling excellence with your large font. I'll try and parse what you've written and respond so that hopefully you can sympathise with where I'm coming from a bit better.

He likes to play games where they make use of resources to let their characters be powerful.

I notice you have to restate what he's been describing in pretty generic terms before it sounds reasonable.

They're just making their characters competent. They're playing hockey and allowing checks. They're playing football and allowing tackles. They're not sugar coating the game so every one skips away into a lovely set of arching prismatic lights, they're playing hardball. They're ok with that. They don't expect you to want to play hardball, but they do.
Yes, this is a dispute about whether pre-4e D&D is a well designed game system. It's pretty much a philosophical difference around what D&D is. Some people, like you, see it as a competitive game like team sports. That to me seems obviously (laughably! risably! paranthetically!) flawed, because D&D is played with one person entirely defining the field of play while the others experience the world they create, and cannot be "won" or "lost" at all, in any conventional sense, because the only goal is to create an interesting story and have fun.

That makes your metaphor invalid as a way of looking at the game, and a campaign based around your way of looking at the game founded in incomplete applications of the rules you claim to be applying universally. So there's a contradiction between what you think you're doing (applying the rules as written) and what those games wind up actually being like (applying the rules inconsistently based on what works and what needs to be houseruled to avoid making the game unplayable).

That contradiction is what is so irksome, especially when couched in "I know more about the game than you" terms, as it comes off as both arrogant and delusional when applied to a game with so many broken mechanics to begin with.

And yes, some people have had bad experiences as a result of players who attempted to "win" the game using those mechanics, via rationalisations like "I'm trying to make my character competant" and "I understand the game better". Which is as much of an insult as anything I might have written, as it implies that everyone who plays the game differently is "incompetant". If you don't hear it like that, well, you must never have played with people who deliberately use that kind of insult in an attempt to disrupt the game. So good for you (I guess).

Antacid

2009-05-21, 01:53 PM

The rules are there not just for conflicts. They establish how the world works. How much it costs for the PCs to eat, sleep and travel. How to make a living. How to influence people. How to make things. How to learn and progress in character development. Etc, etc, etc, almost ad infinitum.

None of that matters except in terms of how it relates to the story, which is based on drama, which requires conflict. How players make magic items only matters because they're going to want to use them, how they make money only affects the game if people with core can hire Wizards to summon Wish-granting creatures for them (or whatever). If it can't affect the story it shouldn't have rules. IMHO.

If the rules were there only for conflicts, PCs would have been in a vacuum whenever they weren't fighting. But they are not, because the rules create a world both wide and deep, regulating its many various facets.

I disagree. 3.5 core D&D manages to fail as a simulation and as a balanced game system. Just because there's a lot of rules doesn't mean they work credibly in practise. Your "infinite wishes" concept is an example of why that's a bad idea from a game-design perspective.

Furthermore, the idea that players would be in a vacuum without rules is antithetical to my idea of roleplaying and worldbuilding, both of which should be about group-generated content. There's no benefit to knowing how much a castle costs from a sourcebook: that should be the role of the DM, because there's never going to be a single right answer to that kind of question, and creating one just restricts everyone's freedom to use their imaginations.

And if you think these tips were "uber-pwnery", well, I can only say your game sessions must not be very demanding.
I doubt that they would challenge the skills you have developed.

The BBEG may certainly be an optimised build. But there is no way, nor is there reason, to make one character with all of the possible powers PCs could obtain. That would violate the rules, and be pointless from a gaming perspective. The villain may have allies that complement his build, and that ought to be enough to adequately challenge the PCs.
What's at issue is that the question of the PCs being "challenged" would never come up, were the 3.5e game system applied consistently and with villains who fight using the same tactics available to players (including scry-and-die). Because they'd be dead.

But we disagree: and that's the source of our disagreement, which relates to what 3.5 D&D is in the first place and whether it achieves what it's intended for or is broken as a rules system. I believe that I've explained sufficiently why I do not believe your attitude leads to enjoyable games, and I'm content with the idea that it's the result of a philosophical difference. I'm happy to leave it at that. Thanks!

EDIT: just one last point, as I believe it summarises how this misunderstanding arises.

Do you seriously believe the scry-and-die tactic was not incorporated into the DnD game world? Why then are there spells such as Nondetection, Mind Blank, Sequester, Dimension Lock, Anticipate Teleportation, Contingency, Moment of Prescience, Foresight and countless others? Why are there various items, feats, prestige classes and templates that offer protection against this precise tactic? Why is this tactic constantly referenced in sourcebooks, including the DMG itself?

The D&D rules were written over decades - 3.5 is just the apothesis of layers of overpowered Vancian magic and modular complication that was introduced over the many editions. Almost all of the powers and feats you just listed were added as counters to scry-and-die-like behavior following the widespread use of the tactic, because TSR didn't have the balls to risk player wrath by nerfing it completely (the same applies to other broken elements of the game like polymorphing, which Rich himself doesn't think works).

That you would defend it as a ZOMG INTEGRATED!111!one! rules system despite it's origins, and then claim some sort of tactical expertise for knowing all that trivia by heart is pretty, well... silly. Nice that you're having fun with it, though. :smallsmile:

Simanos

2009-05-21, 02:43 PM

...
Unbread Mince
Gunlead Quince
Come on! You can do better than that can't you?

Antacid

2009-05-21, 02:48 PM

Unbread Mince
Gunlead Quince
Come on! You can do better than that can't you?

I have things to do. And no shame.

TSED

2009-05-21, 06:49 PM

I notice you have to restate what he's been describing in pretty generic terms before it sounds reasonable.

... Or I just cut out the fluff that other people are ascribing to him? Heck, he hasn't said that himself, I'm just inferring it.

Just like how you're inferring all the 'non-generic terms'.

Yes, this is a dispute about whether pre-4e D&D is a well designed game system. It's pretty much a philosophical difference around what D&D is. Some people, like you, see it as a competitive game like team sports. That to me seems obviously (laughably! risably! paranthetically!) flawed, because D&D is played with one person entirely defining the field of play while the others experience the world they create, and cannot be "won" or "lost" at all, in any conventional sense, because the only goal is to create an interesting story and have fun.

I didn't even mention 4th ed. This started as a question about what Scry & Die IS, then some one said "it's when 3.5 falls apart" and Undead Prince said "not quite."

People then amassed a cavalry charge trying to skewer him with "NO UR RONG LOL."

That makes your metaphor invalid as a way of looking at the game, and a campaign based around your way of looking at the game founded in incomplete applications of the rules you claim to be applying universally

Yes, it's a flawed analogy. I'm not feeling well right now and it was what, 6 am when I wrote that? The point wasn't "oh look competitive gaming" it was "oh look some people play rougher than others." Find a game that isn't 'competitive' and does have contact.

I can give you another example. Martial arts. I absolutely loved contact sparring when I was still taking classes regularly, but the majority of my classmates did not. I didn't whine because I didn't get to do the heavy stuff as much as I wanted (ie: 'powergame'), I just sparred by the rules and enjoyed it none the less. When contact sparring DID come up, it was ridiculously fun.

With our sensei as the 'DM' depicting the pace of the 'game', it still made total sense. Other people still had fun, just not as much. When 'my' style of 'gaming' came out, I got to flex those 'muscles' and revel in the sheer physicality in it.

And no, it wasn't about winning or losing. It was about the act of pounding each other. When it wasn't contact sparring, it was still very fun, but the fun was had in a different way (the technicality of the moves, not the raw fighting).

This is a way over-extended metaphor, but my analogy isn't void because it was originally for a competitive game. The competitiveness of said game doesn't factor in at all.

. So there's a contradiction between what you think you're doing (applying the rules as written) and what those games wind up actually being like (applying the rules inconsistently based on what works and what needs to be houseruled to avoid making the game unplayable).

That contradiction is what is so irksome, especially when couched in "I know more about the game than you" terms, as it comes off as both arrogant and delusional when applied to a game with so many broken mechanics to begin with.

Wait, what? He is saying that his group DOES apply the rules universally. Houseruling is still a rule, even though he hasn't even mentioned any of his houserules.

And yes, some people have had bad experiences as a result of players who attempted to "win" the game using those mechanics, via rationalisations like "I'm trying to make my character competant" and "I understand the game better". Which is as much of an insult as anything I might have written, as it implies that everyone who plays the game differently is "incompetant". If you don't hear it like that, well, you must never have played with people who deliberately use that kind of insult in an attempt to disrupt the game. So good for you (I guess).

Now you're just stuffing words in his mouth. Still strawman.

He hasn't said "I understand the game better" though he may have implied that other people need to get on that. But you know what? He implied it ONLY if something is causing them grief. Makes sense. I don't know a thing about psionics and so I don't write judgements on it, but if I did try it one day and decide "they have no staying power!" would you say it's a fault of psionics or a fault of my lack of rationing?

So some people are jerks. That's unfortunate. Stop assuming people are jerks because they have opinions with overlap. Let's say you're pals with Wayne Gretzky. Let's say he's a nice guy (I have no idea if this is true or not). Let's say you go out to play with him. Do you think he'll really play full blast against you and your couple of friends who've only skated a handfull of times in your life? Or do you think he, being a nice guy, will tone it down? It's so much easier to tone it down than to pump it up.

Lastly, I'm sorry that you can get insulted by some one being confident in himself on the internet. That must be a tough existence.

HamsterOfTheGod

2009-05-21, 10:56 PM

MelTorefas

2009-05-21, 11:00 PM

Well, this was surely an interesting thread to stumble into. Some thoughts of my own after reading 95% of it.

UndeadPrince's posts remind a lot of the character Hermione from Harry Potter. Not just in action, but in how others react. Hermione is a character who knows a LOT. She has read almost every book, she remembers minute details no one else bothers to, and she is very often right. She tends to really annoy the people around her, who frequently don't care about her knowledge of minutae and find her attitude of "I know it all", whether intentional or not, highly aggravating.

That, to me, pretty much sums up most of the hostile replies directed at UP's posts. I don't blame those repliers, really. I consider myself fairly levelheaded, but reading UP's posts I was pretty intensely annoyed, too. But I calmed down and thought it through a bit, and I realized: I was annoyed because he is EXACTLY the kind of player I would hate to have at my table. Because I am a roleplayer first and foremost. I play with people who come for the story, to whom mechanics are a very distant second. Needless to say, I tend to houserule frequently. I really enjoy my way of playing... but that doesn't invalidate UP's playstyle, and I think it is kind of sad how many posted replies to him have devolved into personal attacks.

Come to think of it, King of Nowere seems to have hit it right on the head. The idea of playing in the *world* that would exist based on the ideas UP has put forth is pretty fascinating to me. To try and survive in a place where so much was going on, so many high level powers were being used, and the systems were so much more complicated would be a whole different experience, one I would really have to work myself up to! It would be kind of like going from playing World of Warcraft in its current incarnation to playing EverQuest or UltimaOnline in their original incarnations. It would be a very very different form of D&D. But that doesn't mean it would be bad, nor does it mean there cannot be perfectly agreeable people who enjoy that style. As long as no one is trying to make a game that style when the rest of their group isn't on board with it, I don't see the problem with that style of play existing.

Now, sir UP, a couple things I'd like to say to you directly if you don't mind. People tend to be more receptive when the things you say don't sound *quite* so much like you have a fairly low opinion of their intellect. I have no idea whether that's intentional or not, but you certainly do come across that way pretty frequently, at least in this thread.

Also, your comment

[...] Although the 4th is indeed much more geared towards casual players who don't like investing much time and effort into the game.

seems pretty dictorial to me. The same argument applies here as to the posts that claim your way of playing is completely invalid: just because it isn't your style, doesn't mean it isn't a *valid* style. I invest a lot in my games... as a *storyteller.* If you meant maybe that 4E seems geared more to people who don't want to invest so much in the game *mechanics*, that would strike me as a much more accurate statement.

Finally, the fact that your posts have attracted some replies that contain a few pretty juvenile insults doesn't really justify you reciprocating in kind. (Daycare? Really?) Especially when you call them on it yourself.

As a postscript, my apologies to anyone I misrepresent or misquote. That was a lot to read. Human behavior is fascinating to me, though, hence the reply. Also, I apologize as well for my rampant abuse of the comma. >.>

The MunchKING

2009-05-21, 11:16 PM

Well yeah, it's a good thing 4e fixed all that and made one heck of an exciting high fantasy game.

And by that we mean a MMORPG... With out the MM or the O.

TSED

2009-05-22, 03:19 AM

But I calmed down and thought it through a bit, and I realized: I was annoyed because he is EXACTLY the kind of player I would hate to have at my table. Because I am a roleplayer first and foremost. I play with people who come for the story, to whom mechanics are a very distant second. Needless to say, I tend to houserule frequently. I really enjoy my way of playing... but that doesn't invalidate UP's playstyle, and I think it is kind of sad how many posted replies to him have devolved into personal attacks.

I just have to question this:

Where are people getting the idea that he DOESN'T like stories?

I mean, seriously. He is discussing mechanics in a thread about mechanics. The fact that he doesn't go off on long winded speeches about 'how he prefers to play' says to me he can focus on a discussion. Not that he ruleslawyers to hades.

I've never played a high level game (aside from CRPGs which totally don't count). I'd like to try it some day, but I'm no hurry. Highest level I've ever played was a one-off session at... 11th I think. I could start talking about how I WISH the wizard at least tried using some scrying because of the iron golems we didn't need to fight at all and got tricked into because some people are dumb and ring doorbells, but... It's really irrelevant to the discussion. I find Undead Prince's posts really illuminating because they point at the obvious problem, and then go "but if you just think about it, it's not really a problem."

I don't think there are many people enjoy D&D who DON'T let the narrative take precedence over the rules. That does not give an excuse for ignoring the rules.

It would be kind of like going from playing World of Warcraft in its current incarnation to playing EverQuest or UltimaOnline in their original incarnations.

I snickered because I know. :smallamused: Let me tell you, the rush of adrenaline you got in EQ when you realise you're lost AND about to die simply cannot be replicated in modern MMOs. Including EQ. (Unfortunately?)

I cannot, however, try to defend him on his comment on 4th ed. I feel the same way but it is definitely a slur.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 03:53 AM

I was annoyed because he is EXACTLY the kind of player I would hate to have at my table. Because I am a roleplayer first and foremost. I play with people who come for the story, to whom mechanics are a very distant second. Needless to say, I tend to houserule frequently.

Adhering to the rules does not invalidate roleplaying. Personally, I enjoy roleplaying, and so do the other members of my groups. Moreover, the GM is usually very strict about RP requirements, including a full back story, grounding in regions, societies etc. IMHO, DnD is very well geared towards this style of play, offering both rich background information and a clear-cut set of rules.

Following the mechanics actually makes for easier and more *believable?* roleplay. When everything's aligned according to universal norms, characters' abilities are precisely defined, there is no confusion about what can or can't be done, and players can focus their attention on fleshing out their heroes, interacting with the environment, instead of thinking how to resolve conundrums outside the ruleset.

Then again, I certainly don't exclude the right of the group to houserule. In my view, it should be more of a setting thing, though - a unique set of starting conditions, something to be established from the beginning and not at every gaming session.

It would be kind of like going from playing World of Warcraft in its current incarnation to playing EverQuest or UltimaOnline in their original incarnations.It would be a very very different form of D&D.

I can certainly agree with the analogy with freeform "persistent world" CRPGs, although computer games can never compete with the sheer depth, possibilities and freedom offered by D&D. Moreover, I believe "freeform" play is strongly enshrined in D&D - sure, the adventure books are pretty narrow, but all the core rulebooks, the extensions (PHB2/DMG2), the setting books (esp. PGTF, FRCS, Power of Faerun) & the supplements provide for an expansive, consistent world to roam in. The adventure books, as I see them, are just "modules", individual locations in that world.

Now, sir UP, a couple things I'd like to say to you directly if you don't mind. People tend to be more receptive when the things you say don't sound *quite* so much like you have a fairly low opinion of their intellect. I have no idea whether that's intentional or not, but you certainly do come across that way pretty frequently, at least in this thread.

Yeah, sometimes I get snarky. But, you see the environment I have to work in here 8=)) Lately I've taken a habit of going through the post before submitting, and trimming the roughest edges. So, progress.

Also, your comment

though the 4th is indeed much more geared towards casual players who don't like investing much time and effort into the game.

seems pretty dictorial to me. The same argument applies here as to the posts that claim your way of playing is completely invalid: just because it isn't your style, doesn't mean it isn't a *valid* style. I invest a lot in my games... as a *storyteller.* If you meant maybe that 4E seems geared more to people who don't want to invest so much in the game *mechanics*, that would strike me as a much more accurate statement.

Hmm, I don't see anything wrong with that statement. I do not say that all people who play the 4th are casual players and don't invest into the game. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the 4th is geared towards that kind of players. It might also appeal to other people who prefer not to dwell too much on the mechanics, but these two conclusions do not invalidate each other.

Finally, the fact that your posts have attracted some replies that contain a few pretty juvenile insults doesn't really justify you reciprocating in kind. (Daycare? Really?)

I thought it was an appropriate response underscoring the childish nature of the attacks 8=P And to be reciprocating in kind, I would have had to resort to name-calling & all the other juvenile stuff, which, to my belief, I have not done.

Human behavior is fascinating to me, though, hence the reply.

Internet is certainly an interesting place to conduct behaviorial studies 8=) good luck in your research, then. One request, if there's gonna be a paper, could we be credited less anonymously than "Subject A" or "Typical representative of grouping B"? Not much of a legacy, but still 8=)

Killer Angel

2009-05-22, 04:25 AM

UndeadPrince's posts remind a lot of the character Hermione from Harry Potter. Not just in action, but in how others react. Hermione is a character who knows a LOT.

(snip)

I consider myself fairly levelheaded, but reading UP's posts I was pretty intensely annoyed, too. But I calmed down and thought it through a bit, and I realized: I was annoyed because he is EXACTLY the kind of player I would hate to have at my table. Because I am a roleplayer first and foremost. I play with people who come for the story, to whom mechanics are a very distant second.

UP, simply has a very good knowledge of the game mechanics, and he uses it.
This don't means that he cannot roleplay.
His characters live in a "real" fantasy world, and they act accordingly, as our characters, but he's more prepared and he knows more things than us.
Exactly like Hermione...
Hermione is more prepared to face hostile magic than 99% of the other students; in the same way, UP's pc are more prepared to survive, than other pcs made whitout a good knowledge of the possibilities offered by the system.
It's not a matter to "break" the game (which is a different thing), it's a matter to act in a smart way.
If we create (with the same resources at disposal) a wizard capable of Scry 'n die tactic, my pc will do moderately good, but UP's pc will do better, and centainly you'll find some player who cannot even imagine how to handle a wizard, apart from casting fireballs...
In real life, not all engineers are capable of making the London Bridge. and not all the generals are like Lee or Rommel.

Simanos

2009-05-22, 06:38 AM

Well yeah, it's a good thing 4e fixed all that and made one heck of an exciting high fantasy game.
Is that sarcasm?
OMG you make me feel like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory :smalleek:

Baalthazaq

2009-05-22, 09:30 AM

I think for me to agree so far with many of the posters, the following riddle needs to be true.

Story 1:
The knight Thorric says "Greetings dragon, we have come to petition you to leave the city in peace, we have an offer we think will interest you".

Story 2:
The Knight Thorric says "Greetings dragon, we have come to petition you to leave the city in peace, we have an offer we think will interest you".

Why is Thorric in story 2 not a roleplayer?
Because he has a +10 sword.

-----------------------------------------------------

I have been criticized for "wanting the DM" to be a certain way.
That is incorrect. In the campaign I ran, which ran successfully for a year and a half, and took players from level 6 to near epic, and which we may come back to soon for some epic level play, I was the DM.

I specifically made the world to show some of our more restrictive GMs that you can make a world quite happily without cutting the testicles off your players, and that just because they have that +10 sword doesn't mean they cannot act out a meaningful character.

The following is a tiny portion of the campaign world I built. Feel free to ask me any question about why the BBEG didn't do X. Bearing in mind little details like:
In the real world, you need a background check for a visa. It takes up to 10 days.

People selling wishes are unlikely to just sell them to anybody. A trip to a plane where only divinations are allowed may be in order (and obviously travel spells), followed by a detect evil spell, or detect thoughts, or more.

The game had politics, 3 warring empires(Oriental, Ancient Greek, Steampunk), an independent city of Wizards vying for power, 3 ancient powers prepped to rise again (Portal to the Abyss, Underwater Empire of Modrons, "The 8 Gods").

The warring empires for example had ships. I thought about what those ships would do in a world with magic. It makes no sense to have any navy fleet in a world with 5th level mages capable of casting fireball unless the military was also magical.

So my flagships for the Athenians were Titanic vessels coated in counterspelling (effectively SR) runes and a moving wall of force protecting the hull.

This also meant that the Raccassammeddians (Steampunk) would have developed counters to this. Much smaller/agile ships fitted with effectively a ramming pike (effectively +5 adamantine spike of spellstoring, disintegrate), had a chance of penetrating the hull on a lucky strike.

Looking at the Mage City, I had divided it into 8 schools of magic.
I had the abjurers police the place, mainly with abjurant champions because they had (comparatively) high BAB and could just shut down magic users. The entire sector of Abjuration was under constant, shaped, antimagic field, with various exceptions.

The conjurers were the holders of all the trade routes.
Evokers were the military.
Diviners were purveyors of information/intelligence.
Illusionists were entertainers (think cinema).
Abjurers were the police.
Enchanters and Transmuters both made their money from Athens.... long story but basically both body and mind modification are extremely fashionable there. Paying enchanters and Transmuters to give couples the perfect child is also big business. Very black market though, but not against Mage City rules, just against Athenian rules.

The 8th school is not necromancy. The area itself is completely shut down, and the people imprisoned 80 years ago, accused of Necromancy. In reality, they were generalists. The other schools didn't like the idea of "all magic is the same, there are no schools" mentality as it cut into their own niches. "Oh, all magic is the same, so I guess Necromancy is ok then!" was the common propaganda tactic against them, eventually there was war, and the generalists lost.

The insurgence (also branded as necromancers currently) was made up of spelltheives. I figured if anyone could be in the insurgence it would be these guys, with help from the Illusionists and Abjurers. (Those two schools actually were allied with the generalists, but the generalists told them not to help, as they didn't want massive bloodshed).

These are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the checks and balances I had between the different warring groups, who had the different sources of power and whatnot. You can hire people to do different things, sure, you just need to find those people. As I said, in bold, STORY FFS.

Is it worthwhile for the players trying to ally with the diviners to get the scry? Why would the diviners help? Do the players know who they are allied with? What about the conjurers? What about getting caught by the abjurers first? Is this harder to do than taking on the BBEG directly? Will the BBEG find out about this and put us on her radar?

Lets move on to the players, were they all mediocre players, nerfed in every way possible to keep them at bay? No. I specifically made this campaign world for them to run riot in. The game has a human referee capable of yessing or noing or determining repercussions of actions on the fly.

I specifically said "You make what you want, and *I* will determine how to fit it in the world".

We had a Warforge Artificer (who I determined was actually one of the "risen 3 rulers" of Raccassammeddi but had his memory wiped by one of the other player characters). Effectively he has one of the 3 votes in the world's largest empire. I just didn't tell him. Lots of fun. He only found out that his will was controlling massive troop movements in the last session.

We had a Swashbuckler/Rogue/Dread Pirate who was basically Jack Sparrow with a twist. He was a half drow, half fae(he didn't know about the fae part) whose father had "infiltrated" the Drow queen's harem, and impregnated the queen, who in turn when she found out he was a half breed had tried to have him destroyed, but he was saved by a friend of his father's who took him to the pirate cove in order to protect him.

An Illumian Mindspy, given full casting progression no less, working as a spy in Athens for Raccassammeddi.

A Paladin who (again, unbeknownst to him, had a Goddess watching his every move, as she had developed a crush on the brave mortal), I decided saying as the theme of the world was Chaos vs Law instead of Good vs Evil, I'd try to tempt the Paladin with Chaos and Liberty/Freedom/Love as opposed to Evil and Riches.

A Phoelarch (Think Were-Pheonix) Abjurant Champion/Fighter/Wizard. Who was the top general in the mage city war, fighting on Simon's side. (Simon = The Generalist Leader in mage city). He was killed in the War but Simon had him resurrected to aid the party after the party somewhat freed him.

An Awakened Dog Kensai. Effectively his master's land was taken by plague, and he tried to send the dog away, but the dog would always come back. Eventually the master paid a druid to awaken the dog, and explained to the dog that he wanted him to leave. The dog stayed until his master's death but then respected his wishes and traveled eventually to Athens. (I later used the plaguelands as the site where one of the great evils was trying to break through into the world, and turned them into "Taintlands" using taint rules from Heroes of Horror and Oriental adventures).

A Mystic Theurge who was the son of one of the important diviners. He had discovered that Jahi (BBEG) was corrupting the visions of the diviners in the same way Sauron used the "crystal balls" to corrupt people. I ruled this was possible because he was not as powerful as the other diviners and therefore BBEG hadn't been corrupting him. He was too "unimportant". He started by working with Simon as a spy, and then later when discovered fled to the party. His father giving him the necessary tools to block divinations.

But obviously there was no roleplaying because... you know... the Phoelarch had a +10 sword.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-22, 10:08 AM

Incidentally, I played the DMG and PHB as written, with no modifications to the rule system.
Exceptions:I made long range teleportation far more inaccurate to give the conjurers more of a monopoly in setting up permanent teleportation circles. I wanted them to be powerful and important.

Interplanar travel was banned because I didn't want to have to deal with having to create a universe rather than a world in my very first campaign. (Yes, this was my very first campaign, it took 3 months to design to my liking). The epic level campaign I'm working on will be in the same setting, with the world regaining it's ability to do proper plane shifts. (I allowed some plane shifting, but I limited it to demiplanes, plane of shadow, ethereal plane).

To counter this, I bumped down the level of all summon/calling spells by 1.

So Summon Monster 1 was a cantrip, Summon Monster X existed, but all it did was summon D3 of Summon Monster IX. Players could ask to summon anything, but they had better ask me first.

Anything else I changed... oh yes. Only Mindless Undead were immune to mind affecting abilities, not all undead. Dragons were not immune to Paralysis (this one was a mistake on my part, I didn't know they were immune, so a dragon got paralyzed, but from then on, for consistency, I kept the ruling).

I did not use the MM except for inspiration in homebrewing creatures. My world did not have standard DnD history/alignments/etc.

So if a player decided "Ah, we can trust X, because X is a Devil, and therefore must be lawful and therefore must honor the deal". I would let them, then remind them that no, this is my world, as I'd explained before, where X is "an ugly thing I liked the picture of in the MM", doesn't give a crap what you think it is, and would like nothing more than to gut you for telling it what it can and cannot do.

I will change rules on the fly to punish metagaming of that level. If you make a claim without making a knowledge check first, I will change the entire cosmology to punish you for it. In my game the only time I did that was "Ah, it's a great wyrm gold dragon, therefore it can give us a luckstone". I was going to give the party a luckstone, but I decided not to after the metagame.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 10:39 AM

I can't understand 4th editions rules at all. The action point crap confuses the hell out of me.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 10:41 AM

Well yeah, it's a good thing 4e fixed all that and made one heck of an exciting high fantasy game.
I'm going to kill you, your dog, your cat, any pets you might have, all your relatives, and all your friends, and anyone who might care about you. For saying such nonsense. Then again your probably a gibbering mouther and don't have any idea of what your doing.

HamsterOfTheGod

2009-05-22, 10:49 AM

Is that sarcasm?
I guess you did not notice the invisible happy face that ended my post.

Then again your probably a gibbering mouther and don't have any idea of what your doing.
Ah but there is method in the madness...

I think for me to agree so far with many of the posters, the following riddle needs to be true.
Not singling you out but you know rereading the post from the warring parties above, it's amazing how vehement you all are in AGREEMENT with each other. Nice campaign setting BTW.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-22, 10:51 AM

UP, simply has a very good knowledge of the game mechanics, and he uses it.
This don't means that he cannot roleplay.
His characters live in a "real" fantasy world, and they act accordingly, as our characters, but he's more prepared and he knows more things than us.I'll agree with your first two sentences, but not the last.

The world UP describes is one in which his characters are allowed to take advantage of the weaknesses in the 3.X rules, but the NPCs are not. This does not describe a "real" fantasy world, but rather one in which the NPCs hold the idiot ball while the PCs are "smart." But as I pointed out before, presuming that you are "smart" because everyone around you is stupid is a mistake.

To address this in example format, let's take UP's character seeking infinite wishes at 5th level. The success of this character requires time travel, as the method originally described by UP did not include paralyzing the Efriit (sic) on it's arrival. So that character died, lunch for a hungry Efreet. And this is how most discussions of power gaming go: When a way around their plan is pointed out, the power gamer dives back into the books and returns with a "Well, then I do Y instead of X." But games don't play like that, they are real time. Players don't have the advantage of retconning a plan when they discover that it is flawed in mid process, they must live with the results. And this is the character flaw of many power gamers: They don't like to live with the results. UP's next character could hypothetically repeat the same process and adapt to the failure of the first, but there are additional issues which need to be addressed.

The plan includes a 5th level character soliciting the services of an 11th level character.

1. The wizard has no reliable way to command the Efreeti (when will you learn to spell the names correctly??) by himself; he needs the PC's help, because the PC has a reliable way to establish control over the creature;

2. The wizard does not know of the PC's scheme. He is being paid to summon the Efreeti; he performes the service, as per the PHB.

3. The wizard has been made Friendly by the PC's Diplomacy;

4. The wizard has succumbed to the PC's own heightened Suggestion.

This is fine on the surface, and UP uses the "rule" of NPC spell casting as his support. But that "rule" reduces the NPC to a doormat, and this is not consistent with "characters [who] live in a "real" fantasy world." Instead, it is characters who expect the opponents to hold the idiot ball.

The 11th level Wizard apparently has zero defenses against the 5th level character. Even with 6 levels advantage representing entire orders of magnitudes of power, this NPC is expected to live as a simple merchant, selling his spell casting services for a few golds. This NPC has around 36 more skill points than his attacker, at least more 1 point of INT, 3 more Feats, and has at least a +11 Will save vs. the suggested Heightened Suggestion, which will be resisted as a 3rd level spell cast by a 5th level character. And these figures ignore any magic items this 11th level character possesses, with 6 levels of WBL advantage over the PC. It is laughable to propose that this Wizard would be so trivially puppeted, but this is the premise of UPs plan to gain infinite wishes at 5th level.

[...] the hired wizard cannot get the wishes for himself because he doesn't have the PC's abilities.This assumes that the NPC holds the idiot ball while the PC is free to exploit the flaws in the 3.X rules.

Let's now address point one in a more rational way, considering that the participants in this situation "live in a "real" fantasy world, and they act accordingly." The 11th level Wizard has no reliable way to command the Efreet, but the PC does. And the PC has no means to summon the Djinn, but the NPC does. Neither can carry out this task without the other. So why is it that the 5th level character is allowed to be the dominant partner in this deal? The only reason I can see is that UP wants it to be so, but as the MitD learned, wishing for something really hard doesn't make it happen.

Would UP be upset if his 11th level character was completely controlled by a 5th level NPC? One can assume so. And I think that this would be a reasonable complaint. But in "a "real" fantasy world, [where even the NPCs] act accordingly", it would be the 5th level character who would fall prey to the 11th level Wizard. The 5th level character would be selected by the Wizard specifically because they have the commanding abilities needed for this scheme, while also having a miserable chance to save against the 11th level Wizard's spells (6th level Heightened Suggestion, enjoy your saving throw), and in the case of any unforeseen issues with the plan the 5th level character is not much of a challenge.

This is, logically, how the scenario would play out. This is not how the world setting proposed by UP would work. In UPs world the NPCs are made into idiots by a mention of spell casting fees in the PHB, rather than being played as intelligent, fully characterized beings in their own right.

There is one flaw in my reasoning: It requires that the GM not be your doormat.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-22, 11:03 AM

Not singling you out but you know rereading the post from the warring parties above, it's amazing how vehement you all are in AGREEMENT with each other. Nice campaign setting BTW.

Sorry, not sure what you mean?

Zherog

2009-05-22, 11:35 AM

The plan includes a 5th level character soliciting the services of an 11th level character.

This is fine on the surface, and UP uses the "rule" of NPC spell casting as his support. But that "rule" reduces the NPC to a doormat, and this is not consistent with "characters [who] live in a "real" fantasy world." Instead, it is characters who expect the opponents to hold the idiot ball.

Really? Because, to be honest, that's not how I read his plan. He included two different ways for the 5th level character to solicit the help of the 11th level wizard -- even if the wizard isn't "retired" and actively selling his spellcasting services in place of adventuring. Yes, absolutely the 11th level wizard probably has defenses against the suggestion spell. But... there aren't any defenses against Diplomacy. At least not as written. (which, incidentally, is why Rich rewrote how the skill works (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html).)

If the 11th level wizard started out as "indifferent," it's a simple DC 15 to make him "Friendly." Heck, if the wizard started as "unfriendly" the DC to make him friendly is only 25 -- certainly not out of reach for a 5th level character who is willing to spend time and resources.

In UPs world the NPCs are made into idiots by a mention of spell casting fees in the PHB, rather than being played as intelligent, fully characterized beings in their own right.

There are legit reasons why an 11th level character might be selling his services. Plenty of NPCs in oodles of published material have "retired" to a life of luxury and spend their free time in various ways -- selling potions, scrolls, or trinkets; selling knowledge, including divination spells; and so on.

In addition, neither you nor I know how UP set about finding the wizard. The DM, for example, might require Knowledge (local) or Gather Information checks to allow UP to find such an NPC. That's reasonable. We also don't know how the DM and UP handled the Diplomacy check. Maybe the DM said, "Yeah, roll the die and go with the result." Or maybe they had a five hour session negotiating terms, shooting the breeze, and whatever else his character would need to do from a roleplaying perspective to get in the good graces of the wizard.

HamsterOfTheGod

2009-05-22, 12:18 PM

Sorry, not sure what you mean?

Well consider the following recent post

The world UP describes is one in which his characters are allowed to take advantage of the weaknesses in the 3.X rules, but the NPCs are not. This does not describe a "real" fantasy world, but rather one in which the NPCs hold the idiot ball while the PCs are "smart."

I may be wrong, but BJBB seems more of a simulationist, in terms of the old gamist, narrativist, simulationist divide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), and UP more of a gamist. I get this take on UP from exchanges like

"Scry and die tactics" describes the point at which D&D 3.x breaks down. It is no longer an adventure game at this point, but a series of escalating spell tactics between players of casters and the GM.

And up until this point it's been what, a picnic?

The entire game is a series of escalating tactics between players and the GM.

It's important to note that gamist, narrativist, and simulationist are terms that indicate tendencies. Few are purely one thing and not the other.

The problem at hand is that continual scry-buff-teleport tactics make the game tedious / the world unplayable. It seems all are in agreement with that.

So you have to stop it somehow. For ex, you solved it your way and BJBB solved it his way. I'm not sure if UP DM'ed but he would probably solve it his. Pretty much every DM and group solve it in some way. You can even solve the problem with the rules are written.

The argument seems to be how best to solve it. Does that really matter? Well that depends again on your point of view. To me, a gamist, it's best not to think about it too much. You have a lot to do as a DM so at some point scry-buff-teleport will become an issue. When it does, you deal with it then. This part of the argument is at cross-purposes because each one is talking about how they would solve it.

The argument then devolves into whether a particular set of rules is "broken". I would have to disagree with BJBB that "What is 'it' is that the 3.x rules are broken, and themselves ruin play if played by RAW." The 3.5 rules are rules for an open-ended high fantasy game. And like any such rule set that is a bit open-ended, you can find exploits. And the exploits were made easier by the amount of sources that were published. But overall they functioned just fine for what they were, a set of rules for a fun game. This did not mean that there weren't some rules that needed fixing.

4e has gone in another direction and closed of many options (or at least those options have not yet been published). But overall, in playtesting 4e, I found it playable but one that created a totally different game experience.

So which is better 4e or 3.5? For a game, in my opinion, that's a matter of taste. However, 4e as a set of rules for world simulation fails just as much as 3.5. These are fantasy worlds. They require suspension of disbelief.

Take OotS which is not an instance of a game but a story based on a game by an author who has a lot of experience in DM'ing and world design.

When they started out, the OotS "PCs" did not use scrying-teleport tactics themselves. Yet we were shown that Xykon did scry on them. Why did he not take them out? Well because at first he needed them and then after certain events they were off his radar. Then we learnt that spirits in the afterlife, the gods and demons are also keeping tabs on OotS. Yet these have limited abilities to affect the party directly. As they got to higher level they ran into NPCs who also used divinations like Shojo and Kubota and the clients of the Oracle. Again these NPCs had limits as to what they could do. Even when OotS used the Oracle they were limited in the information they could gather. Plus they did not optimally use the Oracle. Now when V and Durkon got to the point that they could use divination, the "DM" was ready with Xykon's cloister. Still V and Durkon could have better used divination to find out both about the existence of the cloister and the reason why the fleet was under constant attack. Even when V had "ultimate" arcane power, he still chose not scry as much as he good. V teleported to Xykon's lair and of course Xykon was ready for that.

So here is an example of the solution of the problem of scry-teleport that uses a mixture of rules as written, homebrew spells, in-story reasons and in-character reasons. And OotS is believable story all through out, at least in my opinion.

good_lookin_gus

2009-05-22, 12:34 PM

BillyJimBoBob, I think you're posting in the wrong thread. Either that, or you have no respect for forum decorum. Hey that rhymed!

Snake-Aes

2009-05-22, 12:51 PM

There are legit reasons why an 11th level character might be selling his services. Plenty of NPCs in oodles of published material have "retired" to a life of luxury and spend their free time in various ways -- selling potions, scrolls, or trinkets; selling knowledge, including divination spells; and so on.

A Hydra breeder. The guy who found out how to make a powerful alcoholic beverage made of hydra blood quit adventuring to become a Hydra Breeder.

Zherog

2009-05-22, 12:54 PM

Right - that was my next example, but I left it out to save space.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-22, 01:01 PM

Right - that was my next example, but I left it out to save space.

Dude, failing a fort save against hydra extract can knock you down for a whole week and wake you up with subdual damage from the hangover alone.

Timberboar

2009-05-22, 01:28 PM

I'm going to kill you, your dog, your cat, any pets you might have, all your relatives, and all your friends, and anyone who might care about you. For saying such nonsense. Then again your probably a gibbering mouther and don't have any idea of what your doing.

Really now?

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-22, 01:29 PM

But... there aren't any defenses against Diplomacy. At least not as written.Diplomacy takes a full minute to take effect. The same as Intimidate. UP tried to claim that the Efreiti could not be Intimidated, but that requires a ruling for Intimidate which does not match the same ruling for Diplomacy. Which is another power gaming characteristic: Apply vague rules the way that benefits you the most, even if that means inconsistent rulings.

But there are defenses against Diplomacy. Since the PC is trying to purchase the NPCs services this could be said to be a negotiation. In a negotiation you roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the NPC has the advantage of 6 levels of skill points over the PC. The only rule for this is "the winner gains the advantage", which the GM may interpret as they see fit. It would be completely within the GMs purview to give the NPC the advantage of having asked the PC to describe the purpose of summoning a Efriite. After that is revealed, the NPC can Dominate the PC and gain the wishes for themselves. "I wouldn't tell him!", the PC may cry. But the rules for Diplomacy do not allow for this advantage to be withheld from the NPC, do they? This is the same situation: If you're trying to use vague rules to your advantage, be careful. They can also be used against you.

Here's another defense against Diplomacy which is applicable to this situation and is legal within the rules:

Player: I use Diplomacy to change the NPCs attitude.
GM: That takes one minute. On his next action, 6 seconds later, the NPC attacks you. Roll for initiative. If you live for the next 10 melee rounds your Diplomacy may have some effect on the now Hostile NPC.

Is this cheesy? Sure thing. But this uses the same sense of "legal within the rules" cheese that people like UP like to employ to do things like attempt to gain infinite wishes at 5th level.
There are legit reasons why an 11th level character might be selling his services. Plenty of NPCs in oodles of published material have "retired" to a life of luxury and spend their free time in various ways -- selling potions, scrolls, or trinkets; selling knowledge, including divination spells; and so on.There are, but those settings are not consistent with a world in which characters such as UPs can be created. To be consistent the NPCs need to be as knowledgeable about the real utility of spells and to apply them as intelligently as UP intends to. Or you have a world of doormats to interact with your characters.
In addition, neither you nor I know how UP set about finding the wizard.UP was outlining a theory, he had no GM. He was using the "rule" of NPC spell casting prices to support his theory, because by reducing the NPC from a person in a setting to an automated teller where you pay in a certain amount of golds and receive a desired service he doesn't have to worry about the GM applying the logical conclusions to the role playing situation.
I may be wrong, but BJBB seems more of a simulationist, in terms of the old gamist, narrativist, simulationist divide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), and UP more of a gamist.
Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them.I don't think you can classify UP as a gamist. He has a stated dislike for playing D&D as a series of level appropriate challenges, which precludes "games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents."
BillyJimBoBob, I think you're posting in the wrong thread. Either that, or you have no respect for forum decorum. Hey that rhymed!No, I'm having a conversation with a group of people which has evolved from the subject of this thread. And you're interrupting. Shoo.

TSED

2009-05-22, 01:32 PM

Whoah, whoah.

Are you assuming he actually played that character? Where did you get THAT from?

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 01:51 PM

But the rules for Diplomacy do not allow for this advantage to be withheld from the NPC, do they?

Actually yes, they spefically say you can't use them on PCs to force them to do what you want them to.

Here's another defense against Diplomacy which is applicable to this situation and is legal within the rules:

Player: I use Diplomacy to change the NPCs attitude.
GM: That takes one minute. On his next action, 6 seconds later, the NPC attacks you. Roll for initiative. If you live for the next 10 melee rounds your Diplomacy may have some effect on the now Hostile NPC.

A) that only works if they were ORIGINALLY hostile, as any other level will talk to you (alibet not nessisarily politly) first.

B) That's why he had the Efreet WARDED, duh.

"No, I'm having a conversation with a group of people which has evolved from the subject of this thread. And you're interrupting. Shoo.

You dragged it here from a different thread. Buh-bye now!

derfenrirwolv

2009-05-22, 01:58 PM

A Hydra breeder. The guy who found out how to make a powerful alcoholic beverage made of hydra blood quit adventuring to become a Hydra Breeder.

I think if you're actively breeding and getting blood out of hydras you haven't so much retired as installed a CR appropriate dungeon that regenerates the monsters in your back yard.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 01:59 PM

The Epic level campaign which I run, the level 106 or so fighter, could probably beat a level 25 wizard to death with his bare hands.

Snake-Aes

2009-05-22, 02:05 PM

I think if you're actively breeding and getting blood out of hydras you haven't so much retired as installed a CR appropriate dungeon that regenerates the monsters in your back yard.

If you want to think like that. They are all in well controlled environments, with hydras specific for breeding, and hydras for extracting. The less heads in the hydra, the purer the drink is, and therefore more expensive. Hydras past 12 heads aren't good for booze, and 9 headed hydra booze is as expensive as enough Grilled Fey Fish for a whole city.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-22, 02:06 PM

Whoah, whoah.

Are you assuming he actually played that character? Where did you get THAT from?Assuming that you are speaking to me, of course not. I explained just above that this was a flawed theory of UP to gain infinite wishes at 5th level. But that doesn't change much. He was convinced that his tactic was sound and would work in practice. The fact that he was wrong doesn't do anything to change my opinion on the kind of player he would be.

HamsterOfTheGod

2009-05-22, 02:19 PM

I'm having a conversation with a group of people which has evolved from the subject of this thread. And you're interrupting. Shoo.
And I was talking about you, not at you.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 03:14 PM

Let's see what we have here.

The world UP describes is one in which his characters are allowed to take advantage of the weaknesses in the 3.X rules, but the NPCs are not. This does not describe a "real" fantasy world, but rather one in which the NPCs hold the idiot ball while the PCs are "smart." But as I pointed out before, presuming that you are "smart" because everyone around you is stupid is a mistake.

I have repeatedly stated that my attitude towards gaming is directly opposite - i.e. the NPCs should be played according to their abilities and consistent with the world. Which may include various optimisation strategies. You continue to ignore my statements, wrestling with a strawman of your own creation. Sapienti sat.

To address this in example format, let's take UP's character seeking infinite wishes at 5th level.

I already told you to stop beating a dead horse, and reanimate the ancient thread if you're so keen on resuming that debate.

Otherwise, this thread is in danger of being overrun with off-topic.

After one morsel which I believe may be of general interest, I'm spoilering the rest.

Even with 6 levels advantage representing entire orders of magnitudes of power, this NPC is expected to live as a simple merchant, selling his spell casting services for a few golds.

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Selling spells at the price of (spell level)*(caster level)*10 gp is incredibly lucrative: assuming Intelligence of 24, an 11th level wizard would make

11,000 gp per day

if he managed to sell all his spells (not even counting cantrips) at the listed price.

His level-appropriate wealth is 66,000 gp. So in a week, he could more than double his entire fortune.

Moreover, it requires no special feats or skills - unlike, say, crafting - so any caster can engage in this trade at his leisure. And to top it off, again unlike crafting, selling spells does not take any time beyond that required for casting the spells. So the wizard can do whatever he wants for 23 hours 50 minutes, and set only 10 minutes per day for performing casting services.

Yep, that's 11,000 gp for 10 minutes of work.

Still wondering why NPC wizards are eager to sell their services?

Now, to the dreaded strategy debate.

First off, that strat is an old experiment, I've moved far beyond it since then.

The success of this character requires time travel, as the method originally described by UP did not include paralyzing the Efriit (sic) on it's arrival. So that character died, lunch for a hungry Efreet.

Wrong. The Efreeti had no way to hurt the PC even without the Ghoul Glyph (which even the first version of the build had available) before he gets hit by Suggestion. He's contained by the Magic Circle, and Intimidate doesn't work the way you wanted it to work.

BTW, looking at things today, the PC could simply ready an action to cast Suggestion upon the Efreeti's arrival.

the Efriit (sic)... a hungry Efreet

Will you ever learn?

The efreet (singular efreeti) are genies from the Elemental Plane of Fire. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm)

Seriously, I must have pointed this out like a dozen times to you, over the course of the old thread and even in this one.

And this is how most discussions of power gaming go: When a way around their plan is pointed out, the power gamer dives back into the books and returns with a "Well, then I do Y instead of X." But games don't play like that, they are real time.... UP's next character could hypothetically repeat the same process and adapt to the failure of the first, but there are additional issues which need to be addressed.

That's why it was an exercise in optimisation, not a description of a gaming session.

Players don't have the advantage of retconning a plan when they discover that it is flawed in mid process, they must live with the results. And this is the character flaw of many power gamers: They don't like to live with the results.

Experience is forged through failure as well as success. And I don't see how a person can play DnD if he's not ready to "live with the results". The reason for optimisation exercises is precisely because prior to diving into the game itself, players need to train their skills and theoretically develop the characters and the strategies.

The plan includes a 5th level character soliciting the services of an 11th level character.

This is fine on the surface, and UP uses the "rule" of NPC spell casting as his support. But that "rule" reduces the NPC to a doormat, and this is not consistent with "characters [who] live in a "real" fantasy world." Instead, it is characters who expect the opponents to hold the idiot ball.

Yeah, he's an idiot for making huge amounts of money with no risk.

Your PC is not an idiot for being killed for much lesser loot.

A few other considerations.

First, it's not a "rule", it's a RULE. As in, rule of the game. Set in PHB, detailed in DMG, and further expanded in DMG2 (you haven't even read that one, have you?)

Second, not only is selling services a perfectly legitimate and understandable occupation for NPCs, most PCs would be doing the exact same thing.

Many adventure modules are based on the premise that someone hires the PCs to do a job for a reward; the PCs can easily be higher level than their employer. Then, PCs regularly sell off loot: that's a source of magic items on the market. Crafter PCs produce loot, making profit during campaign downtime.

If the PCs could make money by selling caster services at the PHB rates, they definitely would. It's by far better than crafting or looting. However, whereas there's a rule in PHB on PCs being able to sell loot, there is no rule on being able to sell casting services, so our DM frowns upon that, and we make do with crafting.

The 11th level Wizard apparently has zero defenses against the 5th level character....

The strat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5821799&postcount=306) did not envisage attacking the wizard unless circumstances were definitely in the PC's favour. Attacking the wizard was not by any means necessary for the strat to succeed, it was just an option.

This NPC has around 36 more skill points than his attacker, at least more 1 point of INT, 3 more Feats

And a common cat has 2 more feet and much more fur. This is relevant how, in terms of the strat?

and has at least a +11 Will save

+11 Will save? He's level 11, not 18! Only +7 base. To get +11, he'd need a Wisdom of 18. Even with a +4 Wis item (which would bite 16,000 gp out of his 66,000 character wealth) he'd have to have a starting Wis of 14. I.e. invest 6 ability points just to be a little more resistant to enchantments.

There's a reason Wisdom is dumped by most wizards. It's an almost entirely useless stat for them (well, unless you plan on becoming Undead and Spell-stitched).

vs. the suggested Heightened Suggestion,

The Suggestion was for the Efreeti. Neither the early version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5812197&postcount=216) nor the 2.0 version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5821799&postcount=306) used it against the wizard.

which will be resisted as a 3rd level spell cast by a 5th level character.

Don't you know what HEIGHTENED SPELL is all about?

The DMMed Suggestion would be saved against as a 9th level spell.

And these figures ignore any magic items this 11th level character possesses, with 6 levels of WBL advantage over the PC. It is laughable to propose that this Wizard would be so trivially puppeted, but this is the premise of UPs plan to gain infinite wishes at 5th level.

You have no idea how the strat really works. Go back to the thread if you want, and reply to the actual post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5821799&postcount=306), instead of combating your own imagination.

This assumes that the NPC holds the idiot ball while the PC is free to exploit the flaws in the 3.X rules.

The NPC is being paid good money to cast a spell. It's a service he provides, and an extremely profitable one at that.

Let's now address point one in a more rational way, considering that the participants in this situation "live in a "real" fantasy world, and they act accordingly." The 11th level Wizard has no reliable way to command the Efreet, but the PC does. And the PC has no means to summon the Djinn, but the NPC does. Neither can carry out this task without the other. So why is it that the 5th level character is allowed to be the dominant partner in this deal? The only reason I can see is that UP wants it to be so

No, it's because the wizard

a) doesn't need to know about the deal;

b) has been diplomacised to be friendly;

c) is being paid money just to cast the spell;

d) may be offered a fair cut;

e) just go back to the strat, it's all spelled out.

Would UP be upset if his 11th level character was completely controlled by a 5th level NPC? One can assume so.

1. You have no idea how Suggestion works. It's nowhere near "complete control".

2. In the right set of circumstances, a 5th level character can overcome an 11th level (or, generally, higher CR can succumb to lower CR). It's something every player should realise when facing monsters or NPCs.

3. The wizard in question is neither controlled nor defeated in any other way, all he gets is a profitable deal.

And I think that this would be a reasonable complaint. But in "a "real" fantasy world, [where even the NPCs] act accordingly", it would be the 5th level character who would fall prey to the 11th level Wizard. The 5th level character would be selected by the Wizard specifically because they have the commanding abilities needed for this scheme

1. How would the wizard find out what feats the PC has?

2. Why would the wizard looking for such a character stumble onto the PC?

3. If it were to happen (via some heavy divinations + major coincidence), it would certainly provide for an interesting adventure hook.

while also having a miserable chance to save against the 11th level Wizard's spells (6th level Heightened Suggestion, enjoy your saving throw)

In fact, my character as a Cleric with high base Will save and high Wisdom would have a better chance of resisting the Wizard's suggestion (which could only be Heightened to 6th level).

As a purely abstract exercise, which has no relation to the actual strat, let's do the math:

Wizard's DC = 10 base +6 spell level +7 Intelligence (25 = 18 +1 age +2 level +4 item) = 23.

PC's save (6th level Cleric, not 5th, go read the strat): 1d20 +5 base +7 Wisdom (24 = 18 +1 age +1 level +4 Owl's Wisdom potion) = 23 average score (or, 50% chance of saving).

PC's DC: 10 base +9 spell level +7 Wisdom +1 Spell Focus (Domination domain) = 27;

Wizard's save: 1d20 +7 base +2 Wisdom (14 = 10 base +4 item) = 19 average. The Wizard has only a 15% chance of saving (saves on a roll of 18, 19 or 20).

Wizard vs. PC: 50% chance of success.
PC vs. Wizard: 85% chance of success.

But, again, go back to the strat.

This is, logically, how the scenario would play out. This is not how the world setting proposed by UP would work. In UPs world the NPCs are made into idiots by a mention of spell casting fees in the PHB, rather than being played as intelligent, fully characterized beings in their own right.

The nonsense here is that you are once again ascribing to me something completely opposite to my expressed opinion. This goes beyond simple strawmaning: you ignore the things I really said while self-absorbedly proselityzing about a fictional poster who exists entirely in your imagination.

Coupled with your poor grasp of the mechanics (avidly demonstrated, among the many other things, by your perception of spellcasting services as an idiot's job), it makes arguing with you extremely pointless in terms of any constructive purpose.

Fun, though 8=))

There is one flaw in my reasoning: It requires that the GM not be your doormat.

Judging by your knowledge of the system (even if we take only this one post as an example), I wonder how your characters manage to survive in DnD without your GM being a doormat 8=)))

Good times.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 03:16 PM

I explained just above that this was a flawed theory of UP to gain infinite wishes at 5th level. But that doesn't change much. He was convinced that his tactic was sound and would work in practice. The fact that he was wrong doesn't do anything to change my opinion on the kind of player he would be.

The kind of player that would test an idea before committing a character to it?

Oh, and just because something's in your head doesn't make it a "fact".

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 03:25 PM

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Selling spells at the price of (spell level)*(caster level)*10 gp is incredibly lucrative: assuming Intelligence of 24, an 11th level wizard would make

11,000 gp per day

if he managed to sell all his spells (not even counting cantrips) at the listed price.

His level-appropriate wealth is 66,000 gp. So in a week, he could more than double his entire fortune.

Moreover, it requires no special feats or skills - unlike, say, crafting - so any caster can engage in this trade at his leisure. And to top it off, again unlike crafting, selling spells does not take any time beyond that required for casting the spells. So the wizard can do whatever he wants for 23 hours 50 minutes, and set only 10 minutes per day for performing casting services.

Yep, that's 11,000 gp for 10 minutes of work.

Still wondering why NPC wizards are eager to sell their services?

Well to be fair most a sell-spell's "Work" in getting that kind of money would be finding people who need hs spells cast, and convincing them he can do it best. Same as any freelancer.

So while he could in theroy make that much money, it's unlikly he'll do it THAT quickly. :smallbiggrin:

Baalthazaq

2009-05-22, 04:36 PM

Well consider the following recent post

I may be wrong, but BJBB seems more of a simulationist, in terms of the old gamist, narrativist, simulationist divide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), and UP more of a gamist. I get this take on UP from exchanges like

It's important to note that gamist, narrativist, and simulationist are terms that indicate tendencies. Few are purely one thing and not the other.

The problem at hand is that continual scry-buff-teleport tactics make the game tedious / the world unplayable. It seems all are in agreement with that.

So you have to stop it somehow. For ex, you solved it your way and BJBB solved it his way. I'm not sure if UP DM'ed but he would probably solve it his. Pretty much every DM and group solve it in some way. You can even solve the problem with the rules are written.

The argument seems to be how best to solve it. Does that really matter? Well that depends again on your point of view. To me, a gamist, it's best not to think about it too much. You have a lot to do as a DM so at some point scry-buff-teleport will become an issue. When it does, you deal with it then. This part of the argument is at cross-purposes because each one is talking about how they would solve it.

The argument then devolves into whether a particular set of rules is "broken". I would have to disagree with BJBB that "What is 'it' is that the 3.x rules are broken, and themselves ruin play if played by RAW." The 3.5 rules are rules for an open-ended high fantasy game. And like any such rule set that is a bit open-ended, you can find exploits. And the exploits were made easier by the amount of sources that were published. But overall they functioned just fine for what they were, a set of rules for a fun game. This did not mean that there weren't some rules that needed fixing.

4e has gone in another direction and closed of many options (or at least those options have not yet been published). But overall, in playtesting 4e, I found it playable but one that created a totally different game experience.

So which is better 4e or 3.5? For a game, in my opinion, that's a matter of taste. However, 4e as a set of rules for world simulation fails just as much as 3.5. These are fantasy worlds. They require suspension of disbelief.

Take OotS which is not an instance of a game but a story based on a game by an author who has a lot of experience in DM'ing and world design.

When they started out, the OotS "PCs" did not use scrying-teleport tactics themselves. Yet we were shown that Xykon did scry on them. Why did he not take them out? Well because at first he needed them and then after certain events they were off his radar. Then we learnt that spirits in the afterlife, the gods and demons are also keeping tabs on OotS. Yet these have limited abilities to affect the party directly. As they got to higher level they ran into NPCs who also used divinations like Shojo and Kubota and the clients of the Oracle. Again these NPCs had limits as to what they could do. Even when OotS used the Oracle they were limited in the information they could gather. Plus they did not optimally use the Oracle. Now when V and Durkon got to the point that they could use divination, the "DM" was ready with Xykon's cloister. Still V and Durkon could have better used divination to find out both about the existence of the cloister and the reason why the fleet was under constant attack. Even when V had "ultimate" arcane power, he still chose not scry as much as he good. V teleported to Xykon's lair and of course Xykon was ready for that.

So here is an example of the solution of the problem of scry-teleport that uses a mixture of rules as written, homebrew spells, in-story reasons and in-character reasons. And OotS is believable story all through out, at least in my opinion.

I would agree with that I think, my only qualm is that he specifically stated that "if you're playing over level X everyone has to be holding an idiotball". IT is simply not the case that nerfing everything is good DMing.

This is a game set in medieval times. With wooden houses. With wooden doors. With regular castles. With Wooden ships that make up a navy. With entire races of people who live in trees.

Anyone who can cast burning hands completely destroys the realism in such a setting. Everyone has to hold an idiotball for everything. This remains the case in 4E where infinite burning hands are possible.

You have a guy with an invisible flamethrower in medieval times. You have thousands of people with undetectable flamethrowers. This alone throws your game into turmoil. There is no need for high level scry or die.

Technically the whole world already needs to accommodate for people being able to wipe out the elves by hiring 5 or 6 well placed level 1 sorcerers.

Do you?
Yes: Then do the same for scry and die.
No: Then shut up about scry and die.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 04:44 PM

More entertainment!

Spoilering everything related to the old debate in a different thread:

UP tried to claim that the Efreiti could not be Intimidated

I'm smiling with much mirth over here, thanks 8=)))

Wasn't it... you who tried to use Intimidate. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5815181&postcount=262).. the Efreeti's Intimidate... on the PC? Failing because to influence attitude Intimidate needs to be applied over 10 rounds... and because the Efreeti was paralyzed by the Ghoul Glyph?

My strat never included any use of Intimidate. It's not even a class skill for the character, and Diplomacy is much better anyway.

And, repeat after me:

Singular: EFREETI
Plural: EFREET

Get it right next time!

Nah, I know you won't 8=)))

Diplomacy takes a full minute to take effect. The same as Intimidate. UP tried to claim that the Efreiti could not be Intimidated, but that requires a ruling for Intimidate which does not match the same ruling for Diplomacy.

Wow, just wow. You've graduated from fighting strawmen. Now you're fighting... yourself!

Yep, it was you who claimed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5820463&postcount=303) that the check to change another’s behavior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm) would take only a standard action, and not 10 rounds - contrary to both the explicitely written rule ("Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction" - SRD, PHB) and the rule for Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm)("Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute" - SRD).

Remember how you tried to prove this by claiming that "intimidating an opponent in combat" does not refer to Demoralizing an opponent but to any Intimidate check, including changing another's behaviour? And how it came out that this would destroy both the Intimidate mechanic, making 1-minute checks pointless, and its relation to Diplomacy, which allows a rushed check only as a full-round action with a -10 skill penalty?

Which is another power gaming characteristic: Apply vague rules the way that benefits you the most, even if that means inconsistent rulings.

Kinda like what you tried to do with Intimidate? Only the rules weren't even vague or inconsistent, you just tried to twist them to your liking.

But there are defenses against Diplomacy. Since the PC is trying to purchase the NPCs services this could be said to be a negotiation. In a negotiation you roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the NPC has the advantage of 6 levels of skill points over the PC.

Wrong again. Diplomacy is a class skill for Clerics, but not for Wizards.

And it's not a negotiation relating to the service. The PC is buying the service at the asked price. The price does not include questions asked (although the Wizard can certainly ask them as part of normal interaction). The Diplomacy check is just to make the Wizard friendly instead of indifferent to the PC.

The only rule for this is "the winner gains the advantage", which the GM may interpret as they see fit.

Power gaming, you said? Exploiting vague rules, you said? Interpret as they see fit?

So, let's see, by applying a Diplomacy check, you can get anything, ever.

No, wait, there's that entire NPC attitudes thing. If revealing information would put the character in danger, Friendly attitude won't be enough to do it.

It would be completely within the GMs purview to give the NPC the advantage of having asked the PC to describe the purpose of summoning a Efriite.

No, see above.

Here's another defense against Diplomacy which is applicable to this situation and is legal within the rules:

Player: I use Diplomacy to change the NPCs attitude.
GM: That takes one minute. On his next action, 6 seconds later, the NPC attacks you. Roll for initiative. If you live for the next 10 melee rounds your Diplomacy may have some effect on the now Hostile NPC.

Why would the NPC attack? The PC is only trying to reason with him. Is the NPC a chaotic evil monster with an INT of 5?

Is this cheesy? Sure thing. But this uses the same sense of "legal within the rules" cheese that people like UP like to employ to do things like attempt to gain infinite wishes at 5th level.

If you call changing neutral NPCs' attitudes to Hostile the moment a PC uses Diplomacy "legal within the rules", and if you believe the GM's entire goal is to stop the player from doing something, why not just "rocks fall, everyone dies"?

UP was outlining a theory, he had no GM.

I am glad you understand that it was an exercise in optimisation and not an actual game.

He was using the "rule"

Not "rule". Rule. As in, Rule of the game.

of NPC spell casting prices to support his theory, because by reducing the NPC from a person in a setting to an automated teller where you pay in a certain amount of golds and receive a desired service

Any caster PC would gladly offer services at the conditions prescribed by PHB for the NPCs. Well, I mean, PCs/players who can actually calculate economic gain from running a business.

he doesn't have to worry about the GM applying the logical conclusions to the role playing situation.

If you didn't get it by this point, I'm all about logical conclusions to RPG situations.

I don't think you can classify UP as a gamist. He has a stated dislike for playing D&D as a series of level appropriate challenges, which precludes "games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents."

[Edited in light of the particular usage of the word "gamist"]

"Successively tougher challenges" does not equal "level-appropriate challenges". D&D, being quoted as an example of "gamist" RPGs, has this to say on the subject:

A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters. If the characters are of higher level than the monster, they get fewer XP because the monster should be easier to defeat. Likewise, if the characters are of lower level than a monster’s Challenge Rating, the PCs get a greater award.
...

The party should be able to take on many more encounters
lower than their level but fewer encounters with ELs higher than their level. As a general rule, if the EL is two lower than the party’s level, the PCs should be able to take on twice as many encounters before having to stop and rest. Two levels lower than that, and the number of encounters they can cope with doubles again, and so on. By contrast, an encounter of even one or two levels higher than the party level might tax the PCs to their limit, although with luck they might be able to take on two such encounters before needing to recover. Remember that when the EL is higher than the party level, the chance for PC fatality rises dramatically.

DIFFICULTY
Sometimes, the PCs encounter something that’s a pushover for them. At other times, an encounter is too difficult, and they have to run away. A well-constructed adventure has a variety of encounters at several different levels of difficulty.

Table 3–2: Encounter

Difficulty shows (in percentage terms) how many encounters of a certain difficulty an adventure should have.

% of Total | Encounter | Description

10% | Easy |EL lower than party level

20% | Easy if handled properly | Special (see below)

50% | Challenging | EL equals that of party

15% | Very difficult | EL 1–4 higher than party level

5% | Overpowering | EL 5+ higher than party level

As you can see, even the basic rules provide for level-inappropriate encounters - and these guidelines are tailored more towards beginners/intermediates than expert players. After all, that BIG table on page 38, about XP awards for encounters up to 20 CR in difference, is there for some reason.

No, I'm having a conversation with a group of people which has evolved from the subject of this thread.

No, you're trying to derail the thread into off-topic. If you want to debate that strat, go reanimate the original thread.

And you're interrupting. Shoo.

Ah-ha-ha, precious 8=))) Encore.

quick_comment

2009-05-22, 04:52 PM

The Epic level campaign which I run, the level 106 or so fighter, could probably beat a level 25 wizard to death with his bare hands.

I doubt it, since by level 25, a wizard can make himself immune to damage, if you can even hit him through the many miss chances, abrupt jaunts and such.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 04:54 PM

Well to be fair most a sell-spell's "Work" in getting that kind of money would be finding people who need hs spells cast, and convincing them he can do it best. Same as any freelancer.

So while he could in theroy make that much money, it's unlikly he'll do it THAT quickly. :smallbiggrin:

You're absolutely right! And that's why the wizard would be happy to have a customer.

He'll make a good living, though: by D&D statistics, only a small fraction of the population are casters, and there are even less high-level ones. 11th level casters would be readily available in a Metropolis (population 25,001+), but hard to find in lesser cities. Thus, the richer classes of society would be providing them with steady clientele, but adventurers with gold to spare would still be highly welcome.

HamsterOfTheGod

2009-05-22, 05:02 PM

You have a guy with an invisible flamethrower in medieval times. You have thousands of people with undetectable flamethrowers. This alone throws your game into turmoil. There is no need for high level scry or die.

100% agreement! But I will elaborate because I like the sound of my own voice...

Taken to an extreme, the rules of many games could be used to form such a world. It's an instance of Hong Ooi's law, "Any sufficiently ubiquitous magic is indistinguishable from technology." Your example is similar to what was done in Eberron except without as much flaming death from invisible tree killers.

You could even say that about the real world today, assault rifles are really plentiful and cheap. Yet in the real world no everyone is shooting at other people with super weapons from miraculously long distances...well at least not everywhere in the world...and not all the time.

Hell, you could even make a believable game world that was like that with invisible fireballing sorcerers everywhere nuking everything in sight. Sure, PCs wouldn't survive long but it could be fun, especially if you liked post-apocalyptic games like Gamma World or if you liked adventures like A Paladin in Hell.

The point is, the games rules themselves create necessarily some biases and inconsistencies within the game world. If you add magic rules, even very modest ones, as you showed, the problems only get worse. And if you add rules for high fantasy, the biases and inconsistencies are increased a tremendous amount. But it does not matter as long as there is suspension of disbelief...and I find it really helps if you don't think too much about how it all is supposed to work in-game.

Zherog

2009-05-22, 05:04 PM

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 05:20 PM

I may be wrong, but BJBB seems more of a simulationist, in terms of the old gamist, narrativist, simulationist divide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), and UP more of a gamist.

A gamist, but also a simulationist, because this is important for me:

Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.

It's not interesting to "win" in unrealistic/implausible conditions (e.g. Deus ex Machina, idiot ball etc.).

Narrativism also has its place: I like my characters with an ideology and an agenda. Although if taken in broader terms, I'd prefer to relegate narrativism to the DM.

The problem at hand is that continual scry-buff-teleport tactics make the game tedious / the world unplayable. It seems all are in agreement with that.

Not me; I pointed out that there are many creative ways to deal with scry-and-dies, while fully within the ruleset. And also that buffing is not tedious once you break it down into simple routines on a schedule.

So here is an example of the solution of the problem of scry-teleport that uses a mixture of rules as written, homebrew spells, in-story reasons and in-character reasons. And OotS is believable story all through out, at least in my opinion.

Despite being sometimes frustrated with OoTS, I tend to agree. In general, it's a very well-constructed story, and it does address the issues you've raised in various interesting ways. My only point would be that there isn't really a need for homebrew spells to deal with scry&dies; but Cloister wasn't quite homebrew, you could achieve similar results with a properly constructed epic spell.

Warren Dew

2009-05-22, 05:23 PM

So you believe anyone who likes to battle encounters above or below their CR is not a gamist? Their style of play is invalid and does not deserve to exist in D&D?

I'm not sure about the GNS model, which never really made much sense to me, but the original gamist-dramatist-simulationist (or challenge-story-world) triangle model illustrated tradeoffs: the three corners were mutually exclusive, and more of one corner meant less of another. In this model, a pure gamist would indeed be interested only in level appropriate challenges, perhaps adjusted a bit for player skill, since lesser challenges would be seen as pointless and greater challenges would likely require gamesmaster fudging to survive.

In this model it is neither an insult or a compliment to be called a gamist or not a gamist, as there are no value judgements attached to the styles: rather, they just serve to illustrate that different people like to play roleplaying games in different ways.

In this model, I think you are more of a simulationist than BillyJimBoBob since you seem to take the rules as closer to "laws of physics" of the game world; since it is a tradeoff model, that likely would mean he is more of a gamist. However, it's possible that you're just different flavors of gamist.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 05:25 PM

I doubt it, since by level 25, a wizard can make himself immune to damage, if you can even hit him through the many miss chances, abrupt jaunts and such.

One grapple, and the 60+strength tears the poor sap to part.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 05:27 PM

Why would the NPC attack? The PC is only trying to reason with him. Is the NPC a chaotic evil monster with an INT of 5?

Well, if that's the case I think you need to find yourself a new wizard to hire anyway. So you may as well kill him for the XP and loot. :smallbiggrin:

I doubt such a creature would give out much of both 8=) Body of a wizard + mind of an animal = meager CR and no loot.

Kind of like a reversed Magic Jar... hey, that would make a fun monster! A brute (aberration?) that takes over your body, imprisoning your soul in its own hideous carcass... then attacking your allies with tooth & nail!

Alex Warlorn

2009-05-22, 05:34 PM

Players get really pissy when the big bad evil guy does it to them.

Turnabout is fair play. Though the big bad evil guy isn't hunting down every adventuring party in existence because they MIGHT be after him.. he's got an evil empire to run after all.

Oh and as long as we're on the subject, how many Cohorts can a player have at one time? It gives a number for Followers but not Cohorts.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 05:36 PM

Turnabout is fair play. Though the big bad evil guy isn't hunting down every adventuring party in existence because they MIGHT be after him.. he's got an evil empire to run after all.

Oh and as long as we're on the subject, how many Cohorts can a player have at one time? It gives a number for Followers but not Cohorts.

One and only one.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 05:57 PM

One grapple, and the 60+strength tears the poor sap to part.

You'd have to make a melee touch attack against the wizard first - not an easy thing to do.

Also to consider: Earthen Grasp, second level spell (Spell Compendium), no save, grapples with AB = Caster level and Strength = 14 + 2/3 Caster level. Cast at range of 25ft + 5ft/2 levels. It makes grapple attacks every round for 2 rounds/level, without provoking AoO.

With a simple build like Wizard 5/Red Wizard 5/Wyrm Wizard 2 you can have 66+ Caster level by character level 12.
That's 66 AB and 58 STR for purposes of grapple (total grapple check 1d20+90, automatic success on a natural 20). With a scroll of Time Stop and Quickened Spell, the wizard can cast 14 of these at once, at 190ft range. 14 grapples at +90 per round. And that's only level 12.

Now, if we talk a serious level 108 fighter, he'd be decked out in magic items and surrounded by lackeys. But the 25th level wizard gets Disjunction and epic spells. So, I put my money on the mage.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 05:59 PM

One and only one.

Two if you're a Thrallherd 8=)

Volkov

2009-05-22, 05:59 PM

You'd have to make a melee touch attack against the wizard first - not an easy thing to do.

Also to consider: Earthen Grasp, second level spell (Spell Compendium), no save, grapples with AB = Caster level and Strength = 14 + 2/3 Caster level. Cast at range of 25ft + 5ft/2 levels. It makes grapple attacks every round for 2 rounds/level, without provoking AoO.

With a simple build like Wizard 5/Red Wizard 5/Wyrm Wizard 2 you can have 66+ Caster level by character level 12.
That's 66 AB and 58 STR for purposes of grapple (total grapple check 1d20+90, automatic success on a natural 20). With a scroll of Time Stop and Quickened Spell, the wizard can cast 14 of these at once, at 190ft range. 14 grapples at +90 per round. And that's only level 12.

Now, if we talk a serious level 108 fighter, he'd be decked out in magic items and surrounded by lackeys. But the 25th level wizard gets Disjunction and epic spells. So, I put my money on the mage.

Are you sure, he one shotted a great wyrm white dragon with a +5 flaming blast, axiomatic power, holy power greataxe.

quick_comment

2009-05-22, 06:04 PM

One grapple, and the 60+strength tears the poor sap to part.

Freedom of movement prevents grapples entirely, and this is a level 25 caster. He has 4th level spells.

If somehow the fighter manages to grab him despite FoM, Ghostform, abrupt jaunt, greater blink, greater dimension jumper, displacement, wings of cover and all that, then the wizard just shapechanges into a bone ooze and bone melds the poor fighter. Or shapechanges into a titan and makes it impossible to grapple him (you cant grapple something much larger than you).

Oh, and the caster has an epic spell that makes the first few attacks reflect onto the fighter. 10 attacks reflected would be DC 47. You can get the DC down to nearly nothing, since the reflect seed has a 12 hour duration, so you can spend 10 minutes casting it and take lots of backlash that you then heal.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 06:11 PM

Are you sure, he one shotted a great wyrm white dragon with a +5 flaming blast, axiomatic power, holy power greataxe.

And got how much XP for that? 8=)

Seriosly, non-epic monsters are rarely a challenge for epic characters. And you're talking 108 level epic here.

Also, taking out dragons in 1 hit is nothing to brag about even for non-epic melee builds. Take a decent Warblade/Cavalier, throw in 1 level of cleric w/Magic Domain, focus on charging feats (Spirited Charge etc.) and disciplines (White Raven), buy a Dragonbane wand-storing lance with a wand of Wraithstrike, and a ring of CL 14 Phantom Steed (fly speed 240ft woot!). Go Necropolitan for the immunities and general kicks. You'll be taking down dragons like there's no tomorrow.

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 06:27 PM

Freedom of movement prevents grapples entirely, and this is a level 25 caster. He has 4th level spells.

Sword of Anya Murdock.

(Or if I want to be less campaign specfic: Sword of Anti-Magic Zone) :smalltongue:

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 06:37 PM

Sword of Anya Murdock.

(Or if I want to be less campaign specfic: Sword of Anti-Magic Zone) :smalltongue:

Disjunction + Quickened Disjunction 8=)

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 06:49 PM

Bah the Sword was an Artifact. :smallbiggrin:

If you're 106th Level you can afford an Epic Mage to make you your Sword of killingthings.

Undead Prince

2009-05-22, 07:06 PM

Bah the Sword was an Artifact. :smallbiggrin:

So what? 1% chance per CL of destroying anti-magic fields and artifacts, twice cast, guarantees destruction.

And it's only a DC 25 Will save not to lose spellcasting after destroying an artifact.

If you're 106th Level you can afford an Epic Mage to make you your Sword of killingthings.

In fact, if you're 106th level and have Leadership, you've got a 104th level Epic Mage lackey for free 8=)

quick_comment

2009-05-22, 08:10 PM

Yeah, at 106 level, the fighter could afford command word items of every spell in the game. That doesnt mean a level 106 fighter could beat a level 25 wizard, just that a level 106 wizard could be a level 25 wizard.

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 08:35 PM

So what? 1% chance per CL of destroying anti-magic fields and artifacts, twice cast, guarantees destruction.

At a 25 Caster level? Hardly.

1/4 Chance + 1/4 chance =/= 100% chance.

And it's only a DC 25 Will save not to lose spellcasting after destroying an artifact.

Shhhhhhh....

In fact, if you're 106th level and have Leadership, you've got a 104th level Epic Mage lackey for free 8=)

Yeah but what Fighter takes Leadership. :smalltongue:

EVERYONE knows ALL Fighter take Charisma as a dump stat. :smallwink::smallwink:

(That was a joke people)

Volkov

2009-05-22, 08:41 PM

Boots of time stop. The fighter is right in front of the mage, the amount of damage he does in one hit is bad news for anything with less than a d8 hit dice.

The MunchKING

2009-05-22, 08:55 PM

I thought you couldn't hurt people in a Time Stop?

Snake-Aes

2009-05-22, 08:59 PM

You can't.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 09:03 PM

I thought you couldn't hurt people in a Time Stop?

He just has to be in front of him when it ends.

Eldritch_Ent

2009-05-22, 09:40 PM

But once the time stop ends your turn is over, and then it's the wizard's turn, allowing him to either retreat to a safe distance (By, say, guiding his spectral mount with his knees), or by using his favored "touch of death" spell against you...

It's the same reason one doesn't end one's turn within reach of a dragon or something. Sure, you can full attack him next round, but he can full attack YOU *this* round.

Volkov

2009-05-22, 09:44 PM

quick_comment

2009-05-22, 10:04 PM

I thought time-stop always ends on your turn?

No, timestop always ends your turn.

It doesnt matter anyway. No matter what the fighter does, the wizard has celerity as a trump card.

Celerity and multispell, so even if the fighter has items of celerity, the wizard can override it with another one.

Edit: Also, what does the fighter have to get around a simple vanilla reflect seed? With leadership, you could be reflecting the fighter's attacks all day long before you even have to worry about your defenses.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-23, 12:22 AM

Yeah but what Fighter takes Leadership. :smalltongue:

EVERYONE knows ALL Fighter take Charisma as a dump stat. :smallwink::smallwink:

(That was a joke people)

Um... Fighters with 90+ feats?

Your leadership score is based on: Level, Cha, Modifiers. The 106 levels here is going to be the big deal.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-23, 01:02 AM

Incidentally if your DM allows dragon magazine, the "Relicguard" metamagic means AMF will not affect items, allowing you to use all your cool stuff in an AMF provided the item doesn't apply the bonus to you. (Ring of invisibility effectively casts invisibility on you, the spell still effects you so you're dispelled.

The +5 keen dancing sword however is still a +5 keen dancing sword, etc.

In other news, consider the following:
Cleric with Trickery Domain.
Time stop, Persistant Spell, Divine Metamagic(Persistant spell).

Feel free to cast delayed blast fireballs for as long as you don't die of old age.

Another fun tactic for a level 25 Wizard is Time Stop + Cloudkill + Forcecage + AMF. The Fighter will die unless he has a minimum of 250 Con, or has natural immunity to poison.

To be fair there are probably a few "outs" for that tactic at level 106. A DC 120 Escape artist check will get you through of a wall of force for example.

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 02:28 AM

At a 25 Caster level? Hardly.

1/4 Chance + 1/4 chance =/= 100% chance.

Just a few posts above I referenced a build with caster level >60 at character level 12. I'm not even going to go into how high an epic mage can get his caster level.

Even at character level 12, 66% + 66% = 95% probability of success.

Yeah but what Fighter takes Leadership. :smalltongue:

EVERYONE knows ALL Fighter take Charisma as a dump stat. :smallwink::smallwink:

(That was a joke people)

At high levels, Charisma loses relevance as the bulk of the Leadership score is made of the leader's character level + various in-game factors (fame, stronghold etc).

Plus, he can just buy himself a +X Charisma item.

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 02:41 AM

To be fair there are probably a few "outs" for that tactic at level 106. A DC 120 Escape artist check will get you through of a wall of force for example.

I'm curious, how would that be possible? Sounds more like teleportation than Escape Artist. Then again, someone who can beat a DC 120 check is certainly in Houdini territory 8=)

RebelRogue

2009-05-23, 07:45 AM

I'm curious, how would that be possible? Sounds more like teleportation than Escape Artist. Then again, someone who can beat a DC 120 check is certainly in Houdini territory 8=)
Well, it's right there in the Epic usage of Escape Artist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#escapeArtist)... A DC 120 skill check is pretty much as magical as something that is technically mundane gets :smallwink:

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 08:28 AM

Unbread Mince
Gunlead Quince

That’s… just pathetic! Congratulations on lowering yourself to a whole new level. Numbingly bad puns are, however, just a first step in the career of buffoonery: to provide adequate sideshow entertainment, one still needs to master slipping on banana peels, riding tiny bicycles, and receiving pies to the face. Best of luck, however, in your noble endeavour to bring laughter to the crowd 8=))

None of that matters except in terms of how it relates to the story, which is based on drama, which requires conflict. How players make magic items only matters because they're going to want to use them, how they make money only affects the game if people with core can hire Wizards to summon Wish-granting creatures for them (or whatever). If it can't affect the story it shouldn't have rules. IMHO.

1. The rules exist. They’re part of the game system. If you believe they shouldn’t exist, houserule them away. But wait, houseruling is a rule. I guess this leaves you with no other choice than to migrate away from D&D, or any other gaming system for that matter, to the welcoming arms of fantasy novels.

2. Seeing as how the characters’ entire existence in D&D is the story, everything they do is relevant to the story.

3. I won’t touch your understanding of what a D&D game story should be. I’ll just say that to have a good story people don’t always need conflict - as in, wading into battles and putting down monsters. Players can be motivated by a desire to build a functioning business, make friends, spread their views, join organisations and the like. In fact, at the lowest levels it’s often a good idea to avoid conflict to the best of your abilities.

3. People with Core can hire wizards to summon wish-granting creatures. They can be wizards who summon wish-granting creatures. But a) summoning without a reliable method of containment and control is useless and extremely hazardous to the summoner; b) the strategy concerning Efreeti, which I guess you’re trying to reference here, was not limited to Core.

3.5 core D&D manages to fail as a simulation and as a balanced game system.

If by “balanced” you mean “all characters and NPCs have exactly the same power, regardless of how they’re played”, then yes, 3.5 (and all editions of D&D, for that matter) is imbalanced.

If by “balanced” we mean “a consistent world with universal laws which are the same for everybody”, then D&D is balanced. A 2nd level fighter is a god for a 1st level commoner. A wizard may be slain by a goblin's arrow. An intelligent hunting party brings down a monster of a much higher CR. A well-developed character triumphs over a poorly developed character of the same or higher level. Yet they all exist within the same set of rules, the same playing field.

As for simulation, I have yet to see a more deeply developed and structurally integral fantasy gaming system.

Just because there's a lot of rules doesn't mean they work credibly in practise.

As with any system of norms (not even limited to gaming), the results depend heavily on understanding and implementation. If the players haven’t read the “Spells” section of the PHB, if their DM hadn’t read the "Pre-empting Characters' Abilities" and "Handling Divinations" sections of the DMG, but they are still eager to parrot that “Scry + Greater Teleport = OMG everyone dies”, does not mean that the rules are flawed. It means that those who apply the rules can’t be bothered to figure out how to get around this very simple challenge. With such an approach, I don’t see reasons to waste time on D&D at all. Surely more appealing forms of entertainment would be available.

Your "infinite wishes" concept is an example of why that's a bad idea from a game-design perspective.

Why do I get a feeling you don’t have a clue about how that scheme was actually supposed to work? You’re just flaunting someone else’s words about “infinite wishes” without making an effort to understand the underlying mechanics, right?

That scheme, though reasonably advanced, was not waterproof on a number of levels. As the DM and players get more experienced, new ways open up to get ahead – but flanking them are many new ways for the world to get back at the player. That scheme was an example of aggressive playing; it got your character into the thick of things very early in the game. It was risky. It was designed to work if everything was done “by the book”: the wizard offered services according to the PHB, the summoned Efreeti was taken straight from the MM, etc.; but once players and DMs get experienced, the world evolves. That Efreeti might have had an immunity from mind-affecting item; he might have been bound/scryed upon by his superiours; the Sultan of Brass might have had established a routine of leeching off the Efreet’s wishes as soon as the abilities refresh; in short, the entire concept of wish economy comes into play. That’s why it was only a theoretical exercise. In one game where we had access to wish-granting creatures, getting your hands on one and making it do your bidding while avoiding the negative consequences was a major quest in and of itself.

One notion I’m going to throw in as an example: Efreet (as well as Djinn) are elemental creatures of fire. Their magic comes from the Elemental Plane of Fire itself. Any use of this magic diminishes the overall power of the plane. The Wish is about the most expensive spell you can cast, with a 5,000 XP cost. The Efreeti doesn’t pay this cost, therefore, it gets relegated to the plane itself. Just one Efreeti using his 3 wishes every day would incur a cost of 5,450,000 XP per year. And there are hundreds of thousands Efreet in the City of Brass alone.

If all of them were to abuse their wish abilities, the XP loss would be so great the Elemental Plane of Fire would implode. Or, if there was a sort of a failsafe trigger, the Efreet would simply lose their wish-granting powers.

Needless to say, the Efreet and their powerful leaders don’t want this to happen. So, they take many precautions to ward themselves against haughty wizards seeking to exploit their abilities.

That's a good premise to build reasonable, rule-friendly foils to various wish-exploiting schemes without having to houserule Efreet, Noble Djinn and the like out of D&D universe.

There's no benefit to knowing how much a castle costs from a sourcebook: that should be the role of the DM, because there's never going to be a single right answer to that kind of question, and creating one just restricts everyone's freedom to use their imaginations.

Right there is the basic flaw in your entire reasoning.

If you don’t want to “restrict” your imagination, why play D&D? Why not just have freeform collective storytelling sessions, without the need for classes, attack rolls, equipment, spellcasting etc.?

And there are huge benefits to know how much stuff costs in D&D. Housing, for instance, is one of the most important aspects of living in the D&D world – it offers protection, raises social status, and alleviates the costs of living – lodging in an inn gets pretty expensive for a large group of people at lower levels, particularly if you’re based in the city and rarely venture outside. Thanks to the DMG, every player knows that he only needs to amass 1,000 gp to buy himself a house. 120,000 gp – and you’re a proud feudal lord with a keep. The Stronghold Builder’s guide goes even further, detailing the mechanics for designing and building a stronghold according to your own tastes.

With these rules in place, the players and the DM need not bother themselves with developing ad hoc regulations every time there arises a mundane question like “can I build a moat around my keep, and if yes, how much does it cost, how long does it take, and what are its effects”.

What's at issue is that the question of the PCs being "challenged" would never come up, were the 3.5e game system applied consistently and with villains who fight using the same tactics available to players (including scry-and-die). Because they'd be dead.

Again, just because you don’t know what something is and how can it be countered doesn’t mean it’s “broken”.

I believe that I've explained sufficiently why I do not believe your attitude leads to enjoyable games for some people.

Fixed that for you.

I'm content with the idea that it's the result of a philosophical difference.

Your philosophy seems to be that people who follow the rules cannot enjoy D&D.

I will leave it for you to work out the many levels on which that position is wrong.

EDIT: just one last point, as I believe it summarises how this misunderstanding arises.

The D&D rules were written over decades - 3.5 is just the apothesis of layers of overpowered Vancian magic and modular complication that was introduced over the many editions. Almost all of the powers and feats you just listed were added as counters to scry-and-die-like behavior following the widespread use of the tactic, because TSR didn't have the balls to risk player wrath by nerfing it completely

I don't see how this is relevant, as we're discussing 3.5 and not the previous editions. However, I'll humour you out of sport.

Let's take AD&D 2.0. Reasonably old, yet popular and not as obscure as its antecedents.

Straight out of the 2.0 PHB: Nondetection, Detect Scrying, False Vision, Screen, our old friend the all-powerful Mind Blank, and Foresight all ruin divinations, making scry-and-dies nigh impossible. Forbiddance is even more severe - this sixth-level permanent priest spell locks an area from all forms of teleportation and plane shifting. In Player's Options, there's also Astral Lock - a second level spell that foils astral and ethereal travel. I'm probably missing out some, so 2.0 experts out there may add to the list.

So yeah, there was ample protection against scry-and-die even back then. Though, again, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

(the same applies to other broken elements of the game like polymorphing, which Rich himself doesn't think works).

Shapechange in OoTS. Worked fine, it seems.

Also, the PHB2 fixed polymorph hard by making a nerfed line of spells to replace it.

That you would defend it as a ZOMG INTEGRATED!111!one! rules system despite it's origins, and then claim some sort of tactical expertise for knowing all that trivia by heart is pretty, well... silly. Nice that you're having fun with it, though. :smallsmile:

What have previous editions to do with D&D being an integrated system? Why should some sort of "original sin" taint the newer editions even when the problems in question were resolved? Why should all this prevent from players having tactical expertise in 3.5? Will you keep bringing old editions up even after I've demonstrated that 2.0 had ample protections from scry-and-dies?

Thanks!

Any time. Come again.

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 08:34 AM

Well, it's right there in the Epic usage of Escape Artist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#escapeArtist)... A DC 120 skill check is pretty much as magical as something that is technically mundane gets :smallwink:

Yeah, I'm sure they had Houdini in mind when they wrote it up. That, or some particularly good hash 8=)

However, it does say "allows a character to find a gap of weakness in a wall of force (or similar force effect) and squeeze through it". Normally, a wall of force wouldn't have any gaps or weaknesses... but, that's Epic for you 8=)

Simanos

2009-05-23, 11:15 AM

I guess you did not notice the invisible happy face that ended my post.
Is that sarcasm?
I'm sorry I still don't get if you like 4th ed or not. Were you smiling because you were being sarcastic or because you were happy about 4th?
Talk about going through a Sheldon phase... :smallcool:

Fishman

2009-05-23, 11:27 AM

One notion I’m going to throw in as an example: Efreet (as well as Djinn) are elemental creatures of fire. Their magic comes from the Elemental Plane of Fire itself. Any use of this magic diminishes the overall power of the plane. The Wish is about the most expensive spell you can cast, with a 5,000 XP cost. The Efreeti doesn’t pay this cost, therefore, it gets relegated to the plane itself. Just one Efreeti using his 3 wishes every day would incur a cost of 5,450,000 XP per year. And there are hundreds of thousands Efreet in the City of Brass alone.

If all of them were to abuse their wish abilities, the XP loss would be so great the Elemental Plane of Fire would implode. Or, if there was a sort of a failsafe trigger, the Efreet would simply lose their wish-granting powers.I suddenly have this hilarious image of a frozen campaign world where the elemental plane of fire has been drained of most of its power, leaving the world cold, frozen, and barren due to the lack of elemental fire in the world. The shades of the lifeless Efreeti drained by some Undead Prince haunt this bleak landscape, terrorizing the remaining inhabitants as they struggle for survival.

Simanos

2009-05-23, 11:51 AM

Just a few posts above I referenced a build with caster level >60 at character level 12. I'm not even going to go into how high an epic mage can get his caster level.

Even at character level 12, 66% + 66% = 95% probability of success.
I agree with you on most stuff, but 66% + 66% = 95% is wrong. It's more like 88%.
Also I have a big dislike of splat books so I can't check, but I doubt your example that has caster level 60 at level 12 is legal/possible. You must be misreading some rules or forgetting others.

At epic levels the game loses all reality and connection to me so I can't enjoy it, especially at over level 40. Then it goes on Silmarillion mode and it's about gods and poetic stuff. I'm not really into that personally, but respect for your commitment.

tyckspoon

2009-05-23, 12:03 PM

Another fun tactic for a level 25 Wizard is Time Stop + Cloudkill + Forcecage + AMF. The Fighter will die unless he has a minimum of 250 Con, or has natural immunity to poison.

One of us is missing something here- a character standing in an AMF is screwed in all sorts of ways, but he should be perfectly safe from a Cloudkill. You'll also need/want one of the more specialized builds that can project an AMF, both because of the can't cast AMF in Timestop/AMF ends Timestop thing, and because standing inside 10 feet of an Epic melee threat is a ludicrously bad idea even if he is AMF'd and inside a Forcecage.

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 12:48 PM

I agree with you on most stuff, but 66% + 66% = 95% is wrong. It's more like 88%.

Yes, my mistake, 88,44%.

Also I have a big dislike of splat books so I can't check, but I doubt your example that has caster level 60 at level 12 is legal/possible. You must be misreading some rules or forgetting others.

Red Wizard from the DMG gets you starting CL of 40. Use any number of things available to get +4 CL, for a new total of 44. Take Wyrm Wizard 2 (Dragon Magic) and take Consumptive Field (Spell Compendium) as the spell granted by the class feature. Cast Consumptive Field and voila, you've got CL 66 at level 12. You also get +44 STR as a side dish.

All it takes is DMG, SpC and Dragon Magic. And some Simulacrums to power up the Circle Magic.

To make things more interesting, make your Incantatrix cohort persist the Consumptive Field; take the Acidic Splatter, Dimensional Jaunt & Summon Elemental reserve feats, and heighten the spells powering these feats to 20th level via Circle Magic; now you've got a formidable mage indeed.

At epic levels the game loses all reality and connection to me so I can't enjoy it, especially at over level 40.

Same here. I don't even really play epic. I enjoy trudging it out in the low levels, that's why my recent builds focus on surviving and getting power fast.

Then it goes on Silmarillion mode and it's about gods and poetic stuff.

The bad thing about gods in D&D is that they're always there, whether you're 1st level or 101st. It can get hard if the DM decides to put your god in meddling mode, especially if you're a cleric. Everyone knows how paladins can fall, but it's actually the same for all divine casters who get their powers from deities.

That's why Krynn is so horrible for me 8=) My precious arcane magic just a gift from some fickle moon hobo, who giveth & taketh away at a moment's thought? God, I hate Nuitari 8=))

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 12:56 PM

I suddenly have this hilarious image of a frozen campaign world where the elemental plane of fire has been drained of most of its power, leaving the world cold, frozen, and barren due to the lack of elemental fire in the world. The shades of the lifeless Efreeti drained by some Undead Prince haunt this bleak landscape, terrorizing the remaining inhabitants as they struggle for survival.

Heh heh heh 8=)) I totally have to try that. As an experiment 8=]

Ryusacerdos

2009-05-23, 01:14 PM

Lets see, first casting gives 66%, that leaves 44%;

100 - 66 = 34

Undead Prince

2009-05-23, 01:21 PM

100 - 66 = 34

8=))) Corrected.

Baalthazaq

2009-05-24, 01:49 PM

One of us is missing something here- a character standing in an AMF is screwed in all sorts of ways, but he should be perfectly safe from a Cloudkill. You'll also need/want one of the more specialized builds that can project an AMF, both because of the can't cast AMF in Timestop/AMF ends Timestop thing, and because standing inside 10 feet of an Epic melee threat is a ludicrously bad idea even if he is AMF'd and inside a Forcecage.

Hmmm. You're actually right. I thought cloudkill was basically an "instantaneous" creation spell with the cloud dissipating after a time. Instantaneous creation spells are immune to AMF.

Zherog

2009-05-24, 06:00 PM

I suddenly have this hilarious image of a frozen campaign world where the elemental plane of fire has been drained of most of its power, leaving the world cold, frozen, and barren due to the lack of elemental fire in the world. The shades of the lifeless Efreeti drained by some Undead Prince haunt this bleak landscape, terrorizing the remaining inhabitants as they struggle for survival.

I know you were trying to take a (unfair) shot at UP, but... That actually sounds like a very interesting campaign premise.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-05-26, 09:32 AM

I'd like to take a moment to thank you all for demonstrating just how broken 3.X is within this thread. You've gone down the seemingly inevitable road which any discussion of higher level spell casting in 3.X goes, and I thank you all.
Boots of time stop. The fighter is right in front of the mage, the amount of damage he does in one hit is bad news for anything with less than a d8 hit dice.
It doesnt matter anyway. No matter what the fighter does, the wizard has celerity as a trump card.

Again, just because you don’t know what something is and how can it be countered doesn’t mean it’s “broken”.Not necessarily broken, but that determination does depend entirely upon the game system. When any game devolves into a battle of "I'd beat you by doing X", countered by "But then I'd do Y which neatly defeats your tactic" countered again by "But I can do Z, which trumps your Y!", ad nauseum, the game can be described as broken. I present any discussion of high level casting, including this one, as ample evidence that D&D 3.X is broken. And as backup to this assertion, I present all the retconning which accompanies these discussions: Once a counter to their "instawin" tactic is presented, time is reversed and a counter-counter is presented. And then time reverses yet again and the counter-counter-counter is presented.
Why do I get a feeling you don’t have a clue about how that scheme [to get infinite wishes at 5th level] was actually supposed to work? You’re just flaunting someone else’s words about “infinite wishes” without making an effort to understand the underlying mechanics, right?

That scheme, though reasonably advanced, was not waterproof on a number of levels. [Description of house rules which could be applied to prevent the infinite wishes followed, which included such things as "[...] the Elemental Plane of Fire would implode."]It's amusing that you'd trot out a bunch of extreme house rules when a simple application of Intimidate foiled your plan. Intimidate is broken, as per RAW, but that should be no issue to a rules jockey such as yourself. You employ similar broken rules to carry out your plan, you should have no issue with one more broken rule being used to defeat it, right? In fact even without Intimidate a simple application of the same kind of gamist strategy to the NPCs foils your plan a thousand times over. If the NPCs are not played as simple merchants satisfied with their lot as a list of mindless services which can be bought for a fee and nothing more, your plan never gets beyond a concept, and far less success. And any third party need no more "clue" about your plan then to know that your 6th level character plans to use an 11th level NPC as a door mat in this scheme to obtain infinite wishes. In any fantasy world which applies the rules equally to the NPCs, it is your character who is Dominated and serving as the needed filler skills to the vastly more powerful NPC. But in DoorMatNPCWorld, your plan can succeed.
If you don’t want to “restrict” your imagination, why play D&D? Why not just have freeform collective storytelling sessions, without the need for classes, attack rolls, equipment, spellcasting etc.?Ah, and now we have the final desperate refuge of the power gamer: If you don't play D&D the way I prefer to, it's somehow magically no longer D&D at all and you may as well play some other game system. This is so typical, and quite a pathetic argument.