PDA

View Full Version : Is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?



oxinabox
2009-07-10, 08:28 AM
As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

A wizard or other prepared caster spends an hour each day preparing spells.
it they have more than one source liek a mystic theurge they spend multiple hours preparing spells.
Potentailly by the multiclass rules a Cleric/Wizard/Archivist can exist and would spend 3 hours preparing spells.
This is a really odd multiclass since a Archivist can cast all cleric spells (and learn more) but anyway totally legal.
a plai Mystic Theurge isn't odd and they must spend 2.

Can i spring an encoure on them then? should i?
How many spells would have ready?

Gaiyamato
2009-07-10, 08:33 AM
They also require 8 hours of rest etc.

So getting spells back for the day effectively takes up 10 hours of each 24.

I would only do this in a very intense campaign or part of the campaign. Maybe at the peak of part of the plot while they are deep in enemy territory etc.

But it is not a real taboo. Night raids are kind of a staple in d&d. Hence why parties set watches. ;)

kamikasei
2009-07-10, 08:37 AM
This is something the game glosses over. There's no calculation offered for how many of your spells you've prepared if you're interrupted halfway through the process. It always takes an hour regardless of how many slots you're filling, and if you leave some blank (even if you leave almost all of them blank) it then only takes fifteen minutes to fill as many more of them as you want later (if you're a wizard, perhaps if you're an archivist also).

The assumption is that the party will be given the opportunity to prepare without interruption in the morning, the non-casters standing watch or trading off or just everyone being sealed in a rope trick. If you want to play a game where safety is harder to come by and characters have to be a little more paranoid, you'd need to come up with some rules yourself for the effects of interrupted preparation time. If you've been handwaving this issue so far, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement to start interrupting them now. You might be better off interrupting their rest - there are rules for that already, making it less aggravating to figure out what the players have to do to deal with it.

Coidzor
2009-07-10, 08:39 AM
Hmm... Let's do a rubric of dividing the time up within the hour.

Let's say... oh... 60 minutes/X, where X = number of spellslots individually multiplied by their spell-level(at least .5 in case of cantrips/orisons unless you wanna just give those free.).

So having 3 1st level spells would mean 60 minutes/ 3*1 = 20 minutes per spell. Hmm, but that gets muddled up if one goes with... 60 minutes/ 3*1 + 2*2 + 1*3. 3+3+4=7... 60/7... shouldn't equally get divvied up unless we want a gross oversimplification.

Well I just failed to remember my algebra. I think that's what would be appropriate to this situation...


If interrupted in the middle of preparing the spell, possibly allow the chance to continue the spell being prepared (if it's "close enough") and just cast it automatically if one succeeds a DC 10+spell level or spell level+minutes remaining of preparation CL check?

Gaiyamato
2009-07-10, 08:39 AM
Use a modification of the 2.5 rules.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-10, 08:40 AM
I'd rule that if the hour or 15 mins of preparation is not ended, there are not spells.

So, yes, is right and yes, is amusing (for the DM).

Do it rarely, and better if makes sense (as an example, for the PCs the place is enough good to rest if the terrain is horizontal).

Curmudgeon
2009-07-10, 08:44 AM
It's entirely fair. Generally this preparation is done at first light, which is a very good tactical choice for a surprise assault.

If the player has provided a list of the order of spell preparation just figure out what percentage they've had a chance to complete, rounding down to quarter chunks (15 minute intervals).
Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state. Otherwise pick the spells randomly.

oxinabox
2009-07-10, 08:49 AM
My camapign world kinda safe, I'm playing with new players.
Last time they didn't set a watch (other than a tracing elf)
I didn't Coup de grae any of them.
I'm too nice.

Next time i should be like:

"Rocks fall, everybody dies"
PCs: "but we're in the middle of the ocean...?"
Me: "umm...freak weather formation, Rocks fall, everybody dies . roll new characters"

edit:

If the player has provided a list of the order of spell preparation just figure out what percentage they've had a chance to complete, rounding down to quarter chunks (15 minute intervals).
Currently player are so new, spell preparation is almost done in real time (not quiet).
He'll be better now that i shoed him that on the spell summery he can put numbers next to each spell he prepared to indicate how many he prepared of it

kamikasei
2009-07-10, 08:52 AM
I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

Person_Man
2009-07-10, 08:53 AM
At the start of every campaign I ask PCs how they want to handle end of the day rituals. Do they care about hunting, setting up camp, setting up traps around the camp, setting a watch, etc. If they do (usually because they enjoy immersion roleplaying - these are the guys with every mundane item listed on their equipment list) then I always make sure to have someone/something attack them in the middle of the night (and that thing doesn't outsmart their preparations unless there's a very believable reason to). If they don't, then I don't. The point of D&D is to have fun, roleplay a character, and play strategic combat (in that order, IMO). If adding some new level of strategic combat (preventing casters from regaining spells, and/or attacking them when they're weakest) forces them to do something that they don't enjoy (be paranoid and set up elaborate preparations before they rest) then I don't do it.

Gaiyamato
2009-07-10, 08:53 AM
I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

I'd agree with this.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-10, 08:56 AM
I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

If you assume a living gameworld, a thing like this could happen. Attacks can happen at any time of the day.

More, maybe orcs learned that human priests prey on the early morning, so if you attack them at that moment you are likely to take them not prepared.

"Wher'z CoDzilla, puny human? WHAAAAAGH!"

Of course, from a gaming and a realism prospective, if it happens too often starts to be annoying.

oxinabox
2009-07-10, 08:59 AM
I was just wondering if it's taboo.

If this was a land campign.
I like the idea of setting up tempariary fortifications.
withevery camp.
I think that's done in sparhawk (eddings( i know it';s done in some fantasy...
Depends on the group though.
I'm easing these guys in so i'll do nothing to them.

Not until they've got a dragon under there belt.
Which at the starting lvl should be soonish, give it 5 or so seasons... :smallamused:

oooh what about my other group, wait 4e no spell prep, damn.
they would have enjoyed the challenge

Leon
2009-07-10, 08:59 AM
Don't do it all the time but by all means do it.
Unless they are somewhere really secure then there is no reason to not have something occasionally turn up when they don't want it to (even "safe" isn't always safe - staying at a Inn and its raided by bandits etc)

Renx
2009-07-10, 09:00 AM
Is it said anywhere that the 1 hour is cumulative for classes and has to be uninterrupted? Personally I hate artificial restrictions like this when they interrupt the story (sorry, can't hang out with you, my Queen, I need to go prepare spells) and allow (and expect) leeway with them. A cleric should spend a minimum of 15-20 minutes in his holy time, then receive spells after their rest period. Wizard? An hour-ish of study, but I'd be willing to accept that he studies whenever available and count that time somewhat against the preparation (if it's roleplayed, even more awesome). Mystic theurge? Not sure about their fluff but some amalgam of both would do nicely.

If you want some penalty system, make them study for twice the amount of time of the interruption at the end. Interruptions are sort of a given in any semi-fluff-filled environment. Who in their right mind would suggest that interrupting a wizard by knocking on his door and bringing food would stop the 1-hour period? Hmm... would make for some awesome barmaid skills, though.

Whatever you do, check the players' opinion (hell, if you ask them what should happen, they can be considered forewarned that they should guard their wizards when they're preparing spells :smallwink: ) All in all, I think that people play D&D because they want to bash monsters, cast spells and solve problems. Not manage minutes.

kamikasei
2009-07-10, 09:04 AM
If you assume a living gameworld, a thing like this could happen. Attacks can happen at any time of the day.

Of course. And I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with playing along through the game cheerfully ignoring this and a host of other realism issues, then having it sprung on us when the DM decides he wants to screw us over. I'd rather it be made clear in advance that we're playing in a game where these things are worth worrying about. If we haven't been doing so up until now, I'd rather we be made aware of it by having a handful of wolves attack our camp in the night and prompt us to keep a proper watch from then on, rather than having an ancient Red swoop down and eat us while I'm getting my light spells ready for the day.

Coplantor
2009-07-10, 09:14 AM
Well, you could use a vriation of ADnD spell preparing rules, where every spell takes 10min*spell lvl to be prepared, of course, that means that every 9th level spell would take an hour and a half to be prepared.

Zeful
2009-07-10, 09:44 AM
I'd be annoyed if this kind of thing was introduced without warning - as mentioned, I'd see it as violating an unspoken agreement. I suggest you ease them in to it - give them a sleepless night or two and an ambush while they're not otherwise under any great threat - something they can easily deal with without their spells, but enough to make them aware that they do need to start paying attention to the security of their resting places.

You are adventurers that routinely make more enemies than allies any given day, and you don't expect any kind of asymmetrical warfare? Okay...

As a DM I see no problem with night raids as the casters settle down to prepare their spells. But apparently I'm weird about these things. I don't see a problem with the stealing a wizard's spellbook, hitting the party with Disjunction, or siccing rust monsters on them, all of which are apparent no-nos with this "unspoken" or "gentlemen's" agreement.

Serpentine
2009-07-10, 09:53 AM
I see absolutely no problem with it :smallconfused: Think about it in-game, it would make perfect sense for your monsters/enemies to attack them in their sleep or at some other vulnerable time.

There's a reason why I always check what order my party keeps watch :smallamused:

kamikasei
2009-07-10, 09:55 AM
I can't help but feel I'm being strawmanned here. Many people play games where many realistic details or hazards are glossed over for the sake of a fun game. Others play in fairly ruthless games where the DM will mercilessly exploit any vulnerabilities they leave open. Many play both kinds of games at different times. My point is that if you've been playing the former, it's kind of a jerk move to suddenly switch to the latter.

That's what I mean by an unspoken agreement - and note that I did not say "gentlemen's agreement". That implies that there are certain things "gentlemen" don't do. I said only unspoken agreement, which carries no implication that playing differently is somehow worse, just that it's bad to introduce something everyone else at the table had assumed was being eschewed.

Also, such other tactics as you describe are very much a matter of a "gentlemen's agreement" and not an unspoken one as I've been describing. They are the "these are really unfun things to have done to you, so play nice and I won't break them out" elements of the game. Again, many are perfectly happy to have them in play and just play more carefully. You seem to be confusing this attitude with my idea that if certain "realistic" aspects of the game have been glossed over up to now, it's bad form to suddenly introduce them in order to screw over players who weren't taking precautions against them.

Claudius Maximus
2009-07-10, 10:12 AM
I find it to be a very reasonable tactic from an in-character view. Everyone who knows a Wizard knows how spell preparation works, including that it's a window of vulnerability. Similarly, it shouldn't be too hard of a Knowledge (Religion) check to know when a cleric of a particular deity has to pray for spells. Attacks during these times by intelligent foes shouldn't be rare. My players can be attacked at any point, and they know it, and I hardly consider my game ruthless.

Zeful
2009-07-10, 10:23 AM
I can't help but feel I'm being strawmanned here. Many people play games where many realistic details or hazards are glossed over for the sake of a fun game.Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?:smallconfused:


That's what I mean by an unspoken agreement - and note that I did not say "gentlemen's agreement". That implies that there are certain things "gentlemen" don't do. I said only unspoken agreement, which carries no implication that playing differently is somehow worse, just that it's bad to introduce something everyone else at the table had assumed was being eschewed.I don't see a difference. Just because I'm not using an element now, doesn't mean it's not there. If they assume that I'm going to ignore tactically bad decisions, then it's their fault if their not prepared for the consequences.


You seem to be confusing this attitude with my idea that if certain "realistic" aspects of the game have been glossed over up to now, it's bad form to suddenly introduce them in order to screw over players who weren't taking precautions against them.That's probably true, but I really don't understand the difference. How do you gloss over these "realistic aspects"? I've always got these things in mind as both a player and a DM. You make it sound like I can't use a valid tactic unless I've used it before, which I frankly find ludicrous, because at the start of the game I haven't used any tactics, meaning I'm allowed none. I'm willing to chalk that up to an simple inability to understand what you mean though.

wizuriel
2009-07-10, 10:28 AM
I would say it depends on the area.

If your in a fairly safe land just travelling than it would be bad luck to be attacked at night by something seriously. Though even than an animal stumbling near your camp ground smelling tasty humanoid flesh might attack.


meanwhile if your in a forest tracking down some kind of bandit band I would expect them to attack at night. Even if they don't know the party has spell casters the bandits would probably feel safer attacking at night to slow the party down or get a quick kill. They would be more disruptive and not really fight unless the odds are considerably in their favour.

JeenLeen
2009-07-10, 10:37 AM
I think it would be a good one-time event, maybe in the future a few sessions later. It is a cheap move, but reasonable and a good challenge. I had a night raid once where the enemy got past our guard's spot and coup de grace'd the fighter. The casters were low on spells from battles the day before, and those who wore full plate weren't wearing it at the time. It was challenging--we almost Word of Recalled out--but fun.

I know you can leave some spell slots blank to prepare them later in the day and it not another full hour, so I imagine letting the caster have a percentage of their spells readied makes sense. Curmudgeon's calculation seems fitting.

Also, a wizard or cleric can hold a spell in their mind until it is cast or until they release it to prepare a new spell. So it's plausible that any spells remaining from the day before are still ready-to-cast. I guess it depends on how the character prepares spells (or how the DM says spell preparation works): does he drop all spells he plans to replace ahead of time, or does it drop a spell as he prepares a new one?
A cautious player would do the latter; but your players won't necessarily be cautious until they get a raid during spell prep.

Edit: I do agree that it should be done by an enemy planning to attack during spell prep. It could happen randomly, but having an in-game reason for the enemy's raid other than coincidence would make me happier if it happened in my game. The DM doesn't need a reason, but it's good if he has one.

bosssmiley
2009-07-10, 10:41 AM
As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?

Of course it is.

Think of it in terms of the psychology of the creatures you are DMing:

Pointy Hat Make Fire. Fire Hurt. Pointy Hat Is Not Your Friend. Kill Him First. (http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/633/633817p1.html)

You are doing the players a disservice if their enemies are being played as too stupid to take out the wizard first. When is a wizard at his weakest? During spell prep. QED.

And that's why there are two types of wizard in D&Dland: the paranoid, and the dead.

Yahzi
2009-07-10, 10:42 AM
As a DM is it right to attack someone while they are preparing spells?
Is there any better time to attack them? :smallbiggrin:

Try thinking like a monster. Is it right for the monsters to attack the party when the party is surprised, wounded, and out of spells? Well, doh!

That's the whole point of minions. The BBEG knows his little guys can't actually kill the party. But they can make them waste their spells. And once they do, then (and only then) does the BBEG move in for the kill.

(BTW, this is why you need fighters. A wizard can win any one encounter at the cost of spells, but a fighter can win lots of encounters with low-level critters, often without even losing hit-points.)

It's up to the players to manage their resources (spells, etc.) properly. It's up to the DM to manage the resources of the monsters as best as the monsters could.


Edit: Er... what bosssmiley said. :smallredface:



Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?:smallconfused:
In the same way it made for a popular novel in Twilight. :smallbiggrin:

Note I didn't say I liked it; just that a lot of people seemed to, despite even a shred of coherence. :smalltongue:

kamikasei
2009-07-10, 10:46 AM
Huh? How would glossing over those things make for a fun game?:smallconfused:
...
That's probably true, but I really don't understand the difference. How do you gloss over these "realistic aspects"? I've always got these things in mind as both a player and a DM. You make it sound like I can't use a valid tactic unless I've used it before, which I frankly find ludicrous, because at the start of the game I haven't used any tactics, meaning I'm allowed none. I'm willing to chalk that up to an simple inability to understand what you mean though.

Many groups view only certain aspects of the game as entertaining enough to spend time and attention on: mostly, meeting people who want other people dead, killing those people, taking their stuff (I'm being flippant, of course, and don't mean that only hack-and-slash players are selective in their focus). It's common enough that certain things, like, say, rest, preparation, rations, hygeine etc. are simply ignored: everyone assumes that you have food enough to get you from town to town, that you know how to crap in the woods, that you don't get scurvy or gum disease from your poor diet and dental care, etc. These things are simply glossed over and the game focuses on exploring the dungeon or slaying the dragon or securing that audience with the queen or seducing the prince regent or whatever.

If the group are used to playing like this, it's fairly obnoxious for the DM to suddenly pipe up when they're halfway across the desert trail to ask "by the way, let me see your sheets, I want to check how much food and water you all have". Of course, since no one has been paying attention to that, no one has any, and the DM declares that they're all dying of thirst. Fun! Point being, you can have a perfectly enjoyable game in which you keep track of rations and environmental hazards and such, but it's unlikely to be very enjoyable to suddenly switch to such a game in the middle of one where you've been paying it no mind. (Of course, you might switch from "okay, we've been in Generic Temperate Kingdom A where it's easy to reprovision and travel distances are short" to "now we're about to set off to the Land of Heat and Thirst and Ominous Bleached Bones" and declare "right, time to start tracking that stuff". That's a natural transition within the game.)

Similarly, if the group has gone on for a while assuming that they can always find a safe resting spot, get their night's sleep, and make their preparations uninterrupted - if the DM has never asked "where are you making camp?" or "what's the order of the watch?" or the like - if you have been glossing over it, it's obnoxious for the DM to suddenly make it an issue where everyone had been assuming it was being handwaved.

If the game starts out like that or makes an actual transition to that and everyone is aware of it and can take it in to account, it's fine. If it switches abruptly at the DM's whim, it's not. In character, it's like the characters who the players had assumed were finding a convenient motel each night and pulling in for bed and breakfast are suddenly revealed to have simply been parking at the side of the road and lying in the ditch for the night, and apparently hadn't noticed until they woke up one morning to realize they were starving and had a coyote eating their foot.


I don't see a difference. Just because I'm not using an element now, doesn't mean it's not there. If they assume that I'm going to ignore tactically bad decisions, then it's their fault if their not prepared for the consequences.

A "gentlemen's agreement" implies that certain things are ungentlemanly, i.e. rude, uncouth, unseemly, improper, etc., and so since everyone involved is a gentleman they won't come up. Serious cheese is often treated like this: "Sure", says the DM, "you can use Gaterape if you don't mind your enemies using it too". Disjunction is often treated similarly too. It's a "do unto others" thing.

An unspoken agreement makes no judgment that its subject is bad, it's just not something you're bothering with. As mentioned above, it's not so much that the group blindly assume you'll ignore bad decisions, as that up to now you have done so and they've assumed it was something that just wasn't being dealt with.

Zeful
2009-07-10, 10:56 AM
I see, thank you for the explanation.

Jaltum
2009-07-10, 11:41 AM
I think the key thing, as a DM, is not to assume that if something hasn't been specified, the characters are being idiots.

If the DM is planning a night attack, or just wants to raise player alertness to the POSSIBILITY of one, s/he should ask questions like, "What's the watch order tonight?" It shouldn't be assumed that because the players haven't specified it that they haven't been keeping one, anymore than it should be assumed that because the players haven't been mentioning their bathroom breaks, their character has never peed.

"Roll a fort save. Oh, your bladder just burst, roll up a new character."

A game is always going to be an incomplete simulation.

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-10, 12:48 PM
There's no calculation offered for how many of your spells you've prepared if you're interrupted halfway through the process. It always takes an hour regardless of how many slots you're filling, and if you leave some blank (even if you leave almost all of them blank) it then only takes fifteen minutes to fill as many more of them as you want later (if you're a wizard, perhaps if you're an archivist also).
NUH UH!


Spell Preparation Time
After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

Spell Selection and Preparation
Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.
I suggest the following: It takes 15 minutes of meditation immediately prior to preparing spells. The time needed to prepare a spell is proportionate to its level. Count 0-level spells as 1st-level spells for this purpose. It takes 45 minutes for a prepared spellcaster to prepare all of her spells. For example, a third-level generalist wizard with Int 15 gets 4 cantrips, 3 first-level spells, and 2 second-level spells per day. 4*1 + 3*1 + 2*2 = 11. So it takes 45/11 minutes, or just under 41 rounds, for the wizard to prepare a cantrip or first-level spell, and twice that long to prepare a second-level spell.

By RAW, the time required to achieve the mental state necessary to prepare spells overlaps with the time spent actually preparing them, but that seems silly.

Should a spell be lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of preparing it, just as a spell is lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of casting it? That could go either way; I'm inclined to say that yes, the spell is lost. Regardless, at most one spell is ruined by a single interruption. On the other hand, the caster needs another 15 minutes of meditation to begin preparing spells again.

Lamech
2009-07-10, 01:48 PM
Why would the enemies attack at spell prep? I'm a little confused as to how this would be a big advantage. If for some reason a cleric can't prepare spells at their normal time they can use the next available chance. If for some reason a wizard doesn't prepare all their spells they can prepare them at any later chance.

I'm not seeing this as a big problem. It really like one extra encounter, but with out, maybe, the long lasting buffs. Do I misunderstand the preperation rules?


Should a spell be lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of preparing it, just as a spell is lost if the caster is interrupted in the middle of casting it? That could go either way; I'm inclined to say that yes, the spell is lost. Regardless, at most one spell is ruined by a single interruption. On the other hand, the caster needs another 15 minutes of meditation to begin preparing spells again. RAW just says that unfilled slots can be filled later so I would say, no. Unless you tell the wizard ahead of time. (Which would tip the wizard off to the DM's attacking the party during prep.)



As a DM I see no problem with night raids as the casters settle down to prepare their spells. But apparently I'm weird about these things. I don't see a problem with the stealing a wizard's spellbook, hitting the party with Disjunction, or siccing rust monsters on them, all of which are apparent no-nos with this "unspoken" or "gentlemen's" agreement. If you break out disjunction on a me as a player I would feel perfectly justified in wishing the BBEG and friends into the sun. And using fabricate to make money. The stealing of the spellbook is kind of a problem. It makes sense to target it, but... it totally gimps the wizard. Which makes it unfun... again any DM that did that would be introduced to fabricate.

I think in general having items that give a character all there power are a bad idea, or even a big chunk of it. Often times those items get considered as a balancing factor (and if they are not then you give a character a major weakness, which is bad from a balance perspective), but to actually use it is just plain unfun. Which means the character is unfairly powerful because it can't actually be used. Or the character isn't unfairly powerful, but some people will target it, which means you have a class that sometimes gets gimped for no reason.

On topic: Also if you really want to be a jerk to wizards: Nightmare. Every single night. Teach those stuipid charop people who say elves suck.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-10, 02:02 PM
Why would the enemies attack at spell prep? I'm a little confused as to how this would be a big advantage. If for some reason a cleric can't prepare spells at their normal time they can use the next available chance. If for some reason a wizard doesn't prepare all their spells they can prepare them at any later chance. It might just be coincidental with first light, which is a good choice for a surprise attack. And if the previous day was spell-intensive, anytime during the night or spell prep will catch the PCs when they're magically weak.

Zeful
2009-07-10, 03:31 PM
If you break out disjunction on a me as a player I would feel perfectly justified in wishing the BBEG and friends into the sun. And using fabricate to make money. The stealing of the spellbook is kind of a problem. It makes sense to target it, but... it totally gimps the wizard. Which makes it unfun... again any DM that did that would be introduced to fabricate.The BBEG gets a will save, which he's got at least a 50-50 chance of succeeding on, by virtue of being the BBEG. So assuming you are 17th level and use both wishes as a wizard, you have a decent chance of killing the BBEG with two wishes. You also have a decent chance of failing, meaning he's going to wish to be teleported to your location, where he try and kill you, and your out of 9th level spells. Breaking the economy of a country, any country, will be putting so many targets on your back that you'll be spending the next several years on the run as every caster in the country with divinations will be hunting you down, and they will find you because 1.) mind blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm) isn't a permanent spell (close but no cigar), 2.) Everything you owned was destroyed by disjunction and I don't have magic marts. 3.) I run a mostly core game. 4.) The most powerful casters in the world will be after you because you sullied their good name by wrecking a world power's economy. Wishing you to their location every couple of hours so they can kill you.

All you've done is an elaborate suicide-by-proxy.

Jaltum
2009-07-10, 03:38 PM
...I think you've just proven his point, haven't you? That breaking that 'gentleman's agreement' can derail the game into a neverending cycle of unfun DM vs. player cheese exploiting?

Mr.Moron
2009-07-10, 03:40 PM
Do this even once and they'll just start rope-tricking themselves out of the universe and the like. Don't try and get into some kind of arms race with your casters. You're the DM so of course you'll win, but the rest of the game will be the collateral damage.

Zeful
2009-07-10, 03:43 PM
...I think you've just proven his point, haven't you? That breaking that 'gentleman's agreement' can derail the game into a neverending cycle of unfun DM vs. player cheese exploiting?

Except I don't find it unfun at the least. And DM vs player cheese exploiting? No, after reading alot of the CharOp thread, I intentionally put 6-8 20th level casters in my worlds as counter measures. It would derail the game for 10 minutes, tops.

chiasaur11
2009-07-10, 03:46 PM
Do this even once and they'll just start rope-tricking themselves out of the universe and the like. Don't try and get into some kind of arms race with your casters. You're the DM so of course you'll win, but the rest of the game will be the collateral damage.

Unless they pull Pun-Pun.

Then everyone loses.

Kylarra
2009-07-10, 03:49 PM
I dunno, his situation is pretty close to everyone loses too.

Cute_Riolu
2009-07-10, 05:03 PM
Except I don't find it unfun at the least. And DM vs player cheese exploiting? No, after reading alot of the CharOp thread, I intentionally put 6-8 20th level casters in my worlds as counter measures. It would derail the game for 10 minutes, tops.

So, your games are all about you, huh? I wouldn't want to game with you, then.

chiasaur11
2009-07-10, 05:18 PM
I dunno, his situation is pretty close to everyone loses too.

Including the fundamental structure of reality as we know it?

Kylarra
2009-07-10, 05:44 PM
Including the fundamental structure of reality as we know it?Well DM controlled casters at near-epic levels vs angry players ... so yeah :smallamused:

Lamech
2009-07-10, 05:51 PM
The BBEG gets a will save, which he's got at least a 50-50 chance of succeeding on, by virtue of being the BBEG. So assuming you are 17th level and use both wishes as a wizard, you have a decent chance of killing the BBEG with two wishes. You also have a decent chance of failing, meaning he's going to wish to be teleported to your location, where he try and kill you, and your out of 9th level spells. Breaking the economy of a country, any country, will be putting so many targets on your back that you'll be spending the next several years on the run as every caster in the country with divinations will be hunting you down, and they will find you because 1.) mind blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm) isn't a permanent spell (close but no cigar), 2.) Everything you owned was destroyed by disjunction and I don't have magic marts. 3.) I run a mostly core game. 4.) The most powerful casters in the world will be after you because you sullied their good name by wrecking a world power's economy. Wishing you to their location every couple of hours so they can kill you.

All you've done is an elaborate suicide-by-proxy.
... okay lets see here. You think disjunction is justified... except you change an assumption about the ablity to regain magic items. See the disconnect? More importantly: I don't recall factories wrecking the economy. Or you know, any labor saving device. Ever. In fact, I recall massive improvements in the standard of living after the market adjusts.

Also the BBEG immediatly blows a wish when he makes a save? That makes oh so much sense. Except it doesn't.

And he always has wish preped? I suppose it makes a good "O boop" spell. And why is the BBEG breaking his own loot in the first place? A caster at that level shouldn't be in danger unless something goes horribly wrong. (Which would probably call for the "oh boop" spell.)

Irreverent Fool
2009-07-10, 06:38 PM
At the start of every campaign I ask PCs how they want to handle end of the day rituals. Do they care about hunting, setting up camp, setting up traps around the camp, setting a watch, etc. If they do (usually because they enjoy immersion roleplaying - these are the guys with every mundane item listed on their equipment list) then I always make sure to have someone/something attack them in the middle of the night (and that thing doesn't outsmart their preparations unless there's a very believable reason to).

Can I borrow your players? Mine usually don't even have tents or bedrolls. Sometimes not even backpacks or rations.

obnoxious
sig

Jaltum
2009-07-10, 07:09 PM
It would derail the game for 10 minutes, tops.

Yes, you're right. The hypothetical player retaliated for the Disjunction wouldn't use his next character to retaliate for your retaliation. And hey, as long as you're having fun, it's all cool, because that's what playing D&D is all about: having fun even if no one else is.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying Lamech's method is an appropriate way to show the DM your displeasure when something like this comes up. Counter-retaliation is a really dumb way to solve this kind of dispute, whether it's player or the DM doing it.

But I don't think Lamech is wrong that the DM "started it," in that scenario. Games that become a CharOps arm race are not fun, unless everyone agrees up front that that's what they want, and Disjunction is pretty widely reviled.

Guancyto
2009-07-10, 07:14 PM
Except I don't find it unfun at the least. And DM vs player cheese exploiting? No, after reading alot of the CharOp thread, I intentionally put 6-8 20th level casters in my worlds as counter measures. It would derail the game for 10 minutes, tops.

And for that matter, why exactly does the Shadow Oligarchy care about some upstart mage breaking his WBL, especially enough to expend resources (that could be spent on something more important) hunting him down? If it's a world setting that can support eight 20th level casters in a single kingdom, it's probably able to take in stride some guy Fabricating masterwork greatswords.

Remember, kids! If you want to destroy a PC, make sure to do it in a way that doesn't make any sense, that way the message you're sending is unambiguous. If it were ambiguous, your players might get the idea that "this is a realistic consequence of your actions" rather than "I hate you and want you to die."

Berserk Monk
2009-07-10, 07:17 PM
I don't see why not. They're the enemy. What am I supposed to do: wait for them to memorize spells so they can attack me?

Zeful
2009-07-10, 07:33 PM
... okay lets see here. You think disjunction is justified... except you change an assumption about the ablity to regain magic items. See the disconnect? More importantly: I don't recall factories wrecking the economy. Or you know, any labor saving device. Ever. In fact, I recall massive improvements in the standard of living after the market adjusts. I only specified that there were no magic marts, not that they wouldn't (or can't) gain the material wealth back.

Secondly, you didn't say you were going to break the economy of a country. But still, using fabricate to undermine the workers won't exactly make you the friend to the people.


Also the BBEG immediatly blows a wish when he makes a save? That makes oh so much sense. Except it doesn't. When he's making preparations for whatever world domination plan he's using, it's unlikely that he needs to make any saves, because he's often not the target of spells. So yes, when you suddenly realise that you've thwarted a spell, despite knowing that it's impossible to have been targeted by a spell. Using wish to find out exactly who did that and kill them is a very good idea.


And he always has wish preped? I suppose it makes a good "O boop" spell. And why is the BBEG breaking his own loot in the first place? A caster at that level shouldn't be in danger unless something goes horribly wrong. (Which would probably call for the "oh boop" spell.)
You're assuming that the two scenarios are the same. Which may or many not be the case. Besides he's the BBEG, once he gets rid of these pesky adventurers he's free to take over the world and all it's wealth, which is probably greater than what the PCs are carrying. The only way he's not nailing the group with a disjunction (or several) is if their carrying the artefact he needs to enact his diabolical plan, which given an average group of players is pretty likely.


If it's a world setting that can support eight 20th level casters in a single kingdom, it's probably able to take in stride some guy Fabricating masterwork greatswords.Apparently you only saw what you wanted. I never specified where they were from or where they live, but destroying a country's economy with magic would cause distrust toward all casters, which could put each and every worker the world over out of a job. So in order to keep spellcasting alive for more than just their lifetime (as paranoia and attacks on wizards increase, which will still happen even after the character's death) they need to prove that they do not condone that abuse of magic. Thus the intervention on their part. It's actually a quite logical progression of events.

Random832
2009-07-10, 08:26 PM
which could put each and every worker the world over out of a job.

Doing so by creating a post-scarcity economy where no-one needs to work to live well doesn't seem like such a bad deal for the people.

Korivan
2009-07-10, 08:37 PM
I don't see why not. They're the enemy. What am I supposed to do: wait for them to memorize spells so they can attack me?

Bing badda boom. Thats it, thats what it boils down too. As an PC, if I somehow had the chance to attack before my enemys before they could prepare thier spells, I'd totally jump on that. With icing...and strawberries. As a dm, I would do it against the PC's too, but not often, and wouldn't use encounters that were "near-impossible" without the casters. Unless if I wanted to be a dink...hehehehe

Guancyto
2009-07-10, 08:48 PM
Secondly, you didn't say you were going to break the economy of a country. But still, using fabricate to undermine the workers won't exactly make you the friend to the people.

*snip*

but destroying a country's economy with magic would cause distrust toward all casters, which could put each and every worker the world over out of a job.

Scale. You can break your personal WBL quite easily in a large kingdom without destroying the economy. Now, there will be artisans that will make a fuss and it's well within reason that they'll use the resources at their disposal to stop the PC.

These resources will only include a 20th level full caster with full intent to kill if, again, the message is "I hate you and want you to die." Near-epic fullcasters have better things to do. (For instance, dealing with that BBEG who is capable of Wishing someone to him him, MDJing and killing them. Sauce for the gander and all that.)

Especially if you do it in response to him getting back his wealth after the enemy disjunctioned him. Having to create 20th level casters for the expressed purpose of coming down on PCs who do things you dislike, and (especially if you didn't warn them about these things first, as you seem to find reasonable with Disjunction) is... not exactly a shining recommendation for your setting.

I'm not really sure what to think about the idea that you'd find doing so enjoyable, either.

Ninetail
2009-07-10, 10:59 PM
Except I don't find it unfun at the least. And DM vs player cheese exploiting? No, after reading alot of the CharOp thread, I intentionally put 6-8 20th level casters in my worlds as counter measures. It would derail the game for 10 minutes, tops.

Really? You must have patient players. My group would be walking out after 5, tops.

'Course, no more game does mean no more derailment...

Zeful
2009-07-10, 11:11 PM
Scale. You can break your personal WBL quite easily in a large kingdom without destroying the economy. Now, there will be artisans that will make a fuss and it's well within reason that they'll use the resources at their disposal to stop the PC.

These resources will only include a 20th level full caster with full intent to kill if, again, the message is "I hate you and want you to die." Near-epic fullcasters have better things to do. (For instance, dealing with that BBEG who is capable of Wishing someone to him him, MDJing and killing them. Sauce for the gander and all that.)Exactly. I'm not being malicious (beyond MDJ apparently), if they don't break the world (ruining an economy, blowing up the planet with physics) I'm not going to hunt down the player character trying to kill him. Sure pulling a couple hundred thou out of a country to craft up his items is going to incur the wrath of those whom he put out of jobs/homes/etc. with his actions. Just a couple of low-to-mid level assassins, maybe someone of roughly equal level if a guild is involved.


Especially if you do it in response to him getting back his wealth after the enemy disjunctioned him. Having to create 20th level casters for the expressed purpose of coming down on PCs who do things you dislike, and (especially if you didn't warn them about these things first, as you seem to find reasonable with Disjunction) is... not exactly a shining recommendation for your setting.Those casters are really only something I use to quell hard-core, stormwind fallacy optimization (The Killer Gnome, Chuck E. Cheese and the like) and malicious world-breaking (Chaingate exploits/Free Wish Loops/etc.). Otherwise their simply voyeuristic old hermits.

Besides I have a list of table rules that I wrote when I first started DMing, explaining much of my playstyle as succinctly as possible. I'm as upfront about these things as is reasonable (and by reasonable, I mean that I'm pointing out that I'm not pulling my punches, acting generally stupid will make things harder for you and that breaking my setting is frowned upon and is likely to result in character death. Not monolouging the exact limits of the setting, my tactics and what I believe to be reasonable attacks on your characters, while passing out the character sheets of the people that may get involved if you get out of line).

random11
2009-07-10, 11:23 PM
If you plan an attack on the characters while they are preparing spells, it can be considered as an attack on the players and not on the characters, which is usually a bad idea.

There are two ways I can see that you can make such an attack without any problems:

1) The attackers are NPCs who knew who they are chasing, and knew that this is the best time for an ambush. Of course, that requires a few skill rolls for the heroes if they manage to detect they are being followed.

2) Completely random encounters.
Use some kind of mechanism to randomize not only the monsters they are facing, but also the time.
If the heroes will face an encounter in different times of the day, they should get the hint that they need to be prepared all the time, and the players will know it isn't just a way to annoy them personally.

ghost_warlock
2009-07-10, 11:31 PM
For my part, honestly, this:

Do this even once and they'll just start rope-tricking themselves out of the universe and the like. Don't try and get into some kind of arms race with your casters. You're the DM so of course you'll win, but the rest of the game will be the collateral damage.

Additionally, a spellcaster with no spells prepared is a player who sits around with nothing to do during most of the combat. A player with nothing to do will find something to do, even if that something is disruptive to the game.

Lamech
2009-07-11, 01:50 AM
Secondly, you didn't say you were going to break the economy of a country. But still, using fabricate to undermine the workers won't exactly make you the friend to the people.
Err... umm... you still need a method of gathering whatever raw materials you need to make your objects which your crafting. And the needed skills. So your getting rid of some artisans. Which seems to me really similar to what happened with factories. Skilled labor gets the shaft, and the unskilled people have better job chances.


Apparently you only saw what you wanted. I never specified where they were from or where they live, but destroying a country's economy with magic would cause distrust toward all casters, which could put each and every worker the world over out of a job. So in order to keep spellcasting alive for more than just their lifetime (as paranoia and attacks on wizards increase, which will still happen even after the character's death) they need to prove that they do not condone that abuse of magic. Thus the intervention on their part. It's actually a quite logical progression of events.How is it putting everyone out of a job? This is really a super efficent factory. One that takes a few skilled people to run, this seems a lot like many of todays factories. We haven't had an economy collaspe. Secondly, why aren't these high levels saving the day and killing MR. BBEG?

And even if the wizards come up with some system which totally squashes anything non-casters could produce then those casters will hire the people for what they consider cheap (Better food, shelter and other consumer goods then they had before, since wizards totally squash them) and personally command large numbers of people. Servents, artists, scientists, yes people... whatever, I'm sure the wizard can find something.

I'm not seeing the broken economy. Fabricate is basically the opposite of disjunction. One strips huge amounts of wealth, one creates it. There is a reason they both are looked down on. They break WBL.


When he's making preparations for whatever world domination plan he's using, it's unlikely that he needs to make any saves, because he's often not the target of spells. So yes, when you suddenly realise that you've thwarted a spell, despite knowing that it's impossible to have been targeted by a spell. Using wish to find out exactly who did that and kill them is a very good idea.So if he doesn't know the source of an attack he assumes its a wish?
PC 1: Nightmare
BBEG: Wish
PC 2: Teleport

On topic: Whats the huge penalty of an attack happening durning spell prep? Everyone should be happily awake. Its basically an extra encounter sans buffs. Unless the group expects x encounters per day...

Deepblue706
2009-07-11, 02:26 AM
Attacking unprepared spellcasting PCs is absolutely fine. Just don't overdo it (Much like you shouldn't overdo Rust Monsters and Sunderers), since robbing players of combat ability will make them feel helpless, and at that point they probably won't want to play anymore.

Anteros
2009-07-11, 02:49 AM
This is the exact reason that wizards are required to sleep to replenish their spells. Why do people think this rule exists? For the sole reason of disrupting gameplay?

If you play a character that's obscenely powerful, at the trade off of being vulnerable at certain times...I don't think you get to complain if you get attacked during those times.

People want to play wizards, and be uber-powerful beings who control the destiny of civilizations...exploiting any tiny weakness in any enemy they pass...but then complain when their enemies exploit their weaknesses? It just doesn't make any sense. I'm not telling you to screw your players over...but make them actually work to protect their vulnerabilities, don't do it for them.

Ninetail
2009-07-11, 03:31 AM
This is the exact reason that wizards are required to sleep to replenish their spells. Why do people think this rule exists? For the sole reason of disrupting gameplay?

That's exactly why it's a bad rule.

The way things are set up, if the casters don't suffer attacks during preparation, they're essentially getting a freebie.

But if they do, they get hosed. Their character has nothing to do for an entire fight except ineffectually shoot crossbow bolts or whatever. (At higher levels, they might have enough magic items to partially compensate... but then the problem becomes that monsters of those levels will stomp the party, without the casters having access to their spells. The fighter or rogue simply cannot take on anything that's a challenge for a high-level wizard or cleric, because of the way their power levels scale.)

Basically, it can be a fun challenge... the first time it happens. If it happens at all frequently, it becomes a drag on the game.

Find ways to challenge the party that don't involve taking players out of the action. It's not that hard.

Guancyto
2009-07-11, 04:13 AM
I'm as upfront about these things as is reasonable (and by reasonable, I mean that I'm pointing out that I'm not pulling my punches

Hmm.

*thumbs up* This, more than anything else, is a-okay. A lot of the problems with tactics that might make sense, but come off as extremely unfair disappear entirely if the party's appraised of it in advance and can properly prepare for it.

Springing it on them out of the blue is a pretty nasty surprise.

Talic
2009-07-11, 04:39 AM
You know how I introduce new mechanics?

The party comes across a kobold wizard, who just woke up, and is currently preparing his spells. He's the same kobold wizard that fireballed the town's crops earlier in the week.

If they attack him when he's vulnerable, I hash out how to do it, "Oh crap guys, there's no rules for this. It takes an hour to memorize, and 15 mins to do a "followup" later in the day. He's been there 45 mins... He's got access to 3rd level spells... So, 15 mins for level 0 spells, 15 mins for level 1, 15 mins for level 2, and 15 mins for level 3, sounds right. So he doesn't have his third level spells when you ambush him".

Now the party knows the rule you made, because they brought about the need to create it. Poof! Now you can introduce them to the other side of the coin.

Anteros
2009-07-11, 05:12 AM
That's exactly why it's a bad rule.

The way things are set up, if the casters don't suffer attacks during preparation, they're essentially getting a freebie.

But if they do, they get hosed. Their character has nothing to do for an entire fight except ineffectually shoot crossbow bolts or whatever. (At higher levels, they might have enough magic items to partially compensate... but then the problem becomes that monsters of those levels will stomp the party, without the casters having access to their spells. The fighter or rogue simply cannot take on anything that's a challenge for a high-level wizard or cleric, because of the way their power levels scale.)

Basically, it can be a fun challenge... the first time it happens. If it happens at all frequently, it becomes a drag on the game.

Find ways to challenge the party that don't involve taking players out of the action. It's not that hard.


No. This is assuming that the player is blowing their entire load of spells early, leaving nothing in reserve, and depending on DM leniency to compensate. If people want to play their 20+ int wizards as reckless fools, they deserve whatever they get. I guarantee you, after it happens once, they will learn to keep a spell or two in reserve...

I know it sounds like I am advocating DM vs. player here, but I'm not. I simply like to encourage people to use their brains...especially when they're playing supposedly "intellectual" classes.

Talic
2009-07-11, 05:29 AM
No. This is assuming that the player is blowing their entire load of spells early, leaving nothing in reserve, and depending on DM leniency to compensate. If people want to play their 20+ int wizards as reckless fools, they deserve whatever they get. I guarantee you, after it happens once, they will learn to keep a spell or two in reserve...

I know it sounds like I am advocating DM vs. player here, but I'm not. I simply like to encourage people to use their brains...especially when they're playing supposedly "intellectual" classes.

Until you realize that recklessness is governed far more by wisdom than intelligence.

Intelligence is the thing in us that allows us to acquire power.
Wisdom is the thing which teaches us when not to use it.

Ever seen a brilliant individual without a lick of common sense? With poor long term planning?

Heck, I am such an individual. :smallwink:

Saph
2009-07-11, 05:30 AM
That's exactly why it's a bad rule.

The way things are set up, if the casters don't suffer attacks during preparation, they're essentially getting a freebie.

But if they do, they get hosed. Their character has nothing to do for an entire fight except ineffectually shoot crossbow bolts or whatever.

This doesn't make any sense. Why don't the casters just use the spells that they didn't cast the previous day?

In normal adventuring at any level past 4th or so, a caster does not use up every single one of their spell slots every single day. You have to specifically go out of your way to do that.

Being attacked during spell preparation is a hindrance and a tactical disadvantage, but it shouldn't be crippling unless you've got an unusually lopsided character.

- Saph

Anteros
2009-07-11, 05:37 AM
This doesn't make any sense. Why don't the casters just use the spells that they didn't cast the previous day?

In normal adventuring at any level past 4th or so, a caster does not use up every single one of their spell slots every single day. You have to specifically go out of your way to do that.

Being attacked during spell preparation is a hindrance and a tactical disadvantage, but it shouldn't be crippling unless you've got an unusually lopsided character.

- Saph


Exactly. If a player wants to burn everything he's got and hope there are no more fights, that's up to him. Sometimes he'll be right, but sometimes he'll be wrong.


Hmm.

*thumbs up* This, more than anything else, is a-okay. A lot of the problems with tactics that might make sense, but come off as extremely unfair disappear entirely if the party's appraised of it in advance and can properly prepare for it.

Springing it on them out of the blue is a pretty nasty surprise.

Well, as the DM you have full control of anything you throw at them. There's nothing stopping you from lobbing an easy one over the plate at them as a type of warning shot.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-11, 06:59 AM
Basically, it can be a fun challenge... the first time it happens. If it happens at all frequently, it becomes a drag on the game.


It DOESN'T happen more than once. They start choosing to fall out of the universe the first time it happens. It's an exercise in futility unless you really want to be really obvious that you're going out of your way to screw them over. All it does is amount to a tax of 1 level 2 spell per day.

Anteros
2009-07-11, 09:33 AM
Or you can just say. "No. You don't have that spell." You are the DM after all.

And it doesn't "screw anyone over". It's a designed encounter they're supposed to be able to deal with, so long as the use the resources available to them intelligently. If I wanted to screw my players over, there are far easier and better ways.

You're supposed to be crafting a world for your players to explore. If it makes sense for their enemies to ambush them at night, or in the morning, then they get ambushed. The enemies don't call off the attack because the wizard decided to waste all of his spells frivolously, any more than they would if the fighter breaks his sword, or the paladin falls from grace.

Obviously, if you're just doing it to screw with your players, then something is wrong...but not every situation falls into that category. Most don't.

Tallis
2009-07-11, 11:04 AM
Many groups view only certain aspects of the game as entertaining enough to spend time and attention on: mostly, meeting people who want other people dead, killing those people, taking their stuff (I'm being flippant, of course, and don't mean that only hack-and-slash players are selective in their focus).

Well one of the easiest times to find these people is when they attack you.


It's common enough that certain things, like, say, rest, preparation, rations, hygeine etc. are simply ignored: everyone assumes that you have food enough to get you from town to town, that you know how to crap in the woods, that you don't get scurvy or gum disease from your poor diet and dental care, etc. These things are simply glossed over and the game focuses on exploring the dungeon or slaying the dragon or securing that audience with the queen or seducing the prince regent or whatever.

If the group are used to playing like this, it's fairly obnoxious for the DM to suddenly pipe up when they're halfway across the desert trail to ask "by the way, let me see your sheets, I want to check how much food and water you all have". Of course, since no one has been paying attention to that, no one has any, and the DM declares that they're all dying of thirst. Fun! Point being, you can have a perfectly enjoyable game in which you keep track of rations and environmental hazards and such, but it's unlikely to be very enjoyable to suddenly switch to such a game in the middle of one where you've been paying it no mind. (Of course, you might switch from "okay, we've been in Generic Temperate Kingdom A where it's easy to reprovision and travel distances are short" to "now we're about to set off to the Land of Heat and Thirst and Ominous Bleached Bones" and declare "right, time to start tracking that stuff". That's a natural transition within the game.)

I agree with all this, but don't see any connection with enemies attacking the players.


Similarly, if the group has gone on for a while assuming that they can always find a safe resting spot, get their night's sleep, and make their preparations uninterrupted - if the DM has never asked "where are you making camp?" or "what's the order of the watch?" or the like - if you have been glossing over it, it's obnoxious for the DM to suddenly make it an issue where everyone had been assuming it was being handwaved.

Why would you ever assume that in an obviously dangerous world filled with monsters?

I see no problem with attacks during spell prep. Attacks can happen at any time of day, not just when it's convenient for the PCs. I would make it rare that it happens though. It can make for an interesting fight as the casters have to figure out how best to use their leftover spells, but doing it all the time will probably make the caster players feel like you're picking on them.

oxinabox
2009-07-11, 11:30 AM
Heh Heh, i new this would created comment and debate.

I don't plan to do it.
I've got new players, i'm almost running a monty Haul game.

You've missed the point that multiclass Prepard casters are particulary encouraging the tactic.
they spend 1/6 theire day preparing spells.
But you know what the other thing about prepared caster's is?
They have twice as many spells as anyone else.
ergo, they never expend all of them in one day.

Also reserve feats.
It could easilly be argued that the caster never forgot his key spell (that keys the reserve) since he never cast it, so he wouldn't prepare it again.

thinking like that every daily prepare could be treated like.
Cast spell slots become blank slots when you have 8 hours rest.
Spell prep is filling blank slots.
when you prepare spells you may choose to fill over slots that are still full ( but only if it's the first time you've prepared sincy you had 8 hours rest).

IF you wanted a system also you would hav eto put something in that syas higher leval casters can prepare indivdual spells faster (once thy get in tio the state of mind).
Esp lower lvl spells.
this must stop prep time increasing

I'll commentv more latter.

Jaltum
2009-07-11, 12:44 PM
Why would you ever assume that in an obviously dangerous world filled with monsters?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, you're confusing the IC (a dangerous world with monsters) with OOC (a game where we do not specify everything the characters do, even if it is necessary for life).

In a dangerous world filled with monsters, it's fair to ask your players what their character do to make protections at night. It's also fair to assume that when the PCs say, "Okay, we make camp until the next day," that includes setting a watch, building a fire, eating some rations, finding a quiet place to relieve themselves, etc, and skip to the next morning without getting any more granular. Depends on how you want to use your tabletime. You could even switch between the two, if you DO feel like having a night attack, or a split-up-gathering-firewood attack, or a fighter-caught-with-his-heavy-armor-down attack.

What isn't fair is switching between the two and just assuming the PCs are doing the stupidest possible thing. There's a reasonable balance between, "I'm sleeping in my armor, since I didn't say I wasn't," and "Okay, you didn't give me an order of watch, so you all wake with your throats cut."

herrhauptmann
2009-07-11, 05:49 PM
I've only read the first page, so I apologize if this has been said before.

Usually in the games I play, the random encounters for the night are done per watch, every 3 hours or so. So 8 hours of rest, and 1 hour of spell prep will translate into 3 random encounter rolls. Usually each random encounter is done in the middle of the watch.

If the game is taking place somewhere that the encounter chart is every 20 minutes, then yeah, totally fair to hit them with a random encounter.

Ditto, if it's a storyline thing.

Ninetail
2009-07-11, 08:52 PM
No. This is assuming that the player is blowing their entire load of spells early, leaving nothing in reserve, and depending on DM leniency to compensate. If people want to play their 20+ int wizards as reckless fools, they deserve whatever they get. I guarantee you, after it happens once, they will learn to keep a spell or two in reserve...

1. Recklessness is low wis, not low int.

2. We're talking about an attack after spell preparation has begun. If you're not changing out the spells you didn't cast yesterday, that's one thing. In that case, sure, you still have them.

But if you ARE changing them out, then you don't have access to the new spells you're preparing in those slots, because you haven't finished preparing yet.

Tallis
2009-07-11, 10:25 PM
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, you're confusing the IC (a dangerous world with monsters) with OOC (a game where we do not specify everything the characters do, even if it is necessary for life).

In a dangerous world filled with monsters, it's fair to ask your players what their character do to make protections at night. It's also fair to assume that when the PCs say, "Okay, we make camp until the next day," that includes setting a watch, building a fire, eating some rations, finding a quiet place to relieve themselves, etc, and skip to the next morning without getting any more granular. Depends on how you want to use your tabletime. You could even switch between the two, if you DO feel like having a night attack, or a split-up-gathering-firewood attack, or a fighter-caught-with-his-heavy-armor-down attack.

What isn't fair is switching between the two and just assuming the PCs are doing the stupidest possible thing. There's a reasonable balance between, "I'm sleeping in my armor, since I didn't say I wasn't," and "Okay, you didn't give me an order of watch, so you all wake with your throats cut."

I meant both IC and OOC.

If someone says they're making camp I would assume standard activities for someone camping. I would assume that they sleep in a normal fashion (no armor). Setting watches and sleeping in armor are active decisions to do something normal people wouldn't be inclined to do. If I'm playing with new players I might ask if they are setting a watch, but experienced players should know better. (In the case of the OP's group I might ask.) Also if they have an established routine that includes setting a watch then I would ask about it.
I'm not trying to screw the players, but I do expect them to play intelligently and take precautions. They are adventurers after all, it's a dangerous profession. I also don't want them to assume that I'll save them if they make a mistake. On the other hand I have never coup de graced a group in their sleep and don't think I ever will without a very good reason. Capturing them is perfectly fair though.
If things like that are going to be glossed over then that should be specified IMO. The fact that nothing bad has happened yet in no way guarantees that it never will.

SensFan
2009-07-11, 11:02 PM
I meant both IC and OOC.

If someone says they're making camp I would assume standard activities for someone camping. I would assume that they sleep in a normal fashion (no armor). Setting watches and sleeping in armor are active decisions to do something normal people wouldn't be inclined to do. If I'm playing with new players I might ask if they are setting a watch, but experienced players should know better. (In the case of the OP's group I might ask.) Also if they have an established routine that includes setting a watch then I would ask about it.
I'm not trying to screw the players, but I do expect them to play intelligently and take precautions. They are adventurers after all, it's a dangerous profession. I also don't want them to assume that I'll save them if they make a mistake. On the other hand I have never coup de graced a group in their sleep and don't think I ever will without a very good reason. Capturing them is perfectly fair though.
If things like that are going to be glossed over then that should be specified IMO. The fact that nothing bad has happened yet in no way guarantees that it never will.
"Ok, so we stop for the night, and sleep. We'll finish the trip tomorrow."
"You wake up, and you've been captured/ambushed/etc by a group of orcs in the middle of the night. What do you do?"

My response would likely be to look for a new campaign. As you point out, this is a dangerous world that my character has grown up in, but I haven't. Just as I don't need to explain what I need to do to pick a lock, I don't expect to need to explain what needs to be done to be reasonably safe at night.

Ninetail
2009-07-11, 11:39 PM
Setting watches and sleeping in armor are active decisions to do something normal people wouldn't be inclined to do.

...

They are adventurers after all, it's a dangerous profession.

Normal people in a dangerous profession would not be inclined to take measures such as setting watches when they're camping in the wilderness? What?

Alejandro
2009-07-11, 11:44 PM
Would the PCs willingly attack a powerful enemy wizard at a moment when he is weaker (preparing spells?) I bet the answer is yes, and if it is, then the answer is also yes for monsters/enemy NPCs. However, just as it is rare for PCs to be able to get at and attack a powerful wizard while he is preparing spells, it should (hopefully) also be rare for the same thing to happen to a PC that is played intelligently.

Je dit Viola
2009-07-12, 12:24 AM
I think that it's okay to do spell-prep and night attacks, as long as the PCs know in advance (i.e. you mentioned to them earlier that you need their watch list, or mentioned something a bunch of times) and that you need to homebrew some reasonable spell-prep attack rules.

Now, what I would really love to see is a Bardic song that reduces the time to prepare spells while it's playing (doesn't count his own spells, only other people's).
Imagine it: The party bard is plucking out a mellow tune on his guitar while the cleric and wizard are preparing spells. It calms/helps them thing better/etc because of the soft, insightful music. Yeah, the bard will basically be wasting a Bardic Song, but, if the DM likes having bright-and-early attacks or little chance to prepare spells, your bard could speed them up.

Tallis
2009-07-12, 12:38 AM
"Ok, so we stop for the night, and sleep. We'll finish the trip tomorrow."

Okay, you just clearly stated that your intent was to sleep. That's not really open to interpretation. Maybe if you said let's make camp for the night I'd ask for specifics, but you clearly said sleep there. It's difficult to be on watch when you're sleeping. Hopefully one of the other players would think about setting a guard while you slept....


"You wake up, and you've been captured/ambushed/etc by a group of orcs in the middle of the night. What do you do?"

I imagine you'd wake up during the attack actually, unless they had sleep poison or something similar and you failed your saves. Obviously you'd be at a disadvantage, but you'd have a chance to fight.


My response would likely be to look for a new campaign. As you point out, this is a dangerous world that my character has grown up in, but I haven't. Just as I don't need to explain what I need to do to pick a lock, I don't expect to need to explain what needs to be done to be reasonably safe at night.

You still had to choose to pick the lock. As DM I'm not here to decide what your characters do, you are. I'm not going to make decisions for you. Your characters grew up in this world (probably), but probably not in the most dangerous parts of it. Until they've learned from experience it's very possible that they wouldn't think about setting a guard. Do you set someone on watch when you go camping just in case a bear comes into the camp? I don't, nor do I know anyone who does. You as a player know that the world you're playing in is dangerous. How your characters react to that is up to you not me. Do you seriously play in campaigns expecting everything to be nice and safe? Sounds pretty boring to me. If not you should be making sure that your characters are taking reasonable precautions.

If you're the type of player that would leave a group because I didn't cover for you when you made a bad decision, then I really wouldn't want you in my game in the first place.


Normal people in a dangerous profession would not be inclined to take measures such as setting watches when they're camping in the wilderness? What?

New adventurers might not think about it, being new to the more dangerous areas of the world. Experienced adventurers probably would, but by that point the players have enough experience to know it's a good idea too.

Normal successful adventures would also tend to be good tacticians, should I control the PCs in every combat? Setting watch is, in effect, preparing for combat. I will assume that someone on watch is fully armed and armored because that's the very basics of preparation for combat. Tactical decisions, like setting a watch, or who is on watch at what time are up to the players.

I like to be challenged when I play. I don't see any reason why a DM should warn me that something bad might happen in an adventure game. It's implicate in the nature of the game that bad things will happen. It's my job to prepare my character for that and if I don't then it's my job to find a way to overcome any problems that come because of my lack of preparation. I don't want my DM telling me what my character is doing. Not even a little.

If there are no consequences for my mistakes then the game becomes boring. I'm not saying he should attack me because I didn't think to set a watch, but if there was going to be an attack anyway he shouldn't hold back because because I didn't set one.

SensFan
2009-07-12, 12:50 AM
Okay, you just clearly stated that your intent was to sleep. That's not really open to interpretation. Maybe if you said let's make camp for the night I'd ask for specifics, but you clearly said sleep there. It's difficult to be on watch when you're sleeping. Hopefully one of the other players would think about setting a guard while you slept....

I imagine you'd wake up during the attack actually, unless they had sleep poison or something similar and you failed your saves. Obviously you'd be at a disadvantage, but you'd have a chance to fight.

You still had to choose to pick the lock. As DM I'm not here to decide what your characters do, you are. I'm not going to make decisions for you. Your characters grew up in this world (probably), but probably not in the most dangerous parts of it. Until they've learned from experience it's very possible that they wouldn't think about setting a guard. Do you set someone on watch when you go camping just in case a bear comes into the camp? I don't, nor do I know anyone who does. You as a player know that the world you're playing in is dangerous. How your characters react to that is up to you not me. Do you seriously play in campaigns expecting everything to be nice and safe? Sounds pretty boring to me. If not you should be making sure that your characters are taking reasonable precautions.

If you're the type of player that would leave a group because I didn't cover for you when you made a bad decision, then I really wouldn't want you in my game in the first place.

New adventurers might not think about it, being new to the more dangerous areas of the world. Experienced adventurers probably would, but by that point the players have enough experience to know it's a good idea too.

Normal successful adventures would also tend to be good tacticians, should I control the PCs in every combat? Setting watch is, in effect, preparing for combat. I will assume that someone on watch is fully armed and armored because that's the very basics of preparation for combat. Tactical decisions, like setting a watch, or who is on watch at what time are up to the players.
If you think a player that says "We stop for the night to sleep, we'll get there tomorrow" means "We all do nothing but sleep", then you must also think that a player that says "I creep towards the door, using Move Silently" to mean "I walk towards the door, moving quietly, but not restraining myself from talking, coughing, gasping."

Basically, I would rather say 'We stop for the night. I take first watch, Jack takes the second, Jill the third' than have to say 'We stop our horses, and tie them down. We make a fire, cook our food, feed the horses, eat our food, and clean up from supper. We put out the fire, pitch our tents, unroll our bedrolls. We go to the bathroom and prepare for bed. Those that are sleeping then enter their sleeping bag, and go to sleep.'

If you don't mind attacking a 'We stop to sleep' party in the middle of the night, then you have no right to complain if I were to tell a 'We stop for the night. I take first watch, Jack takes the second, Jill the third' party that they die of thirst/starvation or that it rained and they got wet, or that their horses ran off, etc...

Tallis
2009-07-12, 01:03 AM
If you think a player that says "We stop for the night to sleep, we'll get there tomorrow" means "We all do nothing but sleep", then you must also think that a player that says "I creep towards the door, using Move Silently" to mean "I walk towards the door, moving quietly, but not restraining myself from talking, coughing, gasping."

Now that's just silly, clearly moving silently means they're not making noise. All those things are making noise, therefore could not be done while moving silently. Now if the person failed their check, they might cough, but that's different. If a player says they sleep then I assume that they sleep, the other players can decide what they do for themselves.


Basically, I would rather say 'We stop for the night. I take first watch, Jack takes the second, Jill the third'

There ya go! Not so hard is it? You're covered.


than have to say 'We stop our horses, and tie them down. We make a fire, cook our food, feed the horses, eat our food, and clean up from supper. We put out the fire, pitch our tents, unroll our bedrolls. We go to the bathroom and prepare for bed. Those that are sleeping then enter their sleeping bag, and go to sleep.'

Again you're just being silly. Moreover you either didn't read or are willfully ignoring the last part of what you quoted from me.


If you don't mind attacking a 'We stop to sleep' party in the middle of the night, then you have no right to complain if I were to tell a 'We stop for the night. I take first watch, Jack takes the second, Jill the third' party that they die of thirst/starvation or that it rained and they got wet, or that their horses ran off, etc...

More silliness. If you have to take things to ridiculous extremes and ignore parts of what I said to "prove your point" then you've already lost the argument.

Yahzi
2009-07-12, 01:34 AM
Setting watches and sleeping in armor are active decisions to do something normal people wouldn't be inclined to do.
Maybe it's something normal wizards wouldn't do, but any 1st level Ranger that didn't do all of the above - and set traps at night, as well - ought to turn in his Ranger badge. As DM, you should assume that Rangers, or characters with high Wilderness Lore, automatically do the things they should do. Or at least assign them a DC.

"You're attacked in the middle of the night. Make an opposed Wilderness Lore against the enemy's Move Silently roll. If you beat them, then you're awake and have 1d6 rounds to prepare. If you lose, then they get a surprise round."

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 01:44 AM
Maybe it's something normal wizards wouldn't do, but any 1st level Ranger that didn't do all of the above - and set traps at night, as well - ought to turn in his Ranger badge. As DM, you should assume that Rangers, or characters with high Wilderness Lore, automatically do the things they should do. Or at least assign them a DC.

"You're attacked in the middle of the night. Make an opposed Wilderness Lore against the enemy's Move Silently roll. If you beat them, then you're awake and have 1d6 rounds to prepare. If you lose, then they get a surprise round."

But what does Wilderness Lore have to do with the enemy Moving Silently? Thats not an opposed check thats just arbitrary.

DnD is all about choices. This includes making mistakes. Sure if they are just starting out don't kill them or anything but send them a weak opponent that becomes a serious threat since they didn't set watch. Then they will set watch. After all do they wanna be the adventurers known as "That group of 4 2nd lvl characters that all almost got killed by a basic goblin"?

Ninetail
2009-07-12, 03:31 AM
Until they've learned from experience it's very possible that they wouldn't think about setting a guard. Do you set someone on watch when you go camping just in case a bear comes into the camp? I don't, nor do I know anyone who does.


Bad analogy.

Ask this question instead: If you and your friends are trekking through an unfamiliar jungle that you know to be inhabited by, say, aggressive cannibals, do you set someone on watch when you make camp?

Even if you've never encountered an aggressive cannibal before, I bet you do. I damn sure would.

Now replace "aggressive cannibal" with "orc" or "goblin" or "vampire" or "dragon"...


Do you seriously play in campaigns expecting everything to be nice and safe?


I play in campaigns expecting my GM not to assume my character takes the stupidest possible actions unless I explicitly tell him otherwise.

I haven't had a GM who's done otherwise in... probably two decades. But I certainly wouldn't continue to play with one who did.

If you want detail about how characters perform mundane activities (like making camp, for instance), then it is absolutely your responsibility as GM to make the players aware of your expectations. If that's done, the situation is fair enough. Otherwise, it's a juvenile "gotcha" game. "Oh, you never said you unstrung your bow, it's ruined now." The character would know better -- just like the character would know to set a watch if there's danger about.



New adventurers might not think about it, being new to the more dangerous areas of the world. Experienced adventurers probably would, but by that point the players have enough experience to know it's a good idea too.


I'm sorry, but that's crap. New adventurers might not know they're in a dangerous profession? What, they bought all those weapons and all that armor for kicks? And experienced adventurers who've been making camps in dangerous wildernesses for years one night just forget to set watch like they've done a thousand times before, just because a player didn't explicitly mention it?

No. That makes no sense.



Normal successful adventures would also tend to be good tacticians, should I control the PCs in every combat?


If the PCs have a standard reaction to combat, like "I shrug off my backpack," then yes, you should assume that they do that in every combat. You should not assume that just this once they unexplainably decide to remain encumbered, when the character would know better.


Setting watch is, in effect, preparing for combat.

No, it's not, any more than locking a door is preparing for combat. It's a precaution.

Then again, maybe you're the type of GM who assumes the players leave their doors at the inn unlocked unless they say they lock them? Because new adventurers might not realize that doors have locks...



If there are no consequences for my mistakes then the game becomes boring.

But we're not talking about a mistake... we're talking about a GM actively assuming that the character is an idiot who does not take the basic precautions that any reasonable person living in his world should.

A mistake is choosing to camp too close to the cemetary, or building a bonfire when the party is trying to hide from enemies who are searching for them. "You didn't set a watch because you didn't say so," when the players have been given no indication that they should say so, is GM malice.

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 03:37 AM
Bad analogy.

Ask this question instead: If you and your friends are trekking through an unfamiliar jungle that you know to be inhabited by, say, aggressive cannibals, do you set someone on watch when you make camp?

Even if you've never encountered an aggressive cannibal before, I bet you do. I damn sure would.

Now replace "aggressive cannibal" with "orc" or "goblin" or "vampire" or "dragon"...



I play in campaigns expecting my GM not to assume my character takes the stupidest possible actions unless I explicitly tell him otherwise.

I haven't had a GM who's done otherwise in... probably two decades. But I certainly wouldn't continue to play with one who did.

If you want detail about how characters perform mundane activities (like making camp, for instance), then it is absolutely your responsibility as GM to make the players aware of your expectations. If that's done, the situation is fair enough. Otherwise, it's a juvenile "gotcha" game. "Oh, you never said you unstrung your bow, it's ruined now." The character would know better -- just like the character would know to set a watch if there's danger about.



I'm sorry, but that's crap. New adventurers might not know they're in a dangerous profession? What, they bought all those weapons and all that armor for kicks? And experienced adventurers who've been making camps in dangerous wildernesses for years one night just forget to set watch like they've done a thousand times before, just because a player didn't explicitly mention it?

No. That makes no sense.



If the PCs have a standard reaction to combat, like "I shrug off my backpack," then yes, you should assume that they do that in every combat. You should not assume that just this once they unexplainably decide to remain encumbered, when the character would know better.



No, it's not, any more than locking a door is preparing for combat. It's a precaution.

Then again, maybe you're the type of GM who assumes the players leave their doors at the inn unlocked unless they say they lock them? Because new adventurers might not realize that doors have locks...



But we're not talking about a mistake... we're talking about a GM actively assuming that the character is an idiot who does not take the basic precautions that any reasonable person living in his world should.

A mistake is choosing to camp too close to the cemetary, or building a bonfire when the party is trying to hide from enemies who are searching for them. "You didn't set a watch because you didn't say so," when the players have been given no indication that they should say so, is GM malice.

But he specifically says A) If they are new you should ask "Are you setting a Watch" and B) if they ruitinely do so and don't mention it you should also ask.

That pretty much nullifies your entire post doesn't it? If the players are so stupid that even after the DM asks them if they are setting up a watch they still don't do it. They deserve to get attacked at night. They really do.

SensFan
2009-07-12, 06:33 AM
But he specifically says A) If they are new you should ask "Are you setting a Watch" and B) if they ruitinely do so and don't mention it you should also ask.

That pretty much nullifies your entire post doesn't it? If the players are so stupid that even after the DM asks them if they are setting up a watch they still don't do it. They deserve to get attacked at night. They really do.
Ummm...no, he's not.

His whole point is that if I say "We stop for the night and get some sleep, we'll get there tomorrow" he assumes I mean "We all stop our horses and immediately all go to sleep without doing anything else, since its a game of choices, and I didn't choose for my character to eat, piss, or set a watch."

Jaltum
2009-07-12, 07:46 AM
Okay, reviewing--

You said, "Why would they ever make that assumption (that a watch was set)?" Then you clarified that you mean that both IC and OOC.

Well, that's the problem; that's why you're missing the point. It's an OOC assumption, and only an OOC assumption. No one IC is making the assumption that a watch was set without actually setting one; that would be stupid. What I am saying is that some groups make an OOC assumption that a watch is being set without saying so explicitly, as a logical part of "we make camp". Why would they do that? To streamline gameplay, and because it's obvious.

Other groups make the (OOC) assumption that unless they specifically plan out the watch, it didn't happen. Yours is one of them. That's fine. At your table, you're free to get into as much detail as you want.

The important thing--my original point--was that the DM and the players need to be using the same assumptions. And if the DM has one set of assumptions, and the players have another, it's obnoxious to inform them with an IC sneak attack instead of an OOC conversation.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-12, 08:36 AM
It's entirely fair. Generally this preparation is done at first light, which is a very good tactical choice for a surprise assault.

Actually that's an incredibly poor choice for a surprise assault. Fresh light, everyone's awake, everyone's getting ready to eat or is generally near weapons. No. You don't want to do that.

Instead, you want to attack about ten minutes after the party stops to rest. Everyone's shutting down, some people are already half asleep or fully asleep, they're still helping the cleric out of his full plate and the wizard has burnt his spells. Etc.

Naturally this assumes a low level party as any party above 7th will just be sleeping in a rope trick or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion.

Sebastian
2009-07-12, 08:53 AM
This is something the game glosses over. There's no calculation offered for how many of your spells you've prepared if you're interrupted halfway through the process. It always takes an hour regardless of how many slots you're filling, and if you leave some blank (even if you leave almost all of them blank) it then only takes fifteen minutes to fill as many more of them as you want later (if you're a wizard, perhaps if you're an archivist also).


No, you must re-read the rules, the number of spells you recover is proportional to the time you passed preparing, 1 hourt 100%, half hour=50% and so on, 15 minutes minimum for less than a quarter of your spells.
I'd rule that you start from the low level spell and go up but I don't think there is an official rule for that

Tallis
2009-07-12, 10:39 AM
Bad analogy.

Ask this question instead: If you and your friends are trekking through an unfamiliar jungle that you know to be inhabited by, say, aggressive cannibals, do you set someone on watch when you make camp?

Even if you've never encountered an aggressive cannibal before, I bet you do. I damn sure would.

Now replace "aggressive cannibal" with "orc" or "goblin" or "vampire" or "dragon"...

How about, you're camping in the woods, there are cannibals, but you don't know it, do you set a watch?




I play in campaigns expecting my GM not to assume my character takes the stupidest possible actions unless I explicitly tell him otherwise.

I don't expect the stupidest possible action. I expect no action beyond the mundane unless you play your character.


I haven't had a GM who's done otherwise in... probably two decades. But I certainly wouldn't continue to play with one who did.
]If you want detail about how characters perform mundane activities (like making camp, for instance), then it is absolutely your responsibility as GM to make the players aware of your expectations. If that's done, the situation is fair enough. Otherwise, it's a juvenile "gotcha" game. "Oh, you never said you unstrung your bow, it's ruined now." The character would know better -- just like the character would know to set a watch if there's danger about.

I've said before that "making camp" includes mundane activities. Why do the people that disagree with the way I run games keep ignoring that? I don't consider setting watch mundane, since despite what you think it is preparing for possible combat.


I'm sorry, but that's crap. New adventurers might not know they're in a dangerous profession? What, they bought all those weapons and all that armor for kicks? And experienced adventurers who've been making camps in dangerous wildernesses for years one night just forget to set watch like they've done a thousand times before, just because a player didn't explicitly mention it?

No. That makes no sense.

If the PCs have a standard reaction to combat, like "I shrug off my backpack," then yes, you should assume that they do that in every combat. You should not assume that just this once they unexplainably decide to remain encumbered, when the character would know better.

I'll let Xenogears handle this one since he's actually read my posts:

But he specifically says A) If they are new you should ask "Are you setting a Watch" and B) if they ruitinely do so and don't mention it you should also ask.


No, it's not, any more than locking a door is preparing for combat. It's a precaution.

Let me ask you, what is it you're taking precautions against when you set a watch if it's not potential combat? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know your reasoning.


Then again, maybe you're the type of GM who assumes the players leave their doors at the inn unlocked unless they say they lock them? Because new adventurers might not realize that doors have locks...

In this case I'll admit that degrees matter. I would either assume they locked the door or I would ask. In my defense, locking your door is something most normal people do in their daily lives. Setting watch when they go to sleep is not. Not even when camping.


But we're not talking about a mistake... we're talking about a GM actively assuming that the character is an idiot who does not take the basic precautions that any reasonable person living in his world should.

Any reasonable person? So in your world the peasants set a watch at the door of their hovel every night? In my worlds they don't.


A mistake is choosing to camp too close to the cemetary, or building a bonfire when the party is trying to hide from enemies who are searching for them. "You didn't set a watch because you didn't say so," when the players have been given no indication that they should say so, is GM malice.

It has nothing to do with malice. It's letting the players make their own decisions, even if they make a mistake. As I've said in a previous post, if the group has an established routine then I assume they follow it unless they say otherwise. It is the player's job to establish that routine though, not mine to tell them what their routine is.
The fact that you're playing a RPG is an indication that you should be telling me what your characters do. I think really the heart of the difference in our points of view is what we consider a mundane action. I don't feel that setting a watch qualifies. It's not something that everybody does in their normal lives and it has a very direct effect on any combat that might occur in that time period.


Ummm...no, he's not.

His whole point is that if I say "We stop for the night and get some sleep, we'll get there tomorrow" he assumes I mean "We all stop our horses and immediately all go to sleep without doing anything else, since its a game of choices, and I didn't choose for my character to eat, piss, or set a watch."

No, that's not my point. That's your kind of silly interpretation of a small part of what I said. Xenogears is correct.


You said, "Why would they ever make that assumption (that a watch was set)?" Then you clarified that you mean that both IC and OOC.

Ah, there's a big misunderstanding right there. The assumption I was talking about was assuming that the DM wouldn't attack you at night because he's never done it before. Sorry if I was unclear about that.


Well, that's the problem; that's why you're missing the point. It's an OOC assumption, and only an OOC assumption. No one IC is making the assumption that a watch was set without actually setting one; that would be stupid. What I am saying is that some groups make an OOC assumption that a watch is being set without saying so explicitly, as a logical part of "we make camp". Why would they do that? To streamline gameplay, and because it's obvious.

Well, most of this part comes from the initial misunderstanding. The only thing I'll say here is that I don't consider setting a watch as a part of setting camp until it has been established that it is by the group. Logical or not. People in my experience are frequently not logical and do not think things through.


Other groups make the (OOC) assumption that unless they specifically plan out the watch, it didn't happen. Yours is one of them. That's fine. At your table, you're free to get into as much detail as you want.

The important thing--my original point--was that the DM and the players need to be using the same assumptions. And if the DM has one set of assumptions, and the players have another, it's obnoxious to inform them with an IC sneak attack instead of an OOC conversation.

I agree on this point. Though honestly I've never played with a group that did assume they were setting a watch without saying so. Most groups I've played with set up SOPs for things like making camp(set watch in standard order) or encountering a door in a dungeon (listen, check for traps, pick lock if necessary)

Zeful
2009-07-12, 11:18 AM
The difference between setting watch and locking ones doors is the effect. Locking the door on the inn is going to have the same effect no matter who does it. Setting a watch, however won't. The cleric taking watch through a certain period of night and the rouge taking the same watch are two drastically different things. If a group told me they were setting a watch without specifying an order, then I'm going to assign them the worst possible watch for the situation. Why? Because saying your doing something that requires more elaboration than "I do it", and not elaborating is the equivalent to casting Endure Elements and not specifying an element. It's making the assumption that I, the DM, can read your mind. I can't, nor will I try to. It's the players job to tell the DM what they are doing as unambiguously as possible so that I, don't have to guess at what they mean. If I have to ask "What do you mean?" then you have failed your job as a player.

The DM may have to cater to the Player's desires, but the players have to cater to the DM's understanding.

SensFan
2009-07-12, 11:21 AM
You seem to be missing something.

Me personallly, in my normal group, we'll say something to the effect of "Alright, I'll take first watch, etc..." But if DM X is running a game in which players only ever "We stop for the night to sleep", I don't think he's fair in assuming that these people never have a watch set up.

Jaltum
2009-07-12, 11:42 AM
Yeah, no, I don't think the party should ever assume that the DM won't attack them at night. I was just saying that if he's doing it for the first time, oxinabox (hi, Original Topic!) might need to discuss these things with his group, if they've handled it in a hand-waved way up until now. I couldn't see why that was a controversial thing to say, and I figured we must be misconnecting on some level when you said basically the same thing, later.

I think a lot of unhappiness around the table (or in the forums...) happens when an assumption (or interpretation, if it involves RAW) seems so intuitive and natural to us that we stop thinking about as an assumption (or interpretation) and just treat it as 'right.' If someone else has a contrary assumption (etc)... ka-boom.

Now--some assumptions are pretty nearly universal. I don't know that there's any table where they assume you're attacking other players until and unless you explicitly say so; and I doubt very much that anybody assumes you stop breathing unless you tell the DM you intend not to die this turn. You can pretty safely call out anyone who disagrees on those as being silly or an idiot.

But then there are marginal cases--maybe some very generous DMs will assume you check doors automatically, as a rogue (I wouldn't--I'd draw the line there), and maybe some DMs out there really care about bathroom or meal breaks, and assess penalties if you miss them. And then there are controversies like this one, that you probably don't even realize are controversial until suddenly you're in an argument over it.

And even in the most extreme cases--if somebody's table enjoys round by round breath checks, well, uh, more power to 'em, you know?

Tallis
2009-07-12, 12:10 PM
Yeah, no, I don't think the party should ever assume that the DM won't attack them at night. I was just saying that if he's doing it for the first time, oxinabox (hi, Original Topic!) might need to discuss these things with his group, if they've handled it in a hand-waved way up until now. I couldn't see why that was a controversial thing to say, and I figured we must be misconnecting on some level when you said basically the same thing, later.

I see your point here, but I think any discussion should happen long before it's time to attack. At the beginning of the campaign ideally. If not, then mention it at least a few sessions before you do anything.


I think a lot of unhappiness around the table (or in the forums...) happens when an assumption (or interpretation, if it involves RAW) seems so intuitive and natural to us that we stop thinking about as an assumption (or interpretation) and just treat it as 'right.' If someone else has a contrary assumption (etc)... ka-boom.

We are in complete agreement here.


But then there are marginal cases--maybe some very generous DMs will assume you check doors automatically, as a rogue (I wouldn't--I'd draw the line there), and maybe some DMs out there really care about bathroom or meal breaks, and assess penalties if you miss them. And then there are controversies like this one, that you probably don't even realize are controversial until suddenly you're in an argument over it.

This is why I think it's a good idea to set up SOPs for common circumstances. That way the DM knows what the players expect and vice-versa. It also protects the players from forgetting to mention things, because it's already spelled out.


And even in the most extreme cases--if somebody's table enjoys round by round breath checks, well, uh, more power to 'em, you know?

I think that would be a very short game, lol. :smalleek:

I think we can all agree that each group should play in the way that's fun for them. I also think we've demonstrated the reason why it's important to make sure everyone understands how the game is going to be run right from the beginning. Just because I, or you, or anybody thinks something is obvious, it isn't necessarily obvious to everybody.

Lamech
2009-07-12, 12:38 PM
The difference between setting watch and locking ones doors is the effect. Locking the door on the inn is going to have the same effect no matter who does it. Setting a watch, however won't. The cleric taking watch through a certain period of night and the rouge taking the same watch are two drastically different things. If a group told me they were setting a watch without specifying an order, then I'm going to assign them the worst possible watch for the situation. Why? Because saying your doing something that requires more elaboration than "I do it", and not elaborating is the equivalent to casting Endure Elements and not specifying an element. It's making the assumption that I, the DM, can read your mind. I can't, nor will I try to. It's the players job to tell the DM what they are doing as unambiguously as possible so that I, don't have to guess at what they mean. If I have to ask "What do you mean?" then you have failed your job as a player.

The DM may have to cater to the Player's desires, but the players have to cater to the DM's understanding.
Setting a watch order shouldn't matter. If the enemy is picking a random time to attack (or the party has no info so to them it might as well be random), one of the watchers will be picked at random. You specifically selecting the worst one is ABSOLUTE BS. If the enemy is picking a watcher it still doesn't matter because they will still pick the worst one. Unless your talking about who sets watch, in which case if your assuming the wizard takes watch and misses spell prep? Again bull. Same thing if you assume the cleric takes her prayer time. If they say we it would be shared, and I would assume everyone who can take part does so. So we go back to randomness.

Do you assume when they say they stop and eat they find posion berries and eat them? (Which would be the worst possible thing.) Or when the wizard says he prepares limited wish he prepares it from a scroll?

Also this is one more reason to play elves. No god-damn sleeping. No massive penalties to listen. And if you have two you can always have a watch.

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 01:03 PM
Setting a watch order shouldn't matter. If the enemy is picking a random time to attack (or the party has no info so to them it might as well be random), one of the watchers will be picked at random. You specifically selecting the worst one is ABSOLUTE BS. If the enemy is picking a watcher it still doesn't matter because they will still pick the worst one. Unless your talking about who sets watch, in which case if your assuming the wizard takes watch and misses spell prep? Again bull. Same thing if you assume the cleric takes her prayer time. If they say we it would be shared, and I would assume everyone who can take part does so. So we go back to randomness.

Do you assume when they say they stop and eat they find posion berries and eat them? (Which would be the worst possible thing.) Or when the wizard says he prepares limited wish he prepares it from a scroll?

Also this is one more reason to play elves. No god-damn sleeping. No massive penalties to listen. And if you have two you can always have a watch.

A warforged would be both better and cooler but that is besides the point.

Choosing the worst target might be unfair (okay it is unfair) but I think that was in fact their intention. It was to show the party that they have to think about not just what they are doing but how they are. Personally I would just ASK what order they are setting but that's just me. Either way the intention is the same. To make the PC's think about who should set up watch and in which order. He just chose the tough loe approach to teaching them the valuable lesson of providing details when necessary. Maybe not the best choice, certainly not the one I'd have gone with, but its not like he is dropping a balor on them at 5th lvl for this.

Lamech
2009-07-12, 01:18 PM
A warforged would be both better and cooler but that is besides the point.

Choosing the worst target might be unfair (okay it is unfair) but I think that was in fact their intention. It was to show the party that they have to think about not just what they are doing but how they are. Personally I would just ASK what order they are setting but that's just me. Either way the intention is the same. To make the PC's think about who should set up watch and in which order. He just chose the tough loe approach to teaching them the valuable lesson of providing details when necessary. Maybe not the best choice, certainly not the one I'd have gone with, but its not like he is dropping a balor on them at 5th lvl for this.

True but not everyone plays ebberon.

But the watch order shouldn't matter. Let say there were two decks of many things sitting around. And a PC said I draw a card from one. Would the DM figure out what both of the top cards were and say the PC draws from the worse one?

Watch order is not a important detail. If the PC's knew that most attacks came in the first part of the watch order fine make the cleric (or rogue) go first. But don't role for random encounters and then decide. Punishing the PC's for not making a desicion when they can't determine which idea is better I think is bull.

Yahzi
2009-07-12, 01:29 PM
But what does Wilderness Lore have to do with the enemy Moving Silently? Thats not an opposed check thats just arbitrary.
What skill are the enemy using to sneak up on your party?

How do you pick a camp that has good visibility, surround it with noisy terrain and/or alarm traps, and post sentries that can see/hear a long way and won't fall asleep or get distracted?

You can pick other skills to represent these activities, if you want. Opposed WL checks seems just as reasonable.


DnD is all about choices.
But it's not about the DM arbitrarily imposing meta-game knowledge. If my character has a skill of 25 in religion, I don't expect the DM to let him make mistakes about religious dogma. Same with spell-craft, or armor-smithing. The player doesn't need to know how to do these things; only the character needs to know how.

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 01:34 PM
True but not everyone plays ebberon.

But the watch order shouldn't matter. Let say there were two decks of many things sitting around. And a PC said I draw a card from one. Would the DM figure out what both of the top cards were and say the PC draws from the worse one?

Watch order is not a important detail. If the PC's knew that most attacks came in the first part of the watch order fine make the cleric (or rogue) go first. But don't role for random encounters and then decide. Punishing the PC's for not making a desicion when they can't determine which idea is better I think is bull.

I think Warforged should be in all campaigns tho......

I still think watch order is important though. Even though I agree that what the poster proposed was harsh. On the other hand if say you had already figured out that 5 hours after they go to sleep you would send someone to attack shouldn't it be important to know who is on watch? I would've asked but if they didn't then they are screwed. do they pick the best possible person and make the fight overly easy? The worst to make it excessively hard? Something in the middle to just assume average is good? No they should have forced the PCs to decide the order. They should have made them do it and if they didn't want to after prodding then yes it is their fault if you decide the bloody wizard decided to take watch during that time.

Jaltum
2009-07-12, 01:50 PM
Choosing the worst target might be unfair (okay it is unfair) but I think that was in fact their intention. It was to show the party that they have to think about not just what they are doing but how they are.

Doing things to "teach the party a lesson"--especially arbitrary things, like "Well, since you guys suck, they just happen to attack at the most inconvenient time"--is a good way to teach the lesson, "the DM likes to powertrip on us if we put a foot out of line, whether we know the line is there or not."

If this is important to you, just say, "Look, guys, setting a watch is serious business. You can't just say you're doing it, you have to give me the details like watch order."

Sebastian
2009-07-12, 02:00 PM
The whole and practically only point of the preparation time is to make the caster vulnerable and give them a weakness. If you don't plan to ever use that weakness against them then you could simply remove it and say that a caster replenish his spells after 8 hours of rest.

SensFan
2009-07-12, 02:24 PM
I think Warforged should be in all campaigns tho......

I still think watch order is important though. Even though I agree that what the poster proposed was harsh. On the other hand if say you had already figured out that 5 hours after they go to sleep you would send someone to attack shouldn't it be important to know who is on watch? I would've asked but if they didn't then they are screwed. do they pick the best possible person and make the fight overly easy? The worst to make it excessively hard? Something in the middle to just assume average is good? No they should have forced the PCs to decide the order. They should have made them do it and if they didn't want to after prodding then yes it is their fault if you decide the bloody wizard decided to take watch during that time.
If you had decided that the fight was occuring X hours in, then it has a random chance of being on the watch of anyone that was watching.
If you had decided that the bandits would watch for the Wizard, then (assuming they can watch the party without being discovered) the attack happens when the Wizard is on guard.

Seriously, if I my players (even the ones that always specify a watch) said "We stop for the night to sleep," my response would be "Are you setting a watch? If so, in what order?"

Lamech
2009-07-12, 03:28 PM
I think Warforged should be in all campaigns tho......

I still think watch order is important though. Even though I agree that what the poster proposed was harsh. On the other hand if say you had already figured out that 5 hours after they go to sleep you would send someone to attack shouldn't it be important to know who is on watch? I would've asked but if they didn't then they are screwed. do they pick the best possible person and make the fight overly easy? The worst to make it excessively hard? Something in the middle to just assume average is good? No they should have forced the PCs to decide the order. They should have made them do it and if they didn't want to after prodding then yes it is their fault if you decide the bloody wizard decided to take watch during that time.
I wouldn't say the wizard would be on watch if he had expended any spells. It would screw with his spell prep which would take such a degree of idiocy the DM's just being a jerk. On the level of, you didn't say you were locking your door. Plus the wizard probably has permenent arcane sight.
DM: Wizards on watch
Wiz: What? That makes
DM: Spot Check: You fail don't bother. A rogue sneak attacks you with 4 splitting arrows you die.
Wiz: Umm... no. Arcane Sight Thats 120ft, sneak attack is 30.
DM: Crap.
Wiz: Invis fly windwall, blast blast blast.

Anyway thats not really the point at all. The point is even if you decided ahead of time the party has no knowledge. The attack is still random to them. Think of drawing the top card in the deck, you have a 1/52 chance of getting the ace of spades. That doesn't change if someone else has looked at the top card and knows what you will get. Using all information at there disposal they would pick a random order; all choices are equal, excepting blantantly obvious things that mess with spell prep.

Now if the party did have some knowledge that such an attack might happen infive hours, say, a ghost that only comes out between 1:00 and 3:00, then go right ahead. Don't punish them when they don't make a choice, but the choice has no real effect.

If they are getting hit by something random, chose randomly. In the case of a random attack durning night, after they said "we set a watch" chose randomly among the people who can set watch with out screwing themselves, which probably means "not the wizard".

Ninetail
2009-07-12, 03:44 PM
How about, you're camping in the woods, there are cannibals, but you don't know it, do you set a watch?


I don't go camping.

If I lived in a world where jungle cannibals were common, and I went camping in the jungle, I would set a watch. Even if I didn't know there were cannibals in this particular jungle.

Because it's stupid to take the chance, when you know jungle cannibals are common.

If you're running a horror game in a modern setting, and the characters don't know what sorts of monsters are lurking in the darkness, then you have an argument for "You didn't set a watch," because the characters wouldn't know how deadly the world truly is. If you're running D&D in a typical fantasy setting, you don't. I can't conceive of any reason why a party would not set a watch in D&D -- they know they live in a dangerous world.



I don't expect the stupidest possible action. I expect no action beyond the mundane unless you play your character.


Setting a watch is mundane. You have yet to offer any in-game reason why a group would not set a watch, knowing that their world is dangerous.



I've said before that "making camp" includes mundane activities. Why do the people that disagree with the way I run games keep ignoring that? I don't consider setting watch mundane, since despite what you think it is preparing for possible combat.


Unstringing a bow is preparing for possible combat, too, because otherwise the bowstring will be ruined. Sharpening a sword is preparing for combat, because you need a sharp sword to be effective. Unsaddling and rubbing down the horses is preparing for combat, because....

Oh, no, wait, these are all mundane activities that any character with half an IQ point would know to do without having to specifically say so, because not doing so would be dangerous and silly. Kind of like not setting a watch when you're in the middle of the dangerous wilderness.



Let me ask you, what is it you're taking precautions against when you set a watch if it's not potential combat? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know your reasoning.


You're taking precautions against being surprised. That could mean combat, but it doesn't have to. You're also watching for, for instance, thieves who might try to slip into your camp and steal your belongings. (Any fey in those woods?) Or fellow travelers who might stumble on your campsite out of the blue, even if they're friendly. Or animals who might come searching for your food.



In this case I'll admit that degrees matter. I would either assume they locked the door or I would ask.


So, despite what you said earlier about not taking action for the players, you'll allow that they locked the door, or at least ask about it.

But you wouldn't assume they posted a watch, or at least ask?

Seriously, why?


In my defense, locking your door is something most normal people do in their daily lives. Setting watch when they go to sleep is not. Not even when camping.


I would argue that most normal people in the game world do set watches when camping. Because the world's dangerous, and they know it.

If you're using the real world, well, most normal people don't sharpen their knives every night or two, either. Or fletch their arrows, or study their spellbooks.



Any reasonable person? So in your world the peasants set a watch at the door of their hovel every night? In my worlds they don't.


We're not talking about people sleeping in a place in which they feel safe. We're talking about adventurers camping in the woods.

If those peasants go off camping in the dangerous woods, which is what we're talking about, they do set watches in my world. Because they're not idiots.



It has nothing to do with malice. It's letting the players make their own decisions, even if they make a mistake. As I've said in a previous post, if the group has an established routine then I assume they follow it unless they say otherwise. It is the player's job to establish that routine though, not mine to tell them what their routine is.


It's your job to ask if necessary. Assuming they do the stupidest thing possible without asking is poor GMing.

I mean, do you assume the wizard is walking out in front of the party, if the players don't specify their marching order? Wouldn't it be a lot more reasonable to assume that the ranger is out in front?



I think really the heart of the difference in our points of view is what we consider a mundane action. I don't feel that setting a watch qualifies. It's not something that everybody does in their normal lives and it has a very direct effect on any combat that might occur in that time period.


I would agree.

Why do you feel that people who camp in the typical D&D world's wilderness would not normally set a watch? This is what I don't understand. Is your typical NPC really that stupid? Or is your world mostly safe, with the dangerous areas unknown (in which case, I can understand your ruling, but I'd think it would be difficult to track down adventures)?


People in my experience are frequently not logical and do not think things through.


So the wizard with 18 int and the cleric with 18 wis are not logical and do not think things through. ...Right.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-12, 04:05 PM
So the wizard with 18 int and the cleric with 18 wis are not logical and do not think things through. ...Right.


This point is more important than most people give it credit for.

All of us normals, (Level 1-2 Commoners in D&D Terms) have between 9-11 in our mental scores. This means any PC with a good score (13+) is going to be much more intelligent or intuitive than the person playing them.

This means that DM shouldn't be assuming that anything the player doesn't think of the character doesn't. If anything this means that DM should be giving clues & tips to the player about what their character would be able to intuit or deduce that is simply beyond the player.

Jaltum
2009-07-12, 05:12 PM
Nnn. 'Should' is a sticky word to use there, I think. The extent to which DMs accomodate characters' ability scores beyond the RAW statistical effects varies a LOT from table to table. I'd call it firmly a matter of preference whether or not to give do-overs for player judgments because the character has a high Int or Wis.

For one thing, the player already has the huge advantages of time to think, distance from the events, and OOC meta-knowledge; I'd say most characters are probably played smarter than their stats suggest, not dumber.

EDIT: I'd be a lot more inclined to give a mulligan for things where the lack of immediacy hinders the player, if anything. It's a lot easier to forget that Bob's ranger just lost twenty hit points and needs to be stabilized than it is to miss that your buddy Jerrok just got gutted by a troll; if the party cleric ignores him to attack, I might throw out a "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

I guess that's part of my perspective on the whole setting a watch issue--it seems a lot easier for me to forget to mention it, or to take it as assumed, than it would be for my character to completely space on it.

(Although not impossible, I guess. When they wake up as the prisoners of the drow: "Hey, I thought it was your turn!" "No, I kept watch last night! It was clearly your turn!" "Don't look at me, I'm the wizard!" Etc)

Curmudgeon
2009-07-12, 10:22 PM
If a group told me they were setting a watch without specifying an order, then I'm going to assign them the worst possible watch for the situation. Why? Because saying your doing something that requires more elaboration than "I do it" This seems unfair if you're doing random encounters. In that case I'd just pick one of the PCs randomly, too.

But if you've got sneaky enemies watching and looking for the best time to strike, then it makes sense that they'll pick the weakest target. Kill the Wizard! (Not much challenge, given their cross-class Spot and Listen, plus low HP.)

thubby
2009-07-12, 10:38 PM
would you attack a fighter without his armor?
would you put a rogue in a straight fight?

if the answer to either is yes (and it probably is), then you have no reason to pull punches on the most powerful classes in the game.


This point is more important than most people give it credit for.

All of us normals, (Level 1-2 Commoners in D&D Terms) have between 9-11 in our mental scores. This means any PC with a good score (13+) is going to be much more intelligent or intuitive than the person playing them.

This means that DM shouldn't be assuming that anything the player doesn't think of the character doesn't. If anything this means that DM should be giving clues & tips to the player about what their character would be able to intuit or deduce that is simply beyond the player.

players also have a far greater knowledge of available resources than anyone in that situation could, along with better perspective.
there's also the matter of PCs being diplomacy (and iirc intimidate) proof. if players are supposed to control characters to their benefit, it would stand to reason that they would do so to their detriment as well.

oxinabox
2009-07-12, 11:57 PM
All of us normals, (Level 1-2 Commoners in D&D Terms) have between 9-11 in our mental scores. This means any PC with a good score (13+) is going to be much more intelligent or intuitive than the person playing them.


Counter argument:
Most dnd players are nerds (Stereotype i know),
Alot of dnd players are at uni or have uni degree's
I don't mean to boast, but I out int all my character's but my wizard.

Most people have average wisdom = common sense.
Wis is often a dumpstat for wizard, fighters, rogues, barbarians, sorcerers many rangers(eg :belkar:) ... most classes other than cleric, monk and druid.
Ego ~8 vs normal 10 or 11.

Thus players win on both accounts.
But i don't think if matters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've asked my players: "Do you set a watch?"
And they been like "nah"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tallis
2009-07-13, 12:07 AM
I don't go camping.

If I lived in a world where jungle cannibals were common, and I went camping in the jungle, I would set a watch. Even if I didn't know there were cannibals in this particular jungle.

Because it's stupid to take the chance, when you know jungle cannibals are common.

There are many common dangerous animals in the areas of the real world that people do camp in. For example, I live in Florida where we have wildcats and alligators (probably bears too in some areas). People know they're out there, but I've never known anyone to set a watch. I don't really see how it would make a difference to them if they got eaten by an animal or a cannibal.


If you're running a horror game in a modern setting, and the characters don't know what sorts of monsters are lurking in the darkness, then you have an argument for "You didn't set a watch," because the characters wouldn't know how deadly the world truly is. If you're running D&D in a typical fantasy setting, you don't. I can't conceive of any reason why a party would not set a watch in D&D -- they know they live in a dangerous world.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "typical fantasy setting". I tend to base my worlds on history, old legends, mythology, and folklore. Magical and dangerous things are out there, but most people only know of them through stories. They don't get jumped by an army of goblins as soon as they step off their front porch. Wolves can be a problem in the winter, maybe bears just coming out of hibernation looking for food. Your average person deals with the same kinds of problems that the average person in the dark ages did in the real world.


Setting a watch is mundane. You have yet to offer any in-game reason why a group would not set a watch, knowing that their world is dangerous.

Because they didn't think of it? Because growing up it wasn't a normal thing to do and they have yet to learn that the areas they're in now are different? Because they're near home and don't realize bandits have moved into the area? There are a lot of reasons if you give it a little thought.


Unstringing a bow is preparing for possible combat, too, because otherwise the bowstring will be ruined. Sharpening a sword is preparing for combat, because you need a sharp sword to be effective. Unsaddling and rubbing down the horses is preparing for combat, because....

Oh, no, wait, these are all mundane activities that any character with half an IQ point would know to do without having to specifically say so, because not doing so would be dangerous and silly. Kind of like not setting a watch when you're in the middle of the dangerous wilderness.

Actually most of those examples are general maintenance that you would tend to do after combat. Sharpening the sword could go either way, but if it were me I'd want to get it done as soon as possible after the sword was used so that it would be ready for it's next use. They're also things anyone trained in the use of those weapons is trained to do. Of course none of them have any mechanical effect on D&D combat by RAW.
Being awake and on watch or being asleep in your bedroll makes a huge difference.


You're taking precautions against being surprised. That could mean combat, but it doesn't have to. You're also watching for, for instance, thieves who might try to slip into your camp and steal your belongings. (Any fey in those woods?) Or fellow travelers who might stumble on your campsite out of the blue, even if they're friendly. Or animals who might come searching for your food.

Other than the friendly travelers, who you really wouldn't need to set a watch for, because they're, y'know, friendly, these situations would all tend to lead to a combat encounter in games I've been in. What would you do if you caught someone trying to steal your stuff?
Regardless, we can change the terminology to encounter rather than combat if you prefer. I suppose you could try diplomacy on the thieves if you like.


So, despite what you said earlier about not taking action for the players, you'll allow that they locked the door, or at least ask about it.

I don't know anyone that stays at a hotel or motel and doesn't lock the door. But you're right I should ask, not just assume they did it.


But you wouldn't assume they posted a watch, or at least ask?

Seriously, why?

No I wouldn't assume it. Because it's not something everybody does and it makes a big difference in what happens if there is an encounter. So after the first few times, no I don't ask if they set watch.
I also don't ask the wizard if he casts mirror image at the beginning of combat. It would be a smart and logical thing to do, but it's the player who has to remember that he has that spell and decide to use it.


I would argue that most normal people in the game world do set watches when camping. Because the world's dangerous, and they know it.

...and you'd be wrong. At least in my world. Although I can't say for sure I've never seen an indication that that was normal for the average person in any world I've been a player in either.


If you're using the real world, well, most normal people don't sharpen their knives every night or two, either. Or fletch their arrows, or study their spellbooks.

No, but then again most people don't use their knives and bows in combat every day either. Cops clean their guns regularly though (they still don't normally set watches when they go camping). I have known people that studied their spellbooks regularly, but I wouldn't call them normal.
In the middle ages when a soldier was using his sword in a war I'll bet he did sharpen it and oil it regularly.


We're not talking about people sleeping in a place in which they feel safe. We're talking about adventurers camping in the woods.

If those peasants go off camping in the dangerous woods, which is what we're talking about, they do set watches in my world. Because they're not idiots.

It's not so much a question of intelligence as it is of experience. Sometimes people do stupid things because they just don't think about it. If you think that's not true then I don't know what to tell you.


It's your job to ask if necessary. Assuming they do the stupidest thing possible without asking is poor GMing.

There are only 2 choices in question here. Set watch or don't. Calling it the stupidest thing possible implies a lot more.
I think leading the players into making the decisions you think they should is poor GMing. I think my players are good enough to make their own decisions about what their players do without having to be lead. I've never had to ask if they set watch, they told me.


I mean, do you assume the wizard is walking out in front of the party, if the players don't specify their marching order? Wouldn't it be a lot more reasonable to assume that the ranger is out in front?

Well since they've already told you they're going somewhere, it would be a lot more reasonable to ask what their marching order is and let them decide who's in front. Just like when they say they're setting a watch I would ask for the order and length of the watches.
You seem to think I'm out o screw the players over. I just want them to think for themselves.



Why do you feel that people who camp in the typical D&D world's wilderness would not normally set a watch? This is what I don't understand. Is your typical NPC really that stupid? Or is your world mostly safe, with the dangerous areas unknown (in which case, I can understand your ruling, but I'd think it would be difficult to track down adventures)?

For one thing I don't believe in the idea of a typical D&D world. Every group plays it differently, even when they play in the same world. The typical NPC in my worlds would be staying fairly close to home when they went out hunting or whatever. Typical people don't go exploring the frontier, otherwise they'd be adventurers. However the adventurers probably grew up with typical people and learned their habits from them. It does tend to be safer near civilization in my worlds, as I would expect to be the norm in most worlds. Maybe I'm wrong in that expectation, but it's illogical to me to think that civilization would be possible if it couldn't push back the dangers of the world or grow in safer areas. Small villages and towns would just get wiped out and cities would never have a chance to form. Wandering tribes of humans in a hugely dangerous world could be interesting to play (I might just add it to my world somewhere), but I wouldn't expect it to be the norm. If it was then my expectations of normal behavior would change drastically.




So the wizard with 18 int and the cleric with 18 wis are not logical and do not think things through. ...Right.

I used to be friends with a girl who was tested at a 180 IQ which should translate to an 18 int. She did drugs, smoked, drank, and ate bad foods. Those are all stupid and illogical things that were actively harming her. She still did them, because people do stupid illogical things sometimes, even if they know better. Everybody makes mistakes.


All of us normals, (Level 1-2 Commoners in D&D Terms) have between 9-11 in our mental scores. This means any PC with a good score (13+) is going to be much more intelligent or intuitive than the person playing them.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the people on this board have IQs above that range actually, so I'd say most of us, not All of us. In groups I've played in it was actually more common to have RL ints in the 12-13 range, though some were higher and some were quite a bit lower.

LibraryOgre
2009-07-13, 01:06 AM
If one assumes a living game-world, I think it would be very common to attack while people are preparing magics.

For example, in the Forgotten Realms, priests of Lathander pray at dawn. If the group you're attacking includes a priest of Lathander, a religion check will tell you that the time to attack them is at dawn... he won't have anything but his remaining spells prepared, and he won't be able to prepare again that day. Hit them on several successive dawns, and you've created a real problem for them vis a vis healing and clerical support.

This is simply good tactics, and if you have the world be fairly verisimilitudinous, people who like tactics are going to use these things.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-13, 01:13 AM
If one assumes a living game-world, I think it would be very common to attack while people are preparing magics.

For example, in the Forgotten Realms, priests of Lathander pray at dawn. If the group you're attacking includes a priest of Lathander, a religion check will tell you that the time to attack them is at dawn... he won't have anything but his remaining spells prepared, and he won't be able to prepare again that day. Hit them on several successive dawns, and you've created a real problem for them vis a vis healing and clerical support.

This is simply good tactics, and if you have the world be fairly verisimilitudinous, people who like tactics are going to use these things.nitpick:he can pray after combat. There's a designated time, but if he cannot pray at that time, for whatever reason, he can still get spells if he stops to pray as soon as possible.

Khanderas
2009-07-13, 01:40 AM
I always thought of the process as...
Wizard knows the spell once learned. Casting it does not cause him to actually forget what words and handmotions were made, but the power behind those words are gone.

The morning preparation is when the Wizard can focus inward and fill his mind with the arcane power needed to set up the spells and once in this meditive state of mind (this takes most of the prep time), fills his slots with the spells he want, and the selfimposed arcane meditiation dissipates leaving only the filled spellslots.

That way, if disturbed in the middle of this, he gains no spells at all (none is lost if they were not spent the night before) and the process has to begin anew, quite possibly ruined for the day (due to the adrenaline of fighting setting his mind past the fragile "refreshed" state of mind needed for all arcane prepared spells, DM's call as is everything else).

Devine casters dont need the refreshed state of mind, but similary an interrupted "holytime" counts for nothing, most of that time is preparation to recive new spells. Old spells are not lost here either.

As for fair, like many before me have said, this is quite fair and part of the game. Especially if they are deep in enemy territory among intelligent enemies who knows the dangers of letting a caster finish his refreshment rituals.

Lamech
2009-07-13, 08:10 AM
That way, if disturbed in the middle of this, he gains no spells at all (none is lost if they were not spent the night before) and the process has to begin anew, quite possibly ruined for the day (due to the adrenaline of fighting setting his mind past the fragile "refreshed" state of mind needed for all arcane prepared spells, DM's call as is everything else).No. Wizards can leave unfilled slots. So he just has some unfilled slots. Now he might be down the spell slots he was switching out for the actual fight, but he would still be able to prepare spells. Just like normal. One could also argue that he is not down the spell slots he was going to switch out and therefore they are not "unfilled". But either way, as soon as he gets a chance to prepare he will have his full daily alotment of spells. (Minus the ones cast when he got attacked.)


Devine casters dont need the refreshed state of mind, but similary an interrupted "holytime" counts for nothing, most of that time is preparation to recive new spells. Old spells are not lost here either.
The interrupted "holytime" will keep them from preparing spells at that time, but they can still prepare spells at the next chance they get. So this is mearly attacking the cleric before their next spell prep. No differant than attacking the cleric an hour before spell prep.

Saph
2009-07-13, 08:25 AM
All of us normals, (Level 1-2 Commoners in D&D Terms) have between 9-11 in our mental scores. This means any PC with a good score (13+) is going to be much more intelligent or intuitive than the person playing them.

This means that DM shouldn't be assuming that anything the player doesn't think of the character doesn't. If anything this means that DM should be giving clues & tips to the player about what their character would be able to intuit or deduce that is simply beyond the player.

Yeah, I've never bought into this one.

I am not going to give a player a constant stream of advice and tips just because they wrote down a high number for their Int score. Similarly, I'm not going to order Throg the Barbarian to make stupid mistakes just because he has an Int and a Wis of 8.

How you play your character is up to you, the player. That's the whole point of D&D. Your character lives and dies by your own choices, no-one else's. You're encouraged to make some effort to RP your character's mental scores, but the exact details of how you do it is something I leave entirely in your hands.

I give players advice if they ask for it, and I usually warn them if they do something particularly stupid, but I do this universally, for all players. I don't give any preference to the ones with high mental scores.

So with the example of watches, I'll tell the players at the beginning of the campaign that the wilderness is dangerous and setting watches is probably a good idea. The first time they rest for the night without mentioning it, I'll prompt them: "you guys setting a watch?"

If they still don't get into the habit of telling me a watch order, I'll give them one of my subtle warnings. :) Usually this takes the form of an OOC scene where the camera drifts over the sleeping PCs and then alights on a pair of displacer beasts watching them. The displacer beasts begin talking and their conversation is displayed in subtitles. The displacer beasts discuss eating each party member, in detail, and find a reason not to eat each one (too fat, too much cholestorol, looks unhealthy, smells bad) and eventually wander off.

If the PCs still don't get the hint after that, then yes, I'll have them CdGed in their sleep. It's just wilful stupidity by this point.

- Saph

SensFan
2009-07-13, 10:08 AM
I used to be friends with a girl who was tested at a 180 IQ which should translate to an 18 int. She did drugs, smoked, drank, and ate bad foods. Those are all stupid and illogical things that were actively harming her. She still did them, because people do stupid illogical things sometimes, even if they know better. Everybody makes mistakes.
I highly doubt that she had the equivalent of Int 18. Einstein was about 16-17.

LibraryOgre
2009-07-13, 10:39 AM
I highly doubt that she had the equivalent of Int 18. Einstein was about 16-17.

The version I've used is to assume 50+(Int*5) for IQ; an 18 is about 140, by that measure.

Jaltum
2009-07-13, 11:26 AM
It's not useful to try and equate IQ scores to Int stats.

Tallis
2009-07-13, 11:54 AM
I highly doubt that she had the equivalent of Int 18. Einstein was about 16-17.

The conversion I use, which is derived from older versions of D&D is int*10=approximate IQ, which would put Einstein at 18 as well (It's my understanding that his IQ tested at around 180 as well). You may not agree that the older version of stat conversion applies, but you can't deny that a 180 IQ is pretty frickin high, so I think my point is still valid.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-13, 12:15 PM
The conversion I use, which is derived from older versions of D&D is int*10=approximate IQ, which would put Einstein at 18 as well (It's my understanding that his IQ tested at around 180 as well). You may not agree that the older version of stat conversion applies, but you can't deny that a 180 IQ is pretty frickin high, so I think my point is still valid.Only if you assume that drinking, doing drugs, and eating unhealthy foods are bad things. If she enjoys herself, I'd say that's perfectly reasonable for a high Int(and fightin off addictions are Wis and Will, not Int).

Tallis
2009-07-13, 12:20 PM
Only if you assume that drinking, doing drugs, and eating unhealthy foods are bad things. If she enjoys herself, I'd say that's perfectly reasonable for a high Int(and fightin off addictions are Wis and Will, not Int).

I'll cede that point to you, but there are other fun things to do that aren't as harmful. She specifically chose the harmful ones in those cases. The "stupidest possible course of action" as it were.

Jaltum
2009-07-13, 12:26 PM
I'll try this again with more detail, although I know it's not going to stop the inevitable derailment of the thread and argument over conversation formulas and the stats of historical persons:

IQ is a measurement of your ability to take an IQ test. It's supposed that this ability correlates to high intelligence. Depending on the definition you use for intelligence, this can be true, false, or meaningless. For the most useful definitions of intelligence--which split cognitive ability into multiple categories (spatial, verbal, mathematical etc) and dimensions (processing, memory, reasoning, etc)--it's meaningless.

Most IQ estimates for historical smart people are doubly meaningless, proceeding from the logic 'well, smart people have high IQs, and this guy was smart, so.....'

It's like having a single number to represent 'strong.' What you can lift with your back is different from what you can lift with your arms is different from what you can lift with your legs, and a clean and jerk and drop is different from the stamina to hold a position or exert yourself doing push-ups or something.

The D&D Int stat doesn't even try to measure the same things as the IQ test (leaving out actual intelligence entirely). It's a mechanical stat, adding bonus to certain checks and determining certain class features, and includes things like education and skills, while actual tactical thinking and planning and reasoning are mostly handled on a roleplay level, inevitably.

Trying to translate a largely meaningless number from one system into a number with mostly mechanical utility in a completely different system is a waste of time.

ericgrau
2009-07-13, 01:18 PM
Yes, please attack the party at night, especially the casters. It should only happen when reasonable, but it should be a normal option of enemy (or random encounter) tactics, among many. Having enemies just walk up to the PCs to fight is both uninteresting and unrealistically dumb; much below average int even. And, to paraphrase the PHB, "Wizards are strong when prepared, and vulnerable when not." Wizards really don't need to be helped by monsters fighting them in the open after a good night's rest. They should ambush at night, keep coming after the wizard has already expended spells, grapple him, disrupt spellcasting with attacks, take spell component pouches & holy symbols, dispel magic, scout for rope tricks, etc., etc. This isn't mean, this is just a good step towards game balance (whether or not you're one of those people who believes it's enough).

Roderick_BR
2009-07-13, 01:58 PM
It's as right as attacking them in their sleep, keeping them from resting enough to recover their spells at all, Hit Points, daily uses of habilities that require rest...

An inteligent villain that sees the party, or at least their casters, as a true threat, will try to scry on them, or use spies to track them down, and strike when they are more vulnerable. But then again, by the time they actually become a threat, or the villain gathers enough resources to make that kind of vigilia, the group's casters will have developed enough counter-measures.

Sliver
2009-07-13, 02:47 PM
Really? Attacking at night or while caster is preparing his spells? Why is that even a valid tactic that a DM might consider for something like hurting the wizard?

Sure, it can work... at the lower levels.. when the caster just hides from enemies anyway while someone else does the job.. and then him not having his spells for the day is really that troublesome? sure, those are some resorces the party can't use, but at low level they couldn't count on that wizard most of the time anyway.
But its nothing to consider against the mid level party, cuz really, they don't sleep on the same plane of existense anyway.

So I see it as, yeah, attacking someone while they prepare spells is striking their weakness and is a valid stratagy against some caster at his low levels that didn't still have a chance to gather that much power to begin with.
It does nothing after that, they don't even need to keep watch.

I really don't understand the point of the argument.. It won't matter anyway..

Tallis
2009-07-13, 03:23 PM
IQ is a measurement of your ability to take an IQ test. It's supposed that this ability correlates to high intelligence. Depending on the definition you use for intelligence, this can be true, false, or meaningless. For the most useful definitions of intelligence--which split cognitive ability into multiple categories (spatial, verbal, mathematical etc) and dimensions (processing, memory, reasoning, etc)--it's meaningless.

***

The D&D Int stat doesn't even try to measure the same things as the IQ test (leaving out actual intelligence entirely). It's a mechanical stat, adding bonus to certain checks and determining certain class features, and includes things like education and skills, while actual tactical thinking and planning and reasoning are mostly handled on a roleplay level, inevitably.

Trying to translate a largely meaningless number from one system into a number with mostly mechanical utility in a completely different system is a waste of time.

I'm aware that both IQ and the D&D int stat are abstractions. Using IQ in the example was simply an easy short hand way of demonstrating that I'm talking about a highly intelligent person. As far as Einstein is concerned it's my understanding that he actually was tested, though I don't have that information in front of me so I could be wrong.
If you prefer a more concrete example of my friends intellect: She went to college at age 16 on a full scholarship, by age 18 she was in Yale med-school. The high school she went to does not let students skip grades as some schools do, they make their students do the work. She also had a very good understanding of math and physics (no doubt helped by the fact that her father was a particle physicist studying quarks). She was also an accomplished piano player and an above average artist. She wasn't one of the best artists I've seen, but I have seen professionals that weren't as good as her.
Her ability to absorb and process information was well beyond most people that I've known. Yes, I've known people that were just as good or better than her in some areas, but no-one that could match her in all areas (her sister and father were close though).

Ninetail
2009-07-13, 06:52 PM
There are many common dangerous animals in the areas of the real world that people do camp in. For example, I live in Florida where we have wildcats and alligators (probably bears too in some areas). People know they're out there, but I've never known anyone to set a watch. I don't really see how it would make a difference to them if they got eaten by an animal or a cannibal.

Most real-world animals aren't dangerous to humans (as long as those humans are minding their own business and not, say, poking into the den where the cubs are). In areas of the world in which people live and where vicious territorial animals are commonly found, you will find that said people do tend to keep watch for said animals. More so, I would assume, if they were to go camping in said animals' lair.

In your typical fantasy world, a goblin is pretty dangerous to a human. Let alone a dragon. I'd tend to assume that peasants forced to camp in the wilderness for whatever reason would keep an eye out for goblins. (Chances are they wouldn't see 'em coming, but that's another story.)



I'm not sure what you mean by a "typical fantasy setting". I tend to base my worlds on history, old legends, mythology, and folklore. Magical and dangerous things are out there, but most people only know of them through stories. They don't get jumped by an army of goblins as soon as they step off their front porch. Wolves can be a problem in the winter, maybe bears just coming out of hibernation looking for food. Your average person deals with the same kinds of problems that the average person in the dark ages did in the real world.


Okay, so you have a relatively safe world. That explains your assumptions, I would agree. As long as you let your players know in advance that they need to explicitly tell you they're keeping watch every night, I don't see this as a problem.

I'd still prefer to 'automate' it myself, because I see it as a waste of time at best and fishing for a gotcha opportunity at worst, but whatever makes you happy.



Other than the friendly travelers, who you really wouldn't need to set a watch for, because they're, y'know, friendly, these situations would all tend to lead to a combat encounter in games I've been in. What would you do if you caught someone trying to steal your stuff?


Hasn't ever happened, because I take precautions like any sensible person should. However, I can say with certainty that the answer to that question would not be "immediately attempt to kill them."



Regardless, we can change the terminology to encounter rather than combat if you prefer. I suppose you could try diplomacy on the thieves if you like.


Actually, the idea is that the sentry would deter casual thieves. Therefore there would be no encounter. Diplomacy or intimidation is probably a good idea, though, depending on the circumstances.



I don't know anyone that stays at a hotel or motel and doesn't lock the door. But you're right I should ask, not just assume they did it.


*facepalm*



...and you'd be wrong. At least in my world. Although I can't say for sure I've never seen an indication that that was normal for the average person in any world I've been a player in either.


You must play in some awfully safe worlds... or worlds with a rather low-wis population.



It's not so much a question of intelligence as it is of experience. Sometimes people do stupid things because they just don't think about it. If you think that's not true then I don't know what to tell you.


No, I think it's unreasonable to decide that the characters "just don't think about" something as fundamental as setting a watch.

The players, sure, I can easily see them mentally skipping over that step. But if the characters wouldn't, then you should ask about it.

Punishing players for mistakes actively made is one thing. Punishing them for a momentary oversight caused by the fact that the player is not actually in the character's shoes is another.

And if the players have established a watch, I don't see any point in making them repeat the procedure every time they stop to rest. The only reason I can see for doing so is that gotcha game: hoping that they forget to mention it once so you can spring a surprise encounter on them because "you guys didn't say anyone was on watch." In my opinion, they should never need to say another word about a watch unless they want to change their procedure for some reason. Because it's a routine, just like caring for their weapons and mounts is a routine.



There are only 2 choices in question here. Set watch or don't. Calling it the stupidest thing possible implies a lot more.


Yes, but when the characters have set watch for a year straight, why would they decide not to set watch one night just because the players forgot to mention it?

It makes far more sense, and is far more sensible, for them to set watch according to their long-established practice.



You seem to think I'm out o screw the players over. I just want them to think for themselves.


And to spend game time reciting their routine every time they camp, apparently.

You have a very Gygaxian approach.

I've always preferred Arneson's, myself.



I used to be friends with a girl who was tested at a 180 IQ which should translate to an 18 int. She did drugs, smoked, drank, and ate bad foods. Those are all stupid and illogical things that were actively harming her. She still did them, because people do stupid illogical things sometimes, even if they know better. Everybody makes mistakes.


High intelligence would mean she knows those things are bad for her. (Although drinking and "bad foods" are, in moderation, arguable, as are some drugs.)

Low wisdom would be the reason she does them anyway.

If every single member of the party has low, or even average, wisdom, then you might have a point. Got anyone with a 12? They're in the top 25% of the human population as far as thinking things through goes. Might still overlook such a thing, I suppose... but it's unlikely. An 18? Top 0.5%. This guy doesn't overlook anything, I assure you. If he "makes a mistake," it's because he chooses to do so, knowing the likely eventual consequences.

Of course, most players do not have the equivalent of an 18 wisdom, plus they have the disadvantage of not actually living in the game world. That's where it's the GM's responsibility to step in, maybe ask for a wis check, and say, "Hey, you know what? Your character thinks setting a watch would probably be a good idea."

To do otherwise is actually to prevent the player from roleplaying his character.

Anyway, I think this is probably the last response I'm going to make on this thread. It's apparent that your style of play is just vastly removed from mine, and I don't foresee any reconciliation of our views. Your group seems happy with your style, though, so that's fine. I'll continue to entertain my own narrative-focused players, so that's fine too.

If nothing else, at least the whole discussion serves as a decent object lesson in why it's important for a GM to set out his expectations to his players at the start of the campaign. A player with your style in my game would bore everyone with tedious repetition. A player with my style in your game would end up killed in an ambush, or something. Neither very fun, both easily avoided once expectations are clear.

Tallis
2009-07-14, 12:22 AM
Most real-world animals aren't dangerous to humans (as long as those humans are minding their own business and not, say, poking into the den where the cubs are).

Animal attacks aren't common, but they do happen.


In areas of the world in which people live and where vicious territorial animals are commonly found, you will find that said people do tend to keep watch for said animals. More so, I would assume, if they were to go camping in said animals' lair.

In your typical fantasy world, a goblin is pretty dangerous to a human. Let alone a dragon. I'd tend to assume that peasants forced to camp in the wilderness for whatever reason would keep an eye out for goblins. (Chances are they wouldn't see 'em coming, but that's another story.)

Okay, so you have a relatively safe world. That explains your assumptions, I would agree. As long as you let your players know in advance that they need to explicitly tell you they're keeping watch every night, I don't see this as a problem.

I think this section addresses itself. And yes, after this discussion I agree that the DM should make his or her expectations about what is automated clear at the beginning of the game.


I'd still prefer to 'automate' it myself, because I see it as a waste of time at best and fishing for a gotcha opportunity at worst, but whatever makes you happy.

Fair enough, it's your game.


Hasn't ever happened, because I take precautions like any sensible person should. However, I can say with certainty that the answer to that question would not be "immediately attempt to kill them."

LOL, me too. :smallamused:


Actually, the idea is that the sentry would deter casual thieves. Therefore there would be no encounter. Diplomacy or intimidation is probably a good idea, though, depending on the circumstances.

I sincerely wish you luck with that. Might lead to something interesting. Probably would in my game, just for the novelty of my players trying it.:smalltongue:


*facepalm*

Sorry I couldn't resist. :smallredface:


You must play in some awfully safe worlds... or worlds with a rather low-wis population.

Probably the latter. In my experience low wisdom is pretty common though.


No, I think it's unreasonable to decide that the characters "just don't think about" something as fundamental as setting a watch.

I don't decide that, I take my cues from the players.


The players, sure, I can easily see them mentally skipping over that step. But if the characters wouldn't, then you should ask about it.

Punishing players for mistakes actively made is one thing. Punishing them for a momentary oversight caused by the fact that the player is not actually in the character's shoes is another.

I don't think you and I will agree on this point. This is why I recommend that my players set up SOPs for common situations.


And if the players have established a watch, I don't see any point in making them repeat the procedure every time they stop to rest. The only reason I can see for doing so is that gotcha game: hoping that they forget to mention it once so you can spring a surprise encounter on them because "you guys didn't say anyone was on watch." In my opinion, they should never need to say another word about a watch unless they want to change their procedure for some reason. Because it's a routine, just like caring for their weapons and mounts is a routine.

I think it takes more than one instance to establish a routine. Again, I recommend setting up SOPs for what the characters default actions are, but it's up to the player to decide what the default action is, not me.


Yes, but when the characters have set watch for a year straight, why would they decide not to set watch one night just because the players forgot to mention it?

It makes far more sense, and is far more sensible, for them to set watch according to their long-established practice.

If you go back a couple pages you'll see a post in which I said I'd ask about the watch in the beginning of the game or if it's an established practice.


And to spend game time reciting their routine every time they camp, apparently.

SOPs are a good thing.


You have a very Gygaxian approach.

I'm actually not a big fan of instant death traps or lightning bolts from the blue. I think it makes for a much better campaign if the PC don't just randomly die (which seems to be something Gygax liked), but I can't deny that I have read some things that he's written and therefore been influenced by him.


I've always preferred Arneson's, myself.

I haven't read much that was specifically written by him, so I can't really say I know what his approach was.


High intelligence would mean she knows those things are bad for her. (Although drinking and "bad foods" are, in moderation, arguable, as are some drugs.)

Low wisdom would be the reason she does them anyway.

If every single member of the party has low, or even average, wisdom, then you might have a point. Got anyone with a 12? They're in the top 25% of the human population as far as thinking things through goes. Might still overlook such a thing, I suppose... but it's unlikely. An 18? Top 0.5%. This guy doesn't overlook anything, I assure you. If he "makes a mistake," it's because he chooses to do so, knowing the likely eventual consequences.

Agreed, I used that example because you mentioned the 18 int wizard. I have no examples of 18 wisdom. I think wisdom is harder to measure anyway.


Of course, most players do not have the equivalent of an 18 wisdom, plus they have the disadvantage of not actually living in the game world. That's where it's the GM's responsibility to step in, maybe ask for a wis check, and say, "Hey, you know what? Your character thinks setting a watch would probably be a good idea."

I could accept the idea of a wisdom check, but I still think the players should know enough about the game to not need one.


To do otherwise is actually to prevent the player from roleplaying his character.

We're not going to agree on this part.


Anyway, I think this is probably the last response I'm going to make on this thread. It's apparent that your style of play is just vastly removed from mine, and I don't foresee any reconciliation of our views. Your group seems happy with your style, though, so that's fine. I'll continue to entertain my own narrative-focused players, so that's fine too.

Well I hope that even if you don't respond that you do read this since we actually do agree on some of these points and you do seem to have some misconceptions about the way my games actually run.


If nothing else, at least the whole discussion serves as a decent object lesson in why it's important for a GM to set out his expectations to his players at the start of the campaign. A player with your style in my game would bore everyone with tedious repetition. A player with my style in your game would end up killed in an ambush, or something. Neither very fun, both easily avoided once expectations are clear.

I wholeheartedly agree that the DM and players should set out their expectations right from the beginning.
I think you vastly overestimate the amount of repetition in my games. SOPs are the norm. That way the players don't have to tell me what they're doing unless it abnormal and I don't have too assume anything because I already know what they're doing.
Hopefully your players would learn from the first encounter rather than getting killed. Better yet; hopefully they'd pay attention to what I'm saying before the game actually starts and set up an SOP for camping.

Killer Angel
2009-07-14, 04:41 AM
Really? Attacking at night or while caster is preparing his spells? Why is that even a valid tactic that a DM might consider for something like hurting the wizard?

Sure, it can work... at the lower levels.. when the caster just hides from enemies anyway while someone else does the job..
(snip)
But its nothing to consider against the mid level party, cuz really, they don't sleep on the same plane of existense anyway.

So I see it as, yeah, attacking someone while they prepare spells is striking their weakness and is a valid stratagy against some caster at his low levels that didn't still have a chance to gather that much power to begin with.
It does nothing after that, they don't even need to keep watch.



First: I suppose that, at "mid levels", the only way a caster have to sleep in another plane of existance, is the rope trick. It's not a given fact that your group has an arcane caster (wiz./sorc.). If you have a group with a druid, a cleric, a rogue/bard and a meleer, suddenly there's no Rope trick to hide in.

Second: you must rest 8 hours, then study 1 hour to refresh your spell list: to do this in total security, you must be a wiz. 9° lev. So, your "low levels", goes from 1° to 8°. The ambush for the wiz., is no more a problem after 8th lev (unless you're using metamagic feats to extend the duration of your spell, so with a rod, a 5 lev. wiz. is fine), but what about the others in the group?
The ranger likes to sit in the rope trick doing nothing at all while you're studying? The Pelor's cleric don't prefer to pray in the light of dawn, outside the Rope trick?

It's not a thing that a DM should abuse, but I think that an ambush when the caster are studying, it's not a so-impossible thing.

Sliver
2009-07-14, 05:06 AM
First: I suppose that, at "mid levels", the only way a caster have to sleep in another plane of existance, is the rope trick. It's not a given fact that your group has an arcane caster (wiz./sorc.). If you have a group with a druid, a cleric, a rogue/bard and a meleer, suddenly there's no Rope trick to hide in.

Suddenly, there is no arcane caster that cares about being attacked while preparing spells, cuz.. the rest don't need it right?

About the second point, yeah thats about right.. but level 5 wizard can extend rope trick (making extend rope trick scrolls is possible too no?) and not care anymore, and that is about the level that it is pretty much agreed here that a wizard is about the same power level as the rest..

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-14, 05:28 AM
Suddenly, there is no arcane caster that cares about being attacked while preparing spells, cuz.. the rest don't need it right?

About the second point, yeah thats about right.. but level 5 wizard can extend rope trick (making extend rope trick scrolls is possible too no?) and not care anymore, and that is about the level that it is pretty much agreed here that a wizard is about the same power level as the rest..

Well, maybe orcs cannot dispel such trick, but there are creatures (like demons) able to see invisibility, and to cast Dispel Magic even at will.

Actually, if is proper of the setting, you could even have a group of creatures, one able to see the trick, one to dispel it, and the other able to smash a group without spell. And this is just an example.

Higher the level of the party grows, and more they are likely to andventure in dangerous and exotic places, and so to have similar encounters.

Being imaginative is paert of the fun of this game.

Killer Angel
2009-07-14, 05:37 AM
Suddenly, there is no arcane caster that cares about being attacked while preparing spells, cuz.. the rest don't need it right?


I don't understand your pow...
If in the group there is no wizard / sorcerer (difficult but not impossible), You have no access to Rope trick (unless you're UMD wands, possible but not so cheap). BUT, you can have other caster in the group, that needs to prepare spells, so it's possible to attack them while they're preaching, etc.
So, the ambush is a viable option.



About the second point, yeah thats about right.. but level 5 wizard can extend rope trick (making extend rope trick scrolls is possible too no?) and not care anymore, and that is about the level that it is pretty much agreed here that a wizard is about the same power level as the rest..

It was the same thing I said: extending a rope trick, is a viable tactic for a 5 lev. wiz., who became safe from ambush (don't wanna enter in discussion about dispelling the rope trick).
But maybe some pc has the necessity to exit from the rope trick, to prepare spells (see my example of Pelor's cleric).
So the ambush is a viable option.
The wizard is safe, but the others no. And if the wizard wants to help his teammates, even him must exit from the rope trick with only some spells ready.

(IMO, if I were the DM.)

EDIT: i've done such an ambush only once, and we were still in AD&D... that said, my point still remains: I think it's possible.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-14, 05:48 AM
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, you're confusing the IC (a dangerous world with monsters) with OOC (a game where we do not specify everything the characters do, even if it is necessary for life).

In a dangerous world filled with monsters, it's fair to ask your players what their character do to make protections at night. It's also fair to assume that when the PCs say, "Okay, we make camp until the next day," that includes setting a watch, building a fire, eating some rations, finding a quiet place to relieve themselves, etc, and skip to the next morning without getting any more granular. Depends on how you want to use your tabletime. You could even switch between the two, if you DO feel like having a night attack, or a split-up-gathering-firewood attack, or a fighter-caught-with-his-heavy-armor-down attack.

What isn't fair is switching between the two and just assuming the PCs are doing the stupidest possible thing. There's a reasonable balance between, "I'm sleeping in my armor, since I didn't say I wasn't," and "Okay, you didn't give me an order of watch, so you all wake with your throats cut."

Agreed. This is unfortunately one of the most common arguments in game groups (with the DM / GM): I can only agree with Jaltum; do not assume the players are idiots until they do something stupid. If they say "We camp here" it is of course with watch, fire, etc etc. I would assume that only the people on guard would wear armor. Any extra precautions, I feel, should be mentioned (such as deliberately sleep without a camp fire if they try to avoid detection, or arrangements such as hanging the food in a rope from a tree or a ceiling, or if they start setting traps around the camp).

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-14, 06:04 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by a "typical fantasy setting". I tend to base my worlds on history, old legends, mythology, and folklore. Magical and dangerous things are out there, but most people only know of them through stories. They don't get jumped by an army of goblins as soon as they step off their front porch. Wolves can be a problem in the winter, maybe bears just coming out of hibernation looking for food. Your average person deals with the same kinds of problems that the average person in the dark ages did in the real world.

...So basically you are not playing standard D&D? If your Fantasy world is more in line with a modern horror game (where most people only know about bears, but nothing more dangerous until it hits you) I can see your point. Otherwise no; your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

And to clarify: A typical fantasy setting, when talking D&D is a setting where everyone knows that there are trolls, goblins, orcs, werewolves, dragons and evil deities in the world. It's no "maybe" or "rumor" or "unknown horror". It's "In order to get to the capital I will have to trek for 3 days through the Goblin Hills. Guess why they are named Goblin Hills?"
Even if your end of the world is relative safe you still put up a watch, if just to watch for Dire badgers that might come for your rations at night.

Lamech
2009-07-14, 08:03 AM
First: I suppose that, at "mid levels", the only way a caster have to sleep in another plane of existance, is the rope trick. It's not a given fact that your group has an arcane caster (wiz./sorc.). If you have a group with a druid, a cleric, a rogue/bard and a meleer, suddenly there's no Rope trick to hide in.

Second: you must rest 8 hours, then study 1 hour to refresh your spell list: to do this in total security, you must be a wiz. 9° lev. So, your "low levels", goes from 1° to 8°. The ambush for the wiz., is no more a problem after 8th lev (unless you're using metamagic feats to extend the duration of your spell, so with a rod, a 5 lev. wiz. is fine), but what about the others in the group?
The ranger likes to sit in the rope trick doing nothing at all while you're studying? The Pelor's cleric don't prefer to pray in the light of dawn, outside the Rope trick?

It's not a thing that a DM should abuse, but I think that an ambush when the caster are studying, it's not a so-impossible thing.
Psions have their own version, and with overchannel and extend they can get eight hours of rest at level 4.


If in the group there is no wizard / sorcerer (difficult but not impossible), You have no access to Rope trick (unless you're UMD wands, possible but not so cheap). BUT, you can have other caster in the group, that needs to prepare spells, so it's possible to attack them while they're preaching, etc.
So, the ambush is a viable option.Attacking a cleric durning spell prep time is the same as attacking the cleric before spell prep time. If the clerics can't prep there spells they do it at the next chance. Ditto on druid.

Also...

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.
What ever could that hazard be?

Killer Angel
2009-07-14, 09:29 AM
Psions have their own version, and with overchannel and extend they can get eight hours of rest at level 4.


Well, I don't know psions, so... good for them! :smallbiggrin:


Attacking a cleric durning spell prep time is the same as attacking the cleric before spell prep time. If the clerics can't prep there spells they do it at the next chance. Ditto on druid.


Of course they can prepare the spells later. But the OP was asking for generic casters, so the answer should be: yes, it's possible, under certain circumstances, to attack a group before the spellcasters have all their spells ready. It's simply more difficult as the pcs grow up in levels.
It should never be the rule, but do it once, and it will be a fight that the players will remember.

Xenogears
2009-07-14, 11:30 AM
What ever could that hazard be?

Anything? It doesn't say so it's DM's call. They could base it off the portable hole/bag of holding and have everyone sucked out of reality. That'd prolly be mean though...

Maybe something more reasonable like hurling them out of the rope trick (for example) and not allowing them to enter while they have their bag of holding or portable hole. That'd make rope trick a lot less useful since most people have some kind of extra-dimensional storage place and having the entire party in the rope trick means you hafta leave them hidden by themselves. Thieves wet dream there.

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 11:56 AM
Anything? It doesn't say so it's DM's call. They could base it off the portable hole/bag of holding and have everyone sucked out of reality. That'd prolly be mean though...

Maybe something more reasonable like hurling them out of the rope trick (for example) and not allowing them to enter while they have their bag of holding or portable hole. That'd make rope trick a lot less useful since most people have some kind of extra-dimensional storage place and having the entire party in the rope trick means you hafta leave them hidden by themselves. Thieves wet dream there.
You can also DM fiat that no one ever attacks the party at night, citing DM fiat for why a party should[n't] be able to do something is fallacious.

Xenogears
2009-07-14, 11:59 AM
You can also DM fiat that no one ever attacks the party at night, citing DM fiat for why a party should[n't] be able to do something is fallacious.

See the differences is that it specifically says that "Bringing an extradimensional space into another extradimensional space is hazerdous." So there ARE consequences for doing so. It says there are. It just doesn't tell you what the consequences for doing it are.

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 12:04 PM
See the differences is that it specifically says that "Bringing an extradimensional space into another extradimensional space is hazerdous." So there ARE consequences for doing so. It says there are. It just doesn't tell you what the consequences for doing it are.Mm undefined concepts are amusing.

Slightly on topic, in 4e, my group uses a combination of the create campsite ritual and a chime of awakening to create a fairly safe zone to rest in.

Tallis
2009-07-14, 12:19 PM
...So basically you are not playing standard D&D? If your Fantasy world is more in line with a modern horror game (where most people only know about bears, but nothing more dangerous until it hits you) I can see your point. Otherwise no; your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

People know of them, they just don't encounter them every day. It's only sometimes a horror game and never modern (not sure where you got that part from). What you assume is standard D&D may not be what everybody assumes is standard D&D. The fact that this thread has turned into a discussion about assumptions should be proof of that.


And to clarify: A typical fantasy setting, when talking D&D is a setting where everyone knows that there are trolls, goblins, orcs, werewolves, dragons and evil deities in the world. It's no "maybe" or "rumor" or "unknown horror". It's "In order to get to the capital I will have to trek for 3 days through the Goblin Hills. Guess why they are named Goblin Hills?"
Even if your end of the world is relative safe you still put up a watch, if just to watch for Dire badgers that might come for your rations at night.

That is a common way of running things, I agree, but with the number of homebrewed worlds out there I don't think we should make assumptions about anybody's games. Moreover I think that it's the DM's responsibility to make sure they players know what kind of world they're playing in and what his expectations are of them. My players are expected to think for themselves. I've never had an issue with that before in my games, but after this discussion I think I will make sure to be very clear about it when new players join so that it doesn't become an issue in the future. I would recommend that to all DMs.