How would one Tippy-proof a game's ruleset? [Archive]

Grod_The_Giant

2013-12-26, 11:51 PM

You would need to use a different system, I'm sorry to say. I mean, everything has its quirks, foibles, and imbalances, but 3.5 is particularly bad in that regard, and, well... by the time you banned everything that needed banning and fixed everything that needed fixing, you would have a different game.

My best suggestion for "3.5 as intended," I guess, would be to only play using Tier 4 classes. Something like:

Rogue
Barbarian
Warlock
Warmage, replacing Wizard (make the casting entirely Int-based, cut the armored caster stuff, and add in a familiar and all Knowledge skills.)
Scout
Ranger (though you can give him CL=HD-3 instead of CL = 1/2 HD. Maybe do the same for his animal companion)
Hexblade (with his curse usable Level+Cha times/day)
Marshal (with a full BAB)
Fighter (with "free" Dungeoncrasher and Zhentrim Fighter ACFs)
Monk (with Wis or Dex in place of Strength, a full BAB, and the ability to flurry on a standard attack)
Healer, replacing Cleric (remove the behavioral restrictions, give them a Cleric chassis and Turn Undead, and let 'em cast spontaneous off their entire list)
Paladin (with level+Cha smites/day and casting based off Charisma, at CL=HD-3)

No PrCs. No ACFs. Feats... you'll want a customized list of your favorites. Knowledge Devotion might go on it, but not Divine Metamagic, for example.

Beige Dragon

2013-12-26, 11:51 PM

You do not pass level 1. Do not collect 200XP

Yukitsu

2013-12-26, 11:52 PM

IMO, you can cut out the most egregious of it with three things

A) remove all customization charts, as there is not chart to create a custom something that can't be broken. (magic item creation rules, I'm looking at you.)

B) any time an action is relying on a "the rules don't say I can't" interpretation, you cannot take that action unless the DM explicitly sanctions it.

C) get rid of Simulacrum/ice assassin.

lunar2

2013-12-26, 11:59 PM

Ravens_cry

2013-12-27, 12:05 AM

the core of the tippyverse is the permanent teleportation circle negating traditional trade and military strategy.

simply removing the permanency spell and the teleportation circle spell prevents the tippyverse from ever forming.
Actually, I thought the core of the Tippy verses was relegating farming to growing speciality goods for the wealthy by automating food production due to traps that create food and water on demand. Not great tasting food, but nutritious and suitable for feeding the masses, putting most farmers out of work.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-27, 01:07 AM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16521592&postcount=12) is my (admittedly ham-fisted) attempt at preventing tippyfication.

Psyren

2013-12-27, 01:43 AM

The answer is quite simple, play 4th edition.

animewatcha

2013-12-27, 01:49 AM

What about playing the game without magic in general and adapting the monsters accordingly. Like hitting them with a minotaur, but not a beholder.

Crake

2013-12-27, 02:21 AM

Actually, if i recall correctly, the tippyverse setting assumes no divine intervention. The way I ran it in my campaign was that the divine spellcasters kept the arcane ones in check, stopping them from running the world. Eventually though the gods died in that setting, and for a while the setting actually had a tippyverse-esque age, but then arcane magic also began to die out, so that was only temporary.

Edit: An example here would be that using teleportation circles for mass transit would be declared as heresy against fharlanghn (or whoever your god of travel is)

Coidzor

2013-12-27, 04:31 AM

What about playing the game without magic in general and adapting the monsters accordingly. Like hitting them with a minotaur, but not a beholder.

Then you have to come up with some mechanic for healing other than just accepting that all players are going to either take a race or template with fast healing or die like flies.

icefractal

2013-12-27, 05:11 AM

Related to this, I was just thinking of how to "singularity proof" the rules. Not the same as Tippy-proofing, more like a preliminary step to make sure you're just dealing with the Tippyverse.

Definition: Singularity Access - An infinite loop of wishes that can produce any number of items and/or creatures, at an accelerating rate. RAW achievable with a single creature-provided Wish to start it off.

So, fixes to prevent that, trying for the minimum necessary:
1) Wish does not have an XP component. Instead, part of the spell's effects are that the caster loses the required amount of XP. If the caster doesn't have that much XP, the spell fails.
2) Simulacra and Ice Assassins never have XP, under any circumstances. Might already be the rule, actually.
3) Other planes do not necessarily have an infinite number of inhabitants of a given type just because they're infinitely large.
4) No Thought Bottle.
5) Optional: Genesis cannot set the Time trait of the created demiplane.

I think this would prevent any self-sustaining loops, and make item creation limited by XP and/or time even with the various ways to get unlimited gold.

eggynack

2013-12-27, 06:35 AM

Actually, I thought the core of the Tippy verses was relegating farming to growing speciality goods for the wealthy by automating food production due to traps that create food and water on demand. Not great tasting food, but nutritious and suitable for feeding the masses, putting most farmers out of work.
It's a relevant factor, because it makes the hyper-concentrated cities more efficiently able to operate, and it's a really iconic part of the Tippyverse, but teleportation circles are what it's all about. It's a setting defined by the fact that any city can instantly send an army of shadesteel golems to another city, which caused insane levels of war in the backstory. Traps make the logistics work, but without teleportation circles, the cities wouldn't need to be so tight for instantaneous defenses purposes. Moreover, people would actually need to travel through the areas between cities, which would cause those areas to not be as wild as they are in the setting. Those dense cities, surrounded by wastelands, locked in a tenuous cold war with one another after years of warfare, is what the Tippyverse is all about, and it wouldn't be necessary or possible without teleportation circles.

Morty

2013-12-27, 06:41 AM

It's not complicated, although it's not necessarily easy either. All it takes is to think about the implications of the magic system you're trying to put in your fantasy game in comparison to what you're trying to achieve with it. Then you should purposefully try to achieve the most borked results you can using it, to see what's possible. One way or the other, you need to put some thought into it, instead of cobbling something together and assuming it will work the way you expect it to. "Don't do what people designing 3e D&D did" is a good rule of thumb, as usual.

Artillery

2013-12-27, 06:42 AM

There a number of things that need to be done to limit. You need a baseline that you want various qualities to be, this includes feats, spells/powers, class features, etc. You need to make sure you quantify each of them and if you plan on making Splat books, do what you can to avoid power creep. If you have a baseline to build things to it is always a valid point of reference.

Single things that provide a cavalcade of options need to be dealt with carefully. Polymorph line spells are notorious for this and are better handled like they are in Pathfinder. Wish, Gate, etc.

The different resources players have to expend need to have a comparative value in your design. How much is an XP compared to a gold. How valuable are the different actions, swift, moves, and standards in the system? A spell being cast? Usually time is the most "valuable" resource a player has at there disposal.

You need to design to avoid the various "abuses"; action economy, wealth by level, infinite loops, diplomacy tables, etc.

With keeping characters with-in bounds of power curves, the various attribute increasing "things" need to be expected at or by a certain point. Just as flight should be something everyone in the party has without relying on someone else by a certain level. Wiggle room needs to exist to prevent characters from gimping themselves.

You need a good measuring stick for difficulty that uses measurable things, certain things are hard to give an actual value. The quantitative things, like stats, and the qualitative things, like at-will abilities or grab.

NichG

2013-12-27, 07:10 AM

So, you know how almost any sort of phrasing for a Wish can be twisted for someone who is actively hostile to the Wisher? Thats basically the problem with trying to make an exploit-proof set of rules that are written (and intended to be interpreted) linguistically, rather than (for example) programmatically.

Once you involve language and the interpretation of language, its possible for someone to argue for various interpretations, which opens the door to exploits that would be invisible with the blinders of 'I know what I mean when I say this thing in the rules'.

There are a couple counters to this, but it may involve an unpleasant choice.

1. Write all rules programmatically, as if you were writing a piece of software to evaluate combats/interactions/etc. In fact, you could in principle actually do this - use software to resolve combats, build characters, and the like, with only actions covered by the software being permitted. Have no rules for covering situations you don't intend to run programmatically - if you can't write software to simulate a conversation, then the conversation is not covered by rules at all.

2. Intent-based rules (a superset of the Gentleman's Agreement). Here, you state your intent and then say 'any interpretation or use of the rules that violates the spirit of this intent is against the rules'/'lets agree we won't do this'. So if the rule is 'no infinite loops' then if someone finds an infinite loop, there is an exception to it under the intent-based clause. In the Wishing analogy, this is equivalent to the wish-granter being bound to not genie the wish but to give 'what the wisher actually means'. If you use this method, its best to state things as broadly as possible - the more specific you are, the more holes you leave.

3. The rules are a moving target. This is sort of like #2, but here the idea is that you use Rule 0 to fix exploits as they happen and as you see them. If #2 is 'lets agree to avoid this', #3 is 'I declare that you don't get to do this'. Not ideal if #2 is at all an option, but I'm including it for thoroughness.

4. Everything passes through the GM. This is kind of the opposite of #1 - all the rules are vague enough that they don't allow the players to really anticipate the outcome to the extent needed for theorycrafting. Take something like Nobilis - people have the power to 'Destroy [Domain]', 'Preserve [Domain]', etc, but the exact consequences of these things always involve adjudication. There are certain guarantees (Aspect 3 lets you do things that correspond to things that such and such a person could do), but the outcomes themselves always involve adjudication, which means you can't create logical chains without the GM having a chance to intervene.

These can be combined to various degrees. For example, I would say that a non-synergistic mundane-skill-only system would be a combination of #1 and #4. Its programmatic in that everything would be 'roll skill against DC' and everything goes through the DM in the sense that the DM assigns a DC for any particular thing the player wants to do with their skills. So even if they have a result of a hundred billion somehow, its up to the DM what that actually means.

IMO, option #2 - the intent-based rules/Gentleman's Agreement is the cleanest way to do it.

Blightedmarsh

2013-12-27, 07:25 AM

I would say that the way to do this would be to simplify the rules as much as possible. Tippyverse requires system mastery; a simple system like toon does not support advanced systems mastery.

I would say a system where you say "GM I want to use X do Y" then you describe how your character does this.

BWR

2013-12-27, 07:41 AM

Play settings that aren't Tippyverse. If the setting doesn't have tons of permanent Teleportation Circles as the basis of economics and wizards offing enemies with Ice Assassins cast by Astral Projection from private dempilanes in the deep Ethereal, then the PCs can't do it either, no matter what ridiculous combinations are RAW legal.

OldTrees1

2013-12-27, 08:47 AM

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 08:54 AM

I think the only fool-proof way to make DnD 3.5e Tippy-roof is by playing E6.

Brookshw

2013-12-27, 08:55 AM

In what sense? As in no Tippyverse or limiting optimization? Fax's solution is pretty nice if the latter, if the former, that's just a setting, don't use it. In addition to throwing out wish/ice assassin abuse as others have said, I'd add enforce the BoVD RAW which prohibits content from player access, i.e., no Mind Rape for player abuse.

Azoth

2013-12-27, 10:26 AM

The easiest way to avoid Tippyverse in a game is make Tippy one of your Beta testers for the system and then note how he does what he does, and remove the wording that allows it. Unlike most people who Beta test something offer Tippy compensation to go all out on you. Your game could be bug free in a matter of weeks.

NEO|Phyte

2013-12-27, 10:35 AM

4) What about Restoration?
Touch a Wight to gain a negative level. This sets you at halfway between 17th and 18th levels (9K xp available to burn). Use that 9K xp (1 Wish and 4K xp of crafting). Then pay a 7th level cleric to cast Restoration (-380gp). You now are back at 18th level (down 1 9th level slot and 380gp but up 1 Wish and 4K xp of crafting)

Uh, what? That isn't how negative levels work at all. A negative level is just a stacking -1 on basically all your rolls, plus -5 HP. If a negative level persists for over 24 hours, THEN you actually drop a level (assuming you fail a fort save).

Kraken

2013-12-27, 10:45 AM

Necroticplague

2013-12-27, 10:45 AM

In order for a system to be such an ironclad document, you would have to write it more like laws than like normal rules. None of this "plain english", don't intermix your fluff with your crunch, and don't leave any ambiguous statements unclarified. If you want something as ironclad as the law, you write it like one. Start by defining every word that is more complex than a preposition (and you should probably define some of those, to). Make an extensive lexicon of things that have very specific meanings within the rules, regardless of what they mean outside of them. Always refer to things by the proper, defined, term, don't use synonyms.

Occasional Sage

2013-12-27, 11:10 AM

eggynack

2013-12-27, 11:16 AM

I think you didn't finish a phrase. Or you used a homonym, it's tough to tell.
Seems pretty clearly like the latter, with the "some of those, too," likely pointing towards things with a complexity level on the same scale as prepositions. The phrase means the same thing in the latter case anyway, because anything after the "to" would just explain why you'd define preposition-like words.

ngilop

2013-12-27, 11:52 AM

I think you didn't finish a phrase. Or you used a homonym, it's tough to tell.

You confused me, becuase all i could see in your bolded part was a homophone, I did not see a homonym anywhere.

Psyren

2013-12-27, 11:57 AM

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q2a6oZB3ODc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/F5JDx9C_nF0/photo.jpg

Moving on...

I think the only fool-proof way to make DnD 3.5e Tippy-roof is by playing E6.

You can buy a candle of invocation in E6 though so this isn't enough on its own, you'll also need some houserules to keep people in check. Once you hit infinite wealth people can start binding help and crafting traps etc.

jedipotter

2013-12-27, 12:34 PM

The best fix is to play the game Old School, as in the 1E mindset. So that whatever the DM says is the absolute rule, and the scribbles in the books are just suggestions.

If you feel you must stay with the 3E mindset of the rules are absolute. Then you will need to change a lot of rules.

For magic, you don't need to fix every spell. Just a couple fixes for magic will go a long way to fixing dozens of spells. For Example:

By default, magic that summons creatures, calls creatures or creates objects have as an additional material component a piece of material that was once part of a creature or object of the type to be summoned. Pieces of certain exotic monsters will have a high market value. (So Eschew Materials will be ineffective).

OR

Teleport Destination: The caster must have a clear mental picture of the teleport destination. For the best results the caster must physically be in the target location for a full hour and make careful notes of the sight, sound, smell and feel of the area. The caster must pick a mostly static location, one that does not change with the passage of time. A destination only remains valid if less then 50% of area remains the same to match the mental picture in the casters mind. Small changes, such as a tree blowing in the wind have no effect, however cutting down the tree makes the destination invalid for a caster that has the tree as part of their mental destination picture.
If the caster does not have a full hour of study on a location, the chance of the teleportation success is only 20%, plus one percent per caster level.

Togo

2013-12-27, 12:46 PM

As a previous poster said, just play a different setting. There are hundreds of setting out there, that use the same rules set that Tippy does, that do not produce the same results. There is nothing unique about any one interpretation.

So, making 'traps' that produce wishes (the basis of the Tippy economy) wouldn't function, because the rules for those are loose guidelines for constructing magical traps that are not valid for use in a manufactory. Ice assassin is subject to very strict guidelines laid out in the rules that make it far less useful than it initially appears. Custom items are limited to DM approval, and as DM you don't need to approve very much. And so on.

If you feel strongly that following the existing rules are not sufficient, then the best way to get the Games As Intended, is to play Rules As Intended. This means simply interpreting the rules such that combinations that cuase you problems do not function.

As for the rest, simply make magic sufficiently divorced from rulership of the country, whether through scarcity or custom or superstition or happenstance, that the issues don't arise.

OldTrees1

2013-12-27, 12:52 PM

Uh, what? That isn't how negative levels work at all. A negative level is just a stacking -1 on basically all your rolls, plus -5 HP. If a negative level persists for over 24 hours, THEN you actually drop a level (assuming you fail a fort save).
Sorry for forgetting to mention the 24hours and voluntarily failed save.

Psyren

2013-12-27, 01:03 PM

The best fix is to play the game Old School, as in the 1E mindset. So that whatever the DM says is the absolute rule, and the scribbles in the books are just suggestions.

In fact, why have books at all. Let's freeform it.

"I hit you."
"Nuh-uh!"
"Yeah-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"MOOOOM!!!"

unseenmage

2013-12-27, 01:30 PM

Everyone that's saying ban traps, that wouldn't actually help. Energy transformation field (Spell Compendium) can effectively replace traps in most (all?) applications, due to the spell stupidly allowing unlimited use magical items, such as immoveable rods, to create unlimited charges.

Spellsong Nightingales (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070115a) and Runic Guardians (MM2) are both capable of Repeating Trap-esque senanigans. As is the Spell Clock (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070312a).

So my advice would be to remove anything that nets a gain if repeated. Or change the durations. Only allow non-permanent magical effects. Period.
Sure you can have Ice Assassins, they last for a number of rounds. Create Water + Water to Acid? Last for a number of rounds.

Changing durations means the fun combinations are still possible but that they do not invalidate economies or create on a global scale.

jedipotter

2013-12-27, 01:34 PM

In fact, why have books at all. Let's freeform it.

You have books for suggestions. Playing 1E is not for everyone, but it does Tippy-proof the game.

Ravens_cry

2013-12-27, 02:31 PM

It's a relevant factor, because it makes the hyper-concentrated cities more efficiently able to operate, and it's a really iconic part of the Tippyverse, but teleportation circles are what it's all about. It's a setting defined by the fact that any city can instantly send an army of shadesteel golems to another city, which caused insane levels of war in the backstory. Traps make the logistics work, but without teleportation circles, the cities wouldn't need to be so tight for instantaneous defenses purposes. Moreover, people would actually need to travel through the areas between cities, which would cause those areas to not be as wild as they are in the setting. Those dense cities, surrounded by wastelands, locked in a tenuous cold war with one another after years of warfare, is what the Tippyverse is all about, and it wouldn't be necessary or possible without teleportation circles.
Teleportation circles are only useful for getting from point A to point B. Since it is based on greater teleport, you have to know the area quite well, or the spell fails. This leads to an obvious defence, constantly creating, via illusion or physical changes, sufficient changes to make greater teleport fail.
Which means they are only useful within a well defended area if everyone is doing this, as everybody who didn't would be wiped out.

Philistine

2013-12-27, 02:34 PM

This is not an attack on Tippy (in fact, Tippy's advice would be very much welcomed here). But I was wondering what loopholes would have to be closed, what exploits blocked, etc., in order to have a game where the universe/characters would not be altered to the extremes that it is altered in the Tippyverse, but would be more like the D&D game that Monte, Skip, Jonathan and all the other wotc game designers were (apparently erroneously) thinking would be the gamer ruleset when they playtested and desgined it. Well aside from "be a vigilant DM that doesn't allow that stuff", since I am interested in specifics.

I assume the spell Ice Assassin would have to be modified, for example.

In all seriousness, what you're looking for is AD&D 2E (with some combination of the various optional rules that were published for that system). 3E's basic problem is that Monte, Skip, Jonathan, et al changed a bunch of (seemingly) little things in the fundamental mechanics of the game, then tried to copy-paste structures from the previous system on top of the new chassis. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in Unforeseen Consequences on a hilariously massive scale. So to get to the game the designers thought they were creating, you need to either raze the "superstructure" - classes, creatures, abilities, spells, and items - and rebuild the lot from the ground up to actually fit 3.X's rules foundation (the "All Tier 4" suggestion earlier is a good start here), or port said superstructure back to its original rules foundation (the much, much easier option, since all the work's already been done).

Broken Crown

2013-12-27, 03:28 PM

Seconding (Thirding? Nth-ing? I haven't been keeping count) the suggestion of changing the default assumptions of the game setting to get the flavour you want.

One of the assumptions of 3rd Edition seems to be that magic is an unlimited resource, and that therefore, any effect that can be produced once can just as easily be produced an infinite number of times. Change this.

In my own home-brew setting, one of the fundamental rules of how magic works is that it is a renewable, but limited resource: Use too much of it all at once and it runs out. This single change eliminates a lot of setting-breaking tricks like infinite loops, magic perpetual motion machines, magic traps replacing entire industries, and the Wight Apocalypse; they'll work for a while, but sooner or later the local reserves of magic run out and the whole thing shuts down until the drain on the system stops.

Obviously, your players should be told about this at the beginning of the campaign; it needs to be presented as integral to the game setting. Something so fundamental to the nature of magic in the setting would be common knowledge to anyone with ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise. I presume your players are smart enough to figure out the consequences themselves, so they won't complain about GM fiat when infinite loop tricks don't work. Bonus points if they figure out how to use this to their advantage.

Necroticplague

2013-12-27, 03:31 PM

Spellsong Nightingales (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070115a) and Runic Guardians (MM2) are both capable of Repeating Trap-esque senanigans. As is the Spell Clock (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cw/20070312a).
Spell Clocks are pretty much the same as repeating self-reseting magic traps, the only difference is they cost more and weight more.

Suddo

2013-12-27, 03:54 PM

Yawgmoth

2013-12-27, 03:58 PM

You start by not playing with people like tippy, and end with playing in a system other than D&D.

unseenmage

2013-12-27, 04:05 PM

Ban anything that gives repeatable sources of magic. No repeating magic traps and no teleportation circle.

Beyond that it actually becomes a shorter list. Teleportation effects (that are long range) can be gotten rid of and anything that manufactures things in short amounts of time (fabricate and wish).

Much as I said above, creation is fine, just change the durations so that all of the creations are temporary. Allows for fun without being breakable.

Tyndmyr

2013-12-27, 04:31 PM

This is not an attack on Tippy (in fact, Tippy's advice would be very much welcomed here). But I was wondering what loopholes would have to be closed, what exploits blocked, etc., in order to have a game where the universe/characters would not be altered to the extremes that it is altered in the Tippyverse, but would be more like the D&D game that Monte, Skip, Jonathan and all the other wotc game designers were (apparently erroneously) thinking would be the gamer ruleset when they playtested and desgined it. Well aside from "be a vigilant DM that doesn't allow that stuff", since I am interested in specifics.

I assume the spell Ice Assassin would have to be modified, for example.

Tippyverse sort of thinking is not related to merely one system, though 3.5 does have a delightful amount of things to exploit simply because of it's size. It is a way of approaching things. Optimization happens in all game systems. In fact, it is expected. If one makes a paladin who loves poking people in the eye randomly with a pointy stick, and has delusions about being a wizard, this will be considered obnoxious by most parties. A certain degree of synergy in char creation choices is expected.

Thing is, some people understand systems more deeply than others. This may be a result of study, or math, simple experience, or even preference...but the ability of people to whip up a solid char is not equal. A few people love to see just how far it can go...

So, probably the best way to avoid this is to find one of the people who really enjoy that, and convince them to work with you on making the game fit the desired power level. Also, probably not start with 3.5 unless you like a reasonably high power level to begin with. Just too many options to bother with doing otherwise.

Psyren

2013-12-27, 05:05 PM

You start by not playing with people like tippy, and end with playing in a system other than D&D.

Either of these works, you don't necessarily need both.

Ban anything that gives repeatable sources of magic.

So, spellcasters then? :smalltongue:
They get free magic every morning. With enough dedicated magi and an XP engine you could actually do without all the traps.
Also SLAs and Supernatural abilities, which remove the XP cost entirely.

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 05:13 PM

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q2a6oZB3ODc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/F5JDx9C_nF0/photo.jpg

Moving on...

You can buy a candle of invocation in E6 though so this isn't enough on its own, you'll also need some houserules to keep people in check. Once you hit infinite wealth people can start binding help and crafting traps etc.

Crafting a candle of invocation demands the crafter to be at least CL 17. In the E6-verse it's safe to say that literally nobody can do that (except maybe gods or interplanar beings or whatever). With E6 you don't need houserules to keep Candles of Invocation out of the game, you'd need houserules to get them in the game to begin with.

AMFV

2013-12-27, 05:16 PM

Crafting a candle of invocation demands the crafter to be at least CL 17. In the E6-verse it's safe to say that literally nobody can do that (except maybe gods or interplanar beings or whatever). With E6 you don't need houserules to keep Candles of Invocation out of the game, you'd need houserules to get them in the game to begin with.

They get created with a wish, given by Pazuzu, so it's still legit in an E6 universe, since a wish can still create the stated items.

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 05:22 PM

They get created with a wish, given by Pazuzu, so it's still legit in an E6 universe, since a wish can still create the stated items.

But how would you get Pazuzu to serve you in the first place? E6 means you can't get any spells higher than 3rd spell level, 4th with feats when certain DMs are lenient. Even lesser planar binding is a 5th level spell.

And then there's the obvious factor that in E6, where demons and deities don't prance around as casually as they do in some other DnD settings, only a rare few, if any, would know that Pazuzu even exists.

Illven

2013-12-27, 05:34 PM

But how would you get Pazuzu to serve you in the first place?

"Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu" Also be a LG Paladin hoping to create a utopia.

AMFV

2013-12-27, 05:37 PM

But how would you get Pazuzu to serve you in the first place? E6 means you can't get any spells higher than 3rd spell level, 4th with feats when certain DMs are lenient. Even lesser planar binding is a 5th level spell.

And then there's the obvious factor that in E6, where demons and deities don't prance around as casually as they do in some other DnD settings, only a rare few, if any, would know that Pazuzu even exists.

You call him, you just need to make a sufficient check, which is certainly attainable with enough optimization. Then you can know his name. I believe it's a DC 35 or 25 check, in any case it is attainable at first level. If you call him he comes and then will generally grant the wish in order to corrupt you. The check is attainable at first level.

angry_bear

2013-12-27, 05:42 PM

"Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu" Also be a LG Paladin hoping to create a utopia.

Level 1 Pun Pun only works if the DM doesn't harshly punish you for casually changing your alignment for gain, that you've jacked your knowledge of the planes up to an incredible level, and the assumption that the Efreet fails his save when being summoned, and that you beat him in an opposed charisma check, or your level 1 caster level is enough to beat his spell resistance when he tries to escape the circle. So yes; technically you can still do it in E6. The more likely scenario is that you're hate banged into oblivion by an angry genie.

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 05:44 PM

You call him, you just need to make a sufficient check, which is certainly attainable with enough optimization. Then you can know his name. I believe it's a DC 35 or 25 check, in any case it is attainable at first level. If you call him he comes and then will generally grant the wish in order to corrupt you. The check is attainable at first level.

DC 35? In E6? Under the ideal circumstances (ie. 19 int and 9 ranks) a roll of 2 would result in a total of 33, below the needed DC 35 to know of an elder demon prince like Pazuzu. It's literally impossible to learn of Pazuzu's existence by RAW under E6.

Even if the DC would originally be lower than DC 35, I think that, completely under the rules and without hamfisted DM fiat, it would be more than fair to up the DCs on certain kinds of knowledge in E6 because, once more, the gods and demons don't really show themselves all the time like they might do in other settings. Spotting even a single low level demon in that setting would already lead to mass panic, confusion and paranoia.

ryu

2013-12-27, 05:49 PM

AMFV

2013-12-27, 05:49 PM

Level 1 Pun Pun only works if the DM doesn't harshly punish you for casually changing your alignment for gain, that you've jacked your knowledge of the planes up to an incredible level, and the assumption that the Efreet fails his save when being summoned, and that you beat him in an opposed charisma check, or your level 1 caster level is enough to beat his spell resistance when he tries to escape the circle. So yes; technically you can still do it in E6. The more likely scenario is that you're hate banged into oblivion by an angry genie.

You don't get a save against being summoned by wish, which is what the Candle of Invocation manages. Also you only change your alignment a single step, hardly casually changing it. You don't have to Planar bind him... since the Candle of Invocation is based on Wish not planar binding.

DC 35? In E6? Under the ideal circumstances (ie. 19 int and 9 ranks) a roll of 2 would result in a total of 33, below the needed DC 35 to know of an elder demon prince like Pazuzu. It's literally impossible to learn of Pazuzu's existence by RAW under E6.

Even if the DC would originally be lower than DC 35, I think that, completely under the rules and without hamfisted DM fiat, it would be more than fair to up the DCs on certain kinds of knowledge in E6 because, once more, the gods and demons don't really show themselves all the time like they might do in other settings. Spotting even a single low level demon in that setting would already lead to mass panic, confusion and paranoia.

Skill Focus, Venerable, a Psicrystal that aids him, http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1013486 There you go... the DC is attainable at level 1. It's also only a DC 25 check.

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 05:51 PM

Do you seriously think ranks and stat bonus application are the majority of knowledge optimization let alone the only part? Really?

Then how would you plan to get those two extra needed points? Keep in mind that even if you were able to get those two extra points, the chances of knowing of Pazuzu's existence are still 5% with no rerolling. It's better than nothing, but still a low chance and not something I'd bet my bacon on.

Illven

2013-12-27, 05:54 PM

Level 1 Pun Pun only works if the DM doesn't harshly punish you for casually changing your alignment for gain, that you've jacked your knowledge of the planes up to an incredible level, and the assumption that the Efreet fails his save when being summoned, and that you beat him in an opposed charisma check, or your level 1 caster level is enough to beat his spell resistance when he tries to escape the circle. So yes; technically you can still do it in E6. The more likely scenario is that you're hate banged into oblivion by an angry genie.

As long as the genie has less then 12 hit dice, gate will control it.

(Arguably it'd be twice what the candle's Caster level is, which is probably higher)

DC 35? In E6? Under the ideal circumstances (ie. 19 int and 9 ranks) a roll of 2 would result in a total of 33, below the needed DC 35 to know of an elder demon prince like Pazuzu. It's literally impossible to learn of Pazuzu's existence by RAW under E6.

Even if the DC would originally be lower than DC 35, I think that, completely under the rules and without hamfisted DM fiat, it would be more than fair to up the DCs on certain kinds of knowledge in E6 because, once more, the gods and demons don't really show themselves all the time like they might do in other settings. Spotting even a single low level demon in that setting would already lead to mass panic, confusion and paranoia.

Aid another. Skill focus.

AMFV

2013-12-27, 05:57 PM

Then how would you plan to get those two extra needed points? Keep in mind that even if you were able to get those two extra points, the chances of knowing of Pazuzu's existence are still 5% with no rerolling. It's better than nothing, but still a low chance and not something I'd bet my bacon on.

I presented the link with the absolute way to attain the DC at level 1... Level 1...

2. You need a Knowledge check of 25 to know that you can summon Pazazu like Beetlejuice. As a Psion with a Sage Psicrystal, an 18 Intelligence, the Skill Focus feat, four ranks in Knowledge (The Planes) and a masterwork item of relevance (say a book), you can take 10 to get 25. It's ok that you got bullied as a child for your narrow focus and strange fascination in all things relating to the planes. It will pay off in the end.

Grinner

2013-12-27, 06:05 PM

Honestly? A liberal application of common sense should do it.

I can't make any observations on what specific things need to be banned to make D&D 3.5 work (and others seem more than willing to do so, anyway). I can point out that D&D 3.5 makes magic extremely cheap and extremely versatile. Wizards, Clerics, and company can do literally almost anything, and at little cost to boot. Meanwhile, everyone else is expected to remain realistic.

The way D&D is set up, it's like dropping Star Trek's Borg into prehistoric Earth and expecting them to not assimilate the entire planet.

Kaeso

2013-12-27, 06:25 PM

I presented the link with the absolute way to attain the DC at level 1... Level 1...

Fair enough. I guess that if I were DMing an E6 game and someone brought this to the table, I'd let it fly. let's ignore for the sake of argument that I don't really like using psionics.

However, if somebody would do that at my table, I'd give them one piece of advice: make that wish count. As a Chaotic Evil demon, one who revels in chaos and destruction, liberal interpretation of wishes would be one of the most important worries of the gamers, another one a radical alignment shift to the purest of evil, but the most important one would probably be notoriety. Summoning a DC 20+ demon into an E6 world? An evil one no less? One that more likely would want to see you fall than actually aid you? You might as well start wearing a "Paladins smite here" neon sign.

In other words I'd let it fly, but breaking my game would come at a very high cost, probably a cost that isn't worth the effort. At that point, I'd allow the other characters to fully in character kill the Pazuzu summoner in order to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.

Illven

2013-12-27, 06:37 PM

another one a radical alignment shift to the purest of evil, but the most important one would probably be notoriety. Summoning a DC 20+ demon into an E6 world? An evil one no less? One that more likely would want to see you fall than actually aid you? You might as well start wearing a "Paladins smite here" neon sign.

By RAW you only fall one step towards Chaotic or Evil. (I forget which step comes first though)

Gemini476

2013-12-27, 07:02 PM

By RAW you only fall one step towards Chaotic or Evil. (I forget which step comes first though)
A Paladin doesn't even need to change his alignment for the first wish. It's not that bad, really.

Now, the second wish, on the other hand... Well, the roads to the Abyss are laid with good intentions.

ryu

2013-12-27, 07:34 PM

A Paladin doesn't even need to change his alignment for the first wish. It's not that bad, really.

Now, the second wish, on the other hand... Well, the roads to the Abyss are laid with good intentions.

Only if the second wish comes form old pazzy though. Wish created candles of invocation have no effect on one's alignment.

Malimar

2013-12-27, 08:52 PM

AMFV

2013-12-27, 11:44 PM

So we're saying E6 in a setting without Pazuzu is Tippy-proof?

Or do we need to outright ban candles of invocation and/or wish?

Do we also need to ban magic traps and spell clocks and so on, or does E6 take care of most of those shenanigans?

We're saying that the banning method is clunky and difficult to maintain, the only real method is to have a kind of agreement about conduct at games.

Fair enough. I guess that if I were DMing an E6 game and someone brought this to the table, I'd let it fly. let's ignore for the sake of argument that I don't really like using psionics.

However, if somebody would do that at my table, I'd give them one piece of advice: make that wish count. As a Chaotic Evil demon, one who revels in chaos and destruction, liberal interpretation of wishes would be one of the most important worries of the gamers, another one a radical alignment shift to the purest of evil, but the most important one would probably be notoriety. Summoning a DC 20+ demon into an E6 world? An evil one no less? One that more likely would want to see you fall than actually aid you? You might as well start wearing a "Paladins smite here" neon sign.

In other words I'd let it fly, but breaking my game would come at a very high cost, probably a cost that isn't worth the effort. At that point, I'd allow the other characters to fully in character kill the Pazuzu summoner in order to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.

Well there's only one alignment shift, furthermore a candle of invocation is on the list of things that can be wished for safely, so no perversion potential.

Metahuman1

2013-12-28, 12:34 AM

AMFV

2013-12-28, 12:50 AM

Make a setting were the gods are real and show up on Tuesday for Cocktail hour in-between shuffle board and poker. Do not stat these deity's out, and do not allow deific ranks. And any mortal that get's too far out of hand get's insta-smote.

The problem is that it's still possible to beat the Gods in some respects, also once you've started the insta-smote route, you're basically challenging the players. It's why an out of character solution is usually better. if you are limiting the players to a specific state, then of course some of them are going to try to weasel around it.

It's why a reasonable standard should be used in most games, I've always used that and I've not seen it go south very often.

The Insanity

2013-12-28, 12:55 AM

Lets clear something up: You want to Tippy-proof the system or the setting?

Psyren

2013-12-28, 03:55 AM

Crafting a candle of invocation demands the crafter to be at least CL 17. In the E6-verse it's safe to say that literally nobody can do that (except maybe gods or interplanar beings or whatever). With E6 you don't need houserules to keep Candles of Invocation out of the game, you'd need houserules to get them in the game to begin with.

Not necessarily - They're wondrous items, so an E6 Artificer can make them just fine (CWI = 3rd level.) He would only need to be able to make a DC 29 UMD check, and the party could even help him; no Pazuzu needed.

Yukitsu

2013-12-28, 05:01 AM

Not necessarily - They're wondrous items, so an E6 Artificer can make them just fine (CWI = 3rd level.) He would only need to be able to make a DC 29 UMD check, and the party could even help him; no Pazuzu needed.

Artificers get +2 CL above their ECL, they still have a CL restriction despite their ability to emulate a caster level, so they can't create those either.

Psyren

2013-12-28, 02:38 PM

Artificers get +2 CL above their ECL, they still have a CL restriction despite their ability to emulate a caster level, so they can't create those either.

Even if you say they need CL 17 to make it (it's not actually a requirement of the item, because it's not a spell trigger/completion item), that's just 9 CL away from where they are in E6.

Yukitsu

2013-12-28, 02:56 PM

Even if you say they need CL 17 to make it (it's not actually a requirement of the item, because it's not a spell trigger/completion item), that's just 9 CL away from where they are in E6.

All magic items still have a CL requirement based on the spells used to make it, the way it's used doesn't matter.

jedipotter

2013-12-28, 04:12 PM

The problem is that it's still possible to beat the Gods in some respects, also once you've started the insta-smote route, you're basically challenging the players. It's why an out of character solution is usually better. if you are limiting the players to a specific state, then of course some of them are going to try to weasel around it.

It's why a reasonable standard should be used in most games, I've always used that and I've not seen it go south very often.

How is this a problem? With the ''no game stats'' gods that can do anything the players can't beat them. Sure they can try to ''bend'' the rules, but that is ok. It can be a challenge not to be caught, but not a challange to kill the gods.

Suddo

2013-12-28, 04:21 PM

Much as I said above, creation is fine, just change the durations so that all of the creations are temporary. Allows for fun without being breakable.

Wait how does this stop the teleportation circle problem? And how does food from a create food device work.

I just dislike anything that costs nothing to produce something.

Edit: And yes Psyren banning all spellcasters does solve the problem nicely.

unseenmage

2013-12-28, 04:30 PM

Wait how does this stop the teleportation circle problem? And how does food from a create food device work.

I just dislike anything that costs nothing to produce something.

If the Teleportation Circle only lasts for round(s) instead of permanent forever then problem solved. Sure a lot of troops can still be moved but it becomes entirely dependent on how hard the new duration of teleport circle is restricted.

Heck, could even use the limits on the Ring Gates magic item as a template of sorts to keep it from moving armies if necessary. Though that would admittedly require an additional step.

I'm not even going to try to resolve the question of whether summoned foodstuffs feed folk or not. That's already a question due to other interactions in the existing game.

Though in my opinion changing all permanent Create Food spells into temporary Create Food spells would probably just make created food non-nutritive.

Magic users would just have to go out to kill things and eat their stuff like regular people.

Captnq

2013-12-28, 04:31 PM

Sigh.

How to prevent the Tippy Universe:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
Normalize Infinities.

What I mean is, as a DM, eliminate anything that gives you something for free and/or make it cost something.

As for normalize infinities, any mathmagical system results in infinities eventually. Take any Grand Unified Theory, for example. So do what Steven Hawkings does, normalize your infinities.

That means, when you encounter an infinity, either make sure it isn't unlimited (for example, limit the times per day something can be used) or add on a cost (When you reach infinite wishes, the universe implodes, your charter disappears behind a wish event horizon, reality is re-written without you, game on.)

Endarire

2013-12-28, 04:58 PM

Tippifying a world or ruleset is a matter of the mindset. Tippy is merely pushing the rules to their written extreme. In short, he's using the fullness of the rules. Most people don't want to read over every little thing; they want the game to play the way they envision it.

How do you avoid getting this result? Play with a group that shares your vision!

If you're making a ruleset or setting, determine what you want to do in your setting/ruleset, and define completely unambiguously what everything does! This means, for example, writing a spell's description as 2 pages instead of half a page because you account for every situation instead of letting people extrapolate or figure things out.

For abilities and descriptions that leave room for interpretation, people will interpret things their own way. It's the nature of the human mind. Given room for creativity, people will create what they want. In the context of this ruleset/setting, the GM needs to decide what's allowed, and needs solid enough information to make good decisions. Such open-ended abilities need to say what they intend in clear enough language so everyone involved understands.

It is also human instinct to want to be as powerful, prominent, and successful as possible. If you understand something another doesn't, that's a potential advantage. Thus, if you as a player understand ability X has result Y under circumstance Z, and your GM assumes significantly otherwise, you can potentially make the game much easier due to your tactical insight. The GM is still the GM, but if the GM plays fully by the rules you use, it's legal.

Coidzor

2013-12-28, 09:17 PM

Threadnaught

2013-12-28, 09:33 PM

Talakeal

2013-12-28, 10:01 PM

Teleportation Circle is the one part of the Tippyverse that is absolutely required. The Create Food/Water Traps are next, then there's the Fabricate/Wish Traps.

You could either specifically remove those Spells from the game, or remove all Magic and just have your world populated by mundanes.

An easier solution for 2 and 3 would be to errata in a line about magic traps requiring DM permission like every other magic item, and then make a note that DMs should not allow unlimited use items except in very specific circumstances.

AMFV

2013-12-29, 12:24 AM

Teleportation Circle is the one part of the Tippyverse that is absolutely required. The Create Food/Water Traps are next, then there's the Fabricate/Wish Traps.

You could either specifically remove those Spells from the game, or remove all Magic and just have your world populated by mundanes.

Well then you still have other spells, we're not talking about preventing the Tippy-verse, but preventing that style of rules abuse. Basically you'd have to blanket ban dozens and dozens of spells.

Curmudgeon

2013-12-29, 01:17 AM

You'd need to remove DM discretion from the game. The only way the Tippyverse works is with a pushover DM.
PC-Designed Magic Traps: If a player character wants to design and construct a magic trap, he must have the Craft Wondrous Item feat. In addition, he must be able to cast the spell or spells that the trap requires—or, failing that, he must be able to hire an NPC to cast the spells for him (see NPC Spellcasting, page 107). When you and the player have agreed on what spells and other elements the trap contains, you can determine the cost of the raw materials for the trap and the CR of the trap. The Tippyverse assumes the DM will agree to whatever sort of custom trap shenanigans are proposed by the PC. No PC-designed magic trap exists in D&D without the DM agreeing that they want such a thing in their game.

AMFV

2013-12-29, 01:27 AM

You'd need to remove DM discretion from the game. The only way the Tippyverse works is with a pushover DM. The Tippyverse assumes the DM will agree to whatever sort of custom trap shenanigans are proposed by the PC. No PC-designed magic trap exists in D&D without the DM agreeing that they want such a thing in their game.

Except that we're not actually discussing the Tippyverse, we're looking more at things like generic rules abuse, and that's very hard to get rid of, even with a strong DM, the best way to get it is to have a good relationship between players.

Endarire

2013-12-29, 01:28 AM

There's another very big factor: Difficult to do vs. impossible.

If something is difficult to do, it's still possible. If it takes 6 feats to do something instead of 1 or 2, it's still possible. If it takes more system mastery to accomplish something, it's still possible.

If something is truly impossible, then it simply cannot be done. The goal of every ambitious player is to remove whatever said player desires from this category through negotiation. If something is still possible, yet "not worth it," people often make the mistake of believing it won't happen because it seems unreasonable.

Talakeal

2013-12-29, 01:29 AM

Curmudgeon

2013-12-29, 01:45 AM

Except that we're not actually discussing the Tippyverse, we're looking more at things like generic rules abuse, and that's very hard to get rid of, even with a strong DM, the best way to get it is to have a good relationship between players.
No, we're discussing how to Tippy-proof a game's ruleset. The Tippyverse is dependent on convincing the DM that something they can just refuse to allow is actually required. If you remove DM discretion (that is, remove any option from the game which a DM can permit, but doesn't have to) you'll proof the game against the pushover DM which most Tippy-inspired shenanigans require. "Generic rules abuse" refers to rules which are ambiguous. The rules for PC-designed magic traps aren't ambiguous at all.

AMFV

2013-12-29, 01:46 AM

Yahzi

2013-12-29, 05:19 AM

What I mean is, as a DM, eliminate anything that gives you something for free and/or make it cost something.
This!

In my game XP is tangible, like gold pieces. But that means it has to be produced - it doesn't just appear out of thin air. You can't get XP by picking the same lock over and over again (arguably you could raise your DEX that way, but that's a different discussion).

When you summon a genie and make a wish, somebody has to pay the XP cost. And so on.

That, much harder levels (XP required doubles every level), a semi-divine race of monsters that eats anyone who makes it to 17th level, changing Gate to operate off of CR instead hit dice, and banning everything outside of core (and a few things in it, like Teleport and Magic Traps and Skill-boosting items) are my plans to de-Tippify.

The Insanity

2013-12-29, 07:13 AM

All you have to do it role-play the setting instead of roll-playing it.

Dalebert

2013-12-29, 09:43 AM

When you summon a genie and make a wish, somebody has to pay the XP cost. And so on.

I understand the need for a control but that just rubs me the wrong way. The genie is granting the wishes. It might make more sense to just nerf wish-granting abilities and other abilities that have long-term benefits. Instead of "per day" make it "per thousand years" or something. That way a genie who's been trapped in a bottle for a thousand years can grant three wishes, but then he's spent for... a while. It would become reasonable to assume that the odds of any genie you summon being capable of granting three wishes would be astronomical.

Things like permanency from solars, make it such that they can only maintain it on up to four spells at a time and they end if the solar changes planes. Things like that make it something useful to the solar but prevent it from becoming a way to tap into an endless resource of magical energy for anyone who summons it.

Kalmageddon

2013-12-29, 09:48 AM

Dalebert

2013-12-29, 10:10 AM

I am pretty sure that one of the core tenants of Tippyverse is that one always takes the most permissive reading of the rules.

What irks me is that people argue that such a reading is ironclad RAW, and that anything less is an unofficial house rule and not worthy of discussion.

Can you point at something specifically that seems like a very permissive reading? I gaped at this:

1) Gate in a solar
2) Have it cast permanency on some things for you
3) Have it wish you up a gate scroll (thereby preventing you from having to spend x.p. to gate in the next one)

But then I read up on what gate does, what wish is capable of, what solars are capable of (like permanency and wish as SLAs) and I don't see anything stopping someone from doing that short of the DM changing something in the RAW.

Any DM I know would just say "no" and stop it somehow, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the RAW. The only ways I know of to stop those would be house rules or DM fiat.

AMFV

2013-12-29, 03:27 PM

This!

In my game XP is tangible, like gold pieces. But that means it has to be produced - it doesn't just appear out of thin air. You can't get XP by picking the same lock over and over again (arguably you could raise your DEX that way, but that's a different discussion).

When you summon a genie and make a wish, somebody has to pay the XP cost. And so on.

That, much harder levels (XP required doubles every level), a semi-divine race of monsters that eats anyone who makes it to 17th level, changing Gate to operate off of CR instead hit dice, and banning everything outside of core (and a few things in it, like Teleport and Magic Traps and Skill-boosting items) are my plans to de-Tippify.

But that is still very much no longer the most restrictive reading of the rules. It's a houserule. Also SLAs explicitly don't have XP costs in most cases. Its one of the problems with spells like shapechange.

jedipotter

2013-12-29, 03:50 PM

Can you point at something specifically that seems like a very permissive reading? .

The ability lower immunities. The PH says that creatures with ''resistance'' can lower it at will and give the example of elves having ''resistance'' to sleep spells. Though elves don't have ''resistance'' to sleep spells, they are immune to the spell sleep. All the later Monster Manuals III, IV, and V say a creature with an immunity can not lower the immunity.

Most people ignore the MM and say any creature can lower anything anytime, so they can do things like cast spells on golems. Even though golems, for example, don't have ''resistances'' like the rule in the PH is talking about....

NichG

2013-12-29, 04:36 PM

Can you point at something specifically that seems like a very permissive reading? I gaped at this:

1) Gate in a solar
2) Have it cast permanency on some things for you
3) Have it wish you up a gate scroll (thereby preventing you from having to spend x.p. to gate in the next one)

But then I read up on what gate does, what wish is capable of, what solars are capable of (like permanency and wish as SLAs) and I don't see anything stopping someone from doing that short of the DM changing something in the RAW.

Any DM I know would just say "no" and stop it somehow, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the RAW. The only ways I know of to stop those would be house rules or DM fiat.

There's usually three 'soft' arguments against this kind of thing that a hostile DM can use without strictly violating RAW.

1. Wish is a 1/day ability. The Solar you get has already used it. So has the next one. So has the one after that. In fact, you never get a Solar who hasn't - they are aware of Gate and proactively resist its use in this way, burning their Wish at Dawn every day.

2. Canonically there are a finite number of Solars in the setting. Therefore, the DM simply has to 'specify them all' and there are no non-unique Solars. If you Gate in a Solar, you either get one of the DM's 'named' ones, or you get nothing, and that breaks the 'control' properties of Gate.

2b. The DM gets to determine (unspecified) setting details, so in a fully custom setting: 'Solar? What is a Solar?'.

3. Using a per-day ability could be considered a contractual task that takes a day of time, even if the culmination of that task takes only a round to complete - this interpretation means you must offer a fair trade for the Wish.

None of these explicitly violate RAW, but they are generally fairly hostile readings of RAW (basically 'the rules don't explicitly say I can't split this hair against you, so I will split this hair against you').

Edit: It makes me think it would be an interesting exercise to derive the Anti-Tippyverse - the world in which the DM is overtly hostile and treats every single use of the RAW in the least-favorable way possible, while still being bound to it.

ryu

2013-12-29, 04:38 PM

The ability lower immunities. The PH says that creatures with ''resistance'' can lower it at will and give the example of elves having ''resistance'' to sleep spells. Though elves don't have ''resistance'' to sleep spells, they are immune to the spell sleep. All the later Monster Manuals III, IV, and V say a creature with an immunity can not lower the immunity.

Most people ignore the MM and say any creature can lower anything anytime, so they can do things like cast spells on golems. Even though golems, for example, don't have ''resistances'' like the rule in the PH is talking about....

Rule of primary sources as defined by the books. The later MMs have no say over anything they didn't newly introduce and thus hold primacy over with specificity. 3.5 RAW is VERY particular about its regulations and methods even if the people who wrote didn't understand the silliness they were actually writing.

Talakeal

2013-12-29, 05:38 PM

Can you point at something specifically that seems like a very permissive reading? I gaped at this:

1) Gate in a solar
2) Have it cast permanency on some things for you
3) Have it wish you up a gate scroll (thereby preventing you from having to spend x.p. to gate in the next one)

But then I read up on what gate does, what wish is capable of, what solars are capable of (like permanency and wish as SLAs) and I don't see anything stopping someone from doing that short of the DM changing something in the RAW.

Any DM I know would just say "no" and stop it somehow, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the RAW. The only ways I know of to stop those would be house rules or DM fiat.

There is indeed plenty of game breaking stuff that is undisputable RAW; stuff like Candles of Invocation, Shape change, Though Bottles, Gate, SLA's not costing XP, etc.

Some of the more ambiguous stuff would include the aforementioned not needing DM permission to make magical traps, spell component pouches containing unique items, assuming that the words "willing" and "willingly" are synonymous, that "any ability" means you can make up new abilities rather than sticking to ones published in the book, that "local environment" includes planar traits, or that an infinite plane with a non zero population assumes an infinite population. There are some more complex ones, such as how Aleax's and Ice Assassins special qualities actually function, but the details escape me at the moment.
Also claiming that the official FAQ is a secondary source and therefore can be freely ignored, or that RAI is impossible to determine even when you have a quote from the author stating his or her intent.

The biggest problem with D&D as written is they have no rules for economics or thermodynamics. As they didn't assume players would be building empires or creating infinite X loops, they didn't feel the need to put in limits on such things. While in reality (and maybe D&D fluff) there is no such thing as a free lunch, strict RAW does indeed lack any sort of limits.
It also doesn't model human nature, or have any reason why every commoner in the world doesn't pick up an optimized T1 build.

Yahzi

2013-12-29, 07:38 PM

I understand the need for a control but that just rubs me the wrong way. The genie is granting the wishes.
And you can brow-beat the genie into paying for it, if you're strong enough.

But you can't chain-summon genies and force them to grant infinite wishes, because somebody somewhere has to pay for it all. That's why solars don't use their wish-a-day all the time to radically modify the world; they can cast wish once a day, but someone somewhere has to pay for it.

The biggest problem with D&D as written is they have no rules for economics
The biggest problem with D&D is that they were largely uninterested in simulating the world outside of the dungeon - specifically, outside of PCs attempting to loot dungeons. Hence the over-abundance of attack spells, the dearth of defense spells, and the complete absence of spells to do basic ordinary things like prevent pregnancy or block pain - the sort of tasks that any society not obsessed with murder-hobo looting would focus on fixing first.

Togo

2013-12-29, 09:11 PM

There's usually three 'soft' arguments against this kind of thing that a hostile DM can use without strictly violating RAW.

1. Wish is a 1/day ability. The Solar you get has already used it. So has the next one. So has the one after that. In fact, you never get a Solar who hasn't - they are aware of Gate and proactively resist its use in this way, burning their Wish at Dawn every day.

2. Canonically there are a finite number of Solars in the setting. Therefore, the DM simply has to 'specify them all' and there are no non-unique Solars. If you Gate in a Solar, you either get one of the DM's 'named' ones, or you get nothing, and that breaks the 'control' properties of Gate.

2b. The DM gets to determine (unspecified) setting details, so in a fully custom setting: 'Solar? What is a Solar?'.

3. Using a per-day ability could be considered a contractual task that takes a day of time, even if the culmination of that task takes only a round to complete - this interpretation means you must offer a fair trade for the Wish.

None of these explicitly violate RAW, but they are generally fairly hostile readings of RAW (basically 'the rules don't explicitly say I can't split this hair against you, so I will split this hair against you').

4. Or you can just enforce the existing RAW, which says you can't wish for a scroll of wish.

Wish has the ability to create magic items. It doesn't have the ability to create any magical item of any known power, and the power of wish is strictly limited. So where do we find the limits for this? Well we could look at wish, which can't produce a 9th level spell effect, and so can't produce an item that produces a 9th level spell effect. Or we could look at the magic item creation rules, where a great many items require the casting of wish as only a small part of what is needed to create them.

In other words there are two perfectly good RAW sources that suggest this to be impossible, and none that suggest that it is possible. Unless you're indulging in a permissive reading of the rules, you can't wish for a scroll, item or even a situation that would grant you another wish.

The easiest way to get rid of permissive rules readings is simply to ban loopholes that are not explicitly allowed. The genie trick involves looking at the phrase you can wish for magic items, and expanding it to you can wish for any magic item of any power even where this contradicts other game rules. A DM is never obliged to allow that kind of thing.

I also try and remind people that, according to the fluff, granting three wishes is considered equivalent to 1001 days of servitude, suggesting that it's very very far from cost-free.

Togo

2013-12-29, 09:14 PM

Rule of primary sources as defined by the books. The later MMs have no say over anything they didn't newly introduce and thus hold primacy over with specificity. 3.5 RAW is VERY particular about its regulations and methods even if the people who wrote didn't understand the silliness they were actually writing.

Sure but that rule of primacy extends to all material in sourcebooks and splatbooks. If you want to use the rules in MM5, you can use the rules MM5. It's not illegal, it's a valid option for a campaign, and the result is still 3.5. This is a game, not a trial.

ryu

2013-12-29, 09:17 PM

Once an effect deliberately says you can do something it is up to the effect description itself to place limits on the scope and utility of what you get if there are any. Wish is very explicit in its magic item making limits. Namely the fact that it provides one limitation to the exclusion of all other limitations. You just can't make artifacts.

Edit: If you want to use rules to restrict player action it's best to make sure the ruling is either correct or called out for the houseruling it is. 3.5 has rules for a great many things including which books hold the right to sound off on certain subjects with authority.

Spuddles

2013-12-29, 11:52 PM

Wouldnt just be easier to ask players to not behave like tippy (pelor bless him), rather than coming up with rules to stop him? Isnt tippy like a contract lawyer or something, anyway? What would be the point of turning an already baroque rules system into impenetrable legalese?

This is coming from a diehard, RAWtard powergamer- I just try to play nice when people ask it of me.

DnD is kinda dysfunctional if you play it like magic the gathering, imo.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-30, 12:08 AM

Isnt tippy like a contract lawyer or something, anyway?
Hell no. I have a decent grasp of contract and general corporate law thanks to running a fairly decent sized business and dealing with it on a daily basis but I am not even close to being a lawyer. If I was I would probably be spending a lot less money on lawyers every year.

What would be the point of turning an already baroque rules system into impenetrable legalese?
No idea.

This is coming from a diehard, RAWtard powergamer- I just try to play nice when people ask it of me.
Same.

DnD is kinda dysfunctional if you play it like magic the gathering, imo.
D&D 3.5 is dysfunctional when the entire group isn't playing the same game. If everyone is on pretty much the same page in regards to play style, system mastery, optimization, and game desires then D&D is pretty much fully functional (even in higher end epic with Epic Spellcasting in play).

The issues arise when someone wants to play a fighter who has never heard of stealth and goes pure face smasher, another player is an assassin factotum that can drop a Great Wyrm Red in the surprise round and considers himself a horrible failure if any enemy notices him before he has jabbed a soul sucking dagger through their heart, a wizard who is having a love affair with Fireball and refuses to use any other spell (and who's solution to every problem is to Fireball it until it ceases to be a problem), and a Psion that knows every spell and power in the game and is capable of throwing out upwards of a thousand Ice Assassins in one round or True Resurrecting the entire party for free as a standard action.

The D&D rules pretty much fully support everyone of those ideas and running a campaign world where said ideas work perfectly fine and can be DMed for. The D&D rules do not really support everyone of those ideas being realized in the same party and being DMed for simultaneously.

jedipotter

2013-12-30, 12:23 AM

Rule of primary sources as defined by the books.

What? Wait, are you saying that it is a rule that rules in primary sources can't be changed? So everything core is untouchable? What about the rule that says ''go by the newest version?"

ryu

2013-12-30, 12:31 AM

What? Wait, are you saying that it is a rule that rules in primary sources can't be changed? So everything core is untouchable? What about the rule that says ''go by the newest version?"

See there's this funny little clause wizards made that states that one must use the most primary source available on a given thing and that later books conflicting with the original relevant book are wrong at the point of contradiction. Only way to change the most primary rule on a subject is through errata.:smallamused: They either never imagined that they'd want to write books overriding previous rules or had no idea what the language they were using meant. Take your pick.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-30, 12:40 AM

All you have to do it role-play the setting instead of roll-playing it.

Two things: I find "roll-play" to be an offensive generalization and stereotype, not unlike some other words that are not allowed on these forums due to the language filter.

Secondly, what you are describing is what causes the Tippyverse to, in fact, exist.

Psyren

2013-12-30, 12:41 AM

The D&D rules pretty much fully support everyone of those ideas and running a campaign world where said ideas work perfectly fine and can be DMed for. The D&D rules do not really support everyone of those ideas being realized in the same party and being DMed for simultaneously.

Pretty much this. The true gentleman's agreement is "let's all play the same game"; you don't have to stick to low- or mid-op for the game to be fun as long as everybody knows the score.

See there's this funny little clause wizards made that states that one must use the most primary source available on a given thing and that later books conflicting with the original relevant book are wrong at the point of contradiction. Only way to change the most primary rule on a subject is through errata.:smallamused: They either never imagined that they'd want to write books overriding previous rules or had no idea what the language they were using meant. Take your pick.

My absolute favorite aspect of Pathfinder is that they ditched that nonsensical rule, or at least worded it much better.

Also, it's pretty absurd since truly following the primary source rule means there are no other base classes in 3.5 except the ones in the PHB.

CIDE

2013-12-30, 01:14 AM

Two things: I find "roll-play" to be an offensive generalization and stereotype, not unlike some other words that are not allowed on these forums due to the language filter.

Secondly, what you are describing is what causes the Tippyverse to, in fact, exist.

I will agree with the role-play argument. That's kind of how that works. I do however fail to see how roll-playing is an over generalized term. It's in fact very specific to a certain type of play.

Surrealistik

2013-12-30, 01:21 AM

Psyren

2013-12-30, 01:55 AM

4e.

Yes there are very few and extremely niche ways you can still 'break' the game (virtually all of them at epic tier, and even then only really in a combat sense) but not nearly to the same depth or breadth that you can in 3.5.

Beat you to it on page 1 :smalltongue:

Spuddles

2013-12-30, 01:59 AM

Hell no. I have a decent grasp of contract and general corporate law thanks to running a fairly decent sized business and dealing with it on a daily basis but I am not even close to being a lawyer. If I was I would probably be spending a lot less money on lawyers every year.

No idea.

Same.

D&D 3.5 is dysfunctional when the entire group isn't playing the same game. If everyone is on pretty much the same page in regards to play style, system mastery, optimization, and game desires then D&D is pretty much fully functional (even in higher end epic with Epic Spellcasting in play).

The issues arise when someone wants to play a fighter who has never heard of stealth and goes pure face smasher, another player is an assassin factotum that can drop a Great Wyrm Red in the surprise round and considers himself a horrible failure if any enemy notices him before he has jabbed a soul sucking dagger through their heart, a wizard who is having a love affair with Fireball and refuses to use any other spell (and who's solution to every problem is to Fireball it until it ceases to be a problem), and a Psion that knows every spell and power in the game and is capable of throwing out upwards of a thousand Ice Assassins in one round or True Resurrecting the entire party for free as a standard action.

The D&D rules pretty much fully support everyone of those ideas and running a campaign world where said ideas work perfectly fine and can be DMed for. The D&D rules do not really support everyone of those ideas being realized in the same party and being DMed for simultaneously.

Pretty much this. The true gentleman's agreement is "let's all play the same game"; you don't have to stick to low- or mid-op for the game to be fun as long as everybody knows the score.

My absolute favorite aspect of Pathfinder is that they ditched that nonsensical rule, or at least worded it much better.

Also, it's pretty absurd since truly following the primary source rule means there are no other base classes in 3.5 except the ones in the PHB.

Maybe I'm not clever enough or have the time or energy, but I have never been able to make high op, high level dnd work. Low op high level and high op low level, certainly.

It's just... there are so many abilities, having to balance what's fair with what makes sense, etc. I tend strongly towards gamism. The tippy-esque simulationism as a derivative of the RAW is both super interesting but also super difficult to pull off for me.

From a practical standpoint, things like persisted impermeable form and 1,000 mile mindsight- what do? And how much and where? And that's like, level 7.

Plus, there's almost zero module support for any sensible defenses, say, the black tower of bane, would have against magic users using their abilities to their full extent. Hell, how ridiculously antiquated are towers? Or courtyards? Hope you like being strafed by dragon breath.

Psyren

2013-12-30, 09:07 AM

Maybe I'm not clever enough or have the time or energy, but I have never been able to make high op, high level dnd work. Low op high level and high op low level, certainly.

It's just... there are so many abilities, having to balance what's fair with what makes sense, etc. I tend strongly towards gamism. The tippy-esque simulationism as a derivative of the RAW is both super interesting but also super difficult to pull off for me.

Don't worry, I'm right there with you. My groups are low/mid-op, and while I'll occasionally bust out a neat trick to save us when things go sour (and have come to be relied upon for such) I have no trouble "scaling down" to their level and not using even a quarter of the nasty tricks I've absorbed from these boards.

Outright playing in a Tippy/ryu style campaign, even if I could pull it off, wouldn't be much fun for me. And that's okay, the beauty of 3.P is that it can support that wide spectrum of playstyles (just, generally not the entire spectrum at one table as Tippy said.)

4e's mistake was in believing the spectrum itself was the problem and tossing it out the window, guaranteeing base breakage.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-30, 10:36 AM

I will agree with the role-play argument. That's kind of how that works. I do however fail to see how roll-playing is an over generalized term. It's in fact very specific to a certain type of play.

It is dismissive, as an argument, and insulting, as a descriptor, especially in the context it is being used in this discussion.

Osiris

2013-12-30, 10:49 AM

So, fixes to prevent that, trying for the minimum necessary:
1) Wish does not have an XP component. Instead, part of the spell's effects are that the caster loses the required amount of XP. If the caster doesn't have that much XP, the spell fails.
2) Simulacra and Ice Assassins never have XP, under any circumstances. Might already be the rule, actually.
3) Other planes do not necessarily have an infinite number of inhabitants of a given type just because they're infinitely large.
4) No Thought Bottle.
5) Optional: Genesis cannot set the Time trait of the created demiplane.

I think this would prevent any self-sustaining loops, and make item creation limited by XP and/or time even with the various ways to get unlimited gold.
Yeah, that should do it. Also, create a homebrewed god of RAI, controlled by the DM, to remove any rules abusing debauchery

Surrealistik

2013-12-30, 10:53 AM

4e's mistake was in believing the spectrum itself was the problem and tossing it out the window, guaranteeing base breakage.

Not going to lie, after playing 3.5 and seeing the tenuous 'gentleman's agreements' upon which it so hopelessly depends break down or be tested time and time again, because everyone has a different idea of what 'mid-op' means for example (and why _their_ idea of mid op, not yours, is _right_), I'm glad it did, and I actually agree with any notion on the part of 4e's designers that this huge breadth of the power spectrum and the number of ways it is possible to break 3.5 or marginalize other players _was_ in fact a problem. For me and for this reason, 3.5 was most remembered as being a miserable procession of arguments.

Those who disagree (which is cool) or who were too invested in 3.5 to move on stayed with the system or Pathfinder.

I will concede though that if you can find the right group and DM, these problems can be largely avoided, though I unfortunately never did.

Psyren

2013-12-30, 11:06 AM

That's unfortunate. All I can say is that no group I've ever played with had that problem. Hell, the phrase "gentleman's agreement" never even came up - until I started posting here I'd never even seen it.

Game balance is not a bad thing, I just think 4e (and even better-textured proxies of it, like Legend) sacrificed too much in its pursuit.

Threadnaught

2013-12-30, 12:06 PM

And you can brow-beat the genie into paying for it, if you're strong enough.

Congratulations, your 11th level Wizard summoned two Efreet and got their 5 Wishes.
"Yes master, I will raze your Intelligence as you asked."

That'll be 25000xp, you now have 1 Intelligence and are now level 8. What do you want to do with your other Wish? Cancel those other Wishes as Undo Misfortune? Nah, that's too smart a decision for your new Intelligence, you Wish for a Ring of Three Wishes, that'll be 5000xp. You are now level 7.

You Wish your DM wasn't such a jerk? I'll take that to mean you Wish to hire a Fighter so the game will be a little easier for you, that'll be 5000xp you are now level 6. I control the Fighter and will be playing him as a Lawful Stupid Paladin.

What's that? You wanted to Wish to raise all your stats? Okay, Your remaining two Wishes summon two Efreet under your command. That'll be 10000xp, you are now level 4.
"Yes master, we will raze your other stats."

You now have 1 Strength, 1 Dexterity, 1 Constitution, 1 Wisdom, 1 Charisma and because you'll want more Wishes, a new Ring of Three Wishes. That'll be 30000xp, you die from the xp drain.

What? No I haven't been unreasonably punishing you guys for using Wishes. I've been behaving completely within the confines of the rules. BTW an NPC Wizard decides to cast Wish and uses one of you guys to pay for the xp cost, that'll be 5000xp. Why are you giving me the finger? If you don't like how this game works, why don't you play something else like Dark Souls, where it's impossible to lose?

Congratulations, you all reach 4th level, but an equal number of 17th level (or higher) Wizards to the party decide to cast Wish, while making you guys pay the xp cost, go back to level 2, stop flipping me off.
And repeat every time the party reaches 4th level until they leave to play baby RPGs like the Pokémon Nuzlocke challenge where it's impossible to lose.

nyarlathotep

2013-12-30, 12:21 PM

I will agree with the role-play argument. That's kind of how that works. I do however fail to see how roll-playing is an over generalized term. It's in fact very specific to a certain type of play.

Alright mister story gamer, I'll just leave you to your magical teaparty.

jedipilot24

2013-12-30, 12:51 PM

Congratulations, your 11th level Wizard summoned two Efreet and got their 5 Wishes.
"Yes master, I will raze your Intelligence as you asked."

That'll be 25000xp, you now have 1 Intelligence and are now level 8. What do you want to do with your other Wish? Cancel those other Wishes as Undo Misfortune? Nah, that's too smart a decision for your new Intelligence, you Wish for a Ring of Three Wishes, that'll be 5000xp. You are now level 7.

You Wish your DM wasn't such a jerk? I'll take that to mean you Wish to hire a Fighter so the game will be a little easier for you, that'll be 5000xp you are now level 6. I control the Fighter and will be playing him as a Lawful Stupid Paladin.

What's that? You wanted to Wish to raise all your stats? Okay, Your remaining two Wishes summon two Efreet under your command. That'll be 10000xp, you are now level 4.
"Yes master, we will raze your other stats."

You now have 1 Strength, 1 Dexterity, 1 Constitution, 1 Wisdom, 1 Charisma and because you'll want more Wishes, a new Ring of Three Wishes. That'll be 30000xp, you die from the xp drain.

This is entirely appropriate because Efreet are "always Lawful Evil" and Outsiders; so not only do they think differently than mortals, but their alignment is all about manipulation and loophole abuse. So if the party wizard is trying to Wish Farm some Efreet, then it's time to introduce the party to cursed magic items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm).

Threadnaught

2013-12-30, 01:48 PM

This is entirely appropriate because Efreet are "always Lawful Evil" and Outsiders; so not only do they think differently than mortals, but their alignment is all about manipulation and loophole abuse. So if the party wizard is trying to Wish Farm some Efreet, then it's time to introduce the party to cursed magic items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm).

It's less a tale of Efreet being Jackass Genies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) and more so about a DM being a Killer GM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillerGameMaster) when using Yahzi's houserule.

If you notice, the Player has their control over their Character taken away because they're too stupid to not get themselves killed. NPC Wizards from the other side of the world can drain PCs for Wish xp whenever they want. The Ring drains xp when the players merely express a desire for something, and drain all the xp the amount of Wishes would cost. If a Player Wishes to raise their stats by 5 points each, the two Efreeti will raze the first stat down to 1 and give the player a Ring of 3 Wishes, which automatically grants 3 Wishes to each give a Ring of Three Wishes, which repeats until they have 9 RoTWs which raze the rest of the Character's stats to 1, leaving 2 Wishes remaining. Total xp cost for this? 215000, you'd better be Epic Level to Wish for something in this type of game. Even then, you'd have to kill every single being capable of using Wish, otherwise the DM would be able to drain all xp from your character whenever they want.

Tyndmyr

2013-12-30, 02:50 PM

DC 35? In E6? Under the ideal circumstances (ie. 19 int and 9 ranks) a roll of 2 would result in a total of 33, below the needed DC 35 to know of an elder demon prince like Pazuzu. It's literally impossible to learn of Pazuzu's existence by RAW under E6.

Even if the DC would originally be lower than DC 35, I think that, completely under the rules and without hamfisted DM fiat, it would be more than fair to up the DCs on certain kinds of knowledge in E6 because, once more, the gods and demons don't really show themselves all the time like they might do in other settings. Spotting even a single low level demon in that setting would already lead to mass panic, confusion and paranoia.

Oh, cmon, buffs are possible even in E6. Even without cheese of any kind, you can assume another +5 or so from that. +2 from the core int booster spell, for instance. With even the slightest bit of cheddar, I can take that to a +yes.

E6 just serves to make optimization more challenging, really. =)

So we're saying E6 in a setting without Pazuzu is Tippy-proof?

Or do we need to outright ban candles of invocation and/or wish?

Do we also need to ban magic traps and spell clocks and so on, or does E6 take care of most of those shenanigans?

Nah. Level 4 spells are available in E6 via several different ways(unless you houserule this away as well), and in core, there's Mnemonic Enhancer. This provides a way to stop worrying about pesky limits like "how many copies of x spell can I cast". See, the glorious thing about E6 is that the opposition doesn't exist. Either monsters above 6HD don't exist, in which case, frigging nothing can stop you, or they do, in which case, you can co-opt their power for your own.

I am pretty sure that one of the core tenants of Tippyverse is that one always takes the most permissive reading of the rules.

What irks me is that people argue that such a reading is ironclad RAW, and that anything less is an unofficial house rule and not worthy of discussion.

Nah. It takes the rules as they are. Nothing less, nothing more. Go ahead and read his various writings, the info is all out there.

Talakeal

2013-12-30, 10:20 PM

Not going to lie, after playing 3.5 and seeing the tenuous 'gentleman's agreements' upon which it so hopelessly depends break down or be tested time and time again, because everyone has a different idea of what 'mid-op' means for example (and why _their_ idea of mid op, not yours, is _right_), I'm glad it did, and I actually agree with any notion on the part of 4e's designers that this huge breadth of the power spectrum and the number of ways it is possible to break 3.5 or marginalize other players _was_ in fact a problem. For me and for this reason, 3.5 was most remembered as being a miserable procession of arguments.

Those who disagree (which is cool) or who were too invested in 3.5 to move on stayed with the system or Pathfinder.

I will concede though that if you can find the right group and DM, these problems can be largely avoided, though I unfortunately never did.

I am going to have to agree with this sentiment. I have only ran one 3.5 game that got to high levels. As soon as the mage got high enough level to cast shape change everything else in the game became irrelevant. Any problem the mage could shape change to solve. And other classes shtick the mage could do better than them.

The sessions basically boiled down to 8 hour arguments about whether or not shape change would give an ability that doesn't have a listed type, whether demonic magic items could be separated from the body, whether turning into a different creature of the same species reset the cool downs on SLAs, whether turning into a creature granted you its terrain abilities, whether summoned creatures continued to follow you once you turned into something else, etc. etc. etc.

Nah. It takes the rules as they are. Nothing less, nothing more. Go ahead and read his various writings, the info is all out there.

Not really.

There are a number of places where Tippy uses similar wording in unrelated rules and insists that there have to be the same thing, and anyone who reads it differently are flat out wrong.

For example saying that "environment" in genesis must include "planar traits", or that an unconscious character being considered "willing" for the purposes of harmless spells means that such a character will always "willingly" perform any actions required of them by a different rule.

Again, I am not saying that he is wrong, just that it is annoying that he can't accept the possibility of an ambiguous rule and dismisses anyone who doesn't take away the same meaning as somehow cheating or failing to comprehend the one true interpretation.

TuggyNE

2013-12-30, 11:06 PM

There are a number of places where Tippy uses similar wording in unrelated rules and insists that there have to be the same thing, and anyone who reads it differently are flat out wrong.

For example saying that "environment" in genesis must include "planar traits", or that an unconscious character being considered "willing" for the purposes of harmless spells means that such a character will always "willingly" perform any actions required of them by a different rule.

Tippy does say those things, and often (e.g. willing-only) I consider him wrong. However, none of those things are relevant to the Tippyverse except in the most tangential way; widespread TCs, boon traps, guarded demiplanes, and golem armies are all perfectly possible without such disputed readings. And if you have those you have the Tippyverse in all but the smallest details.

Pickford

2013-12-30, 11:31 PM

Fair enough. I guess that if I were DMing an E6 game and someone brought this to the table, I'd let it fly. let's ignore for the sake of argument that I don't really like using psionics.

However, if somebody would do that at my table, I'd give them one piece of advice: make that wish count. As a Chaotic Evil demon, one who revels in chaos and destruction, liberal interpretation of wishes would be one of the most important worries of the gamers, another one a radical alignment shift to the purest of evil, but the most important one would probably be notoriety. Summoning a DC 20+ demon into an E6 world? An evil one no less? One that more likely would want to see you fall than actually aid you? You might as well start wearing a "Paladins smite here" neon sign.

In other words I'd let it fly, but breaking my game would come at a very high cost, probably a cost that isn't worth the effort. At that point, I'd allow the other characters to fully in character kill the Pazuzu summoner in order to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.

I think the core problem being addressed here is Player knowledge vs. Character knowledge.

We as players know, just by opening the rule books, that things like Experience, Wish, and Pazuzu exist.

How do the characters know to do things that revolve entirely around clever use of game mechanics? i.e. I need to make a DC 35 knowledge the planes check for my character to know Pazuzu exists in order to get a Wish without costing myself experience points.

Experience, according to the PHB, is numerical representation of the character's personal achievement and advancement. Why does crafting magic items cost a character their personal achievement? Why would casting some spells do that?

If the goal of requiring XP in crafting/spellcasting components is to limit the use of those spells and the creation of those items, then perhaps a revision of the material components rules is in order (i.e. remove eschew materials or material components are never necessary or the use of components can enhance a spell etc...). Simply requiring specific, and potentially rare/expensive, components to craft items would presumably solve the issue of crafting.

Similarly, according to the PHB, wizards actually only learn spells by getting them from someone else (captured/borrowed spellbooks and scrolls) or by doing independent research. Until one of those things has occurred, they actually shouldn't know the explicit details of what spells are out there.

This last bit could be solved by restricting what spells players can even see (i.e. No player can explicitly choose a particular spell, they can only request an area/style of research and the DM determines what they actually get out of it.)

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-31, 12:10 AM

Not really.

There are a number of places where Tippy uses similar wording in unrelated rules and insists that there have to be the same thing, and anyone who reads it differently are flat out wrong.
Not really. I rarely claim that others are flat out wrong.

For example saying that "environment" in genesis must include "planar traits",
The only way to read that bit differently is to deliberately misread it. Any definition of environment would cover planar traits as a subset.

or that an unconscious character being considered "willing" for the purposes of harmless spells means that such a character will always "willingly" perform any actions required of them by a different rule.
Which I freely acknowledge people can read differently and as it is, it's irrelevant to most anything that I actually claim to be RAW.

Again, I am not saying that he is wrong, just that it is annoying that he can't accept the possibility of an ambiguous rule and dismisses anyone who doesn't take away the same meaning as somehow cheating or failing to comprehend the one true interpretation.
I freely acknowledge that ambiguous rules exist. Most of what people claim as "ambiguous" is, however, nothing of the sort. It's usually "I'm going to claim that my incorrect reading is actually correct so that I can claim that I'm not house-ruling to deal with some level of power that I dislike".

CIDE

2013-12-31, 12:13 AM

It is dismissive, as an argument, and insulting, as a descriptor, especially in the context it is being used in this discussion.

Except it's not. It's a distinctly different method of playing the game that isn't inherently insulting and it's style would prohibit certain methods of play (and as already pointed out likely preventing the TV). It's not MY style and I personally find no enjoyment in it but that doesn't mean me calling someone a roll-player as opposed to a role-player implies I'm insulting them. I'm not gathering the implication that it was intended to be insulting in this thread either.

Dalebert

2013-12-31, 12:17 AM

Similarly, according to the PHB, wizards actually only learn spells by getting them from someone else (captured/borrowed spellbooks and scrolls) or by doing independent research. Until one of those things has occurred, they actually shouldn't know the explicit details of what spells are out there.

Many spells are probably reasonably well-known even if you don't have access to the specific spells. A wizard's training probably includes general information about a lot of common spells. That's what spellcraft is all about. A typical wizard or cleric with a decent spellcraft roll has a decent chance of recognizing even a cross-class spell so most of them probably aren't very obscure.

Pickford

2013-12-31, 12:26 AM

Many spells are probably reasonably well-known even if you don't have access to the specific spells. A wizard's training probably includes general information about a lot of common spells. That's what spellcraft is all about. A typical wizard or cleric with a decent spellcraft roll has a decent chance of recognizing even a cross-class spell so most of them probably aren't very obscure.

True, known, perhaps as only legend. The actual details would, RAW elude them. Otherwise they wouldn't have to research the spell.

Common spells are the 0th level ones that every wizard has in their spellbooks, everything else requires added effort. For that matter, if the highest level wizards for a metropolis sized city are only up to level 15 (iirc), then higher level magic would be almost unknown.

Through spellcraft casters have a chance of recognizing what the spell is/does, but wizards are supposed to study the spell written down to actually know it.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-31, 12:50 AM

Except it's not. It's a distinctly different method of playing the game that isn't inherently insulting and it's style would prohibit certain methods of play (and as already pointed out likely preventing the TV). It's not MY style and I personally find no enjoyment in it but that doesn't mean me calling someone a roll-player as opposed to a role-player implies I'm insulting them. I'm not gathering the implication that it was intended to be insulting in this thread either.

The implication behind the term roll-player is that the target of the comment can be dismissed as they are prioritizing the wrong part of the game and having badwrongfun.

I don't care if you didn't mean it in that sense: I, and almost certainly others, read it in that tone and with that meaning. If that was not your intention, perhaps you should use less loaded language.

CIDE

2013-12-31, 12:58 AM

Alright mister story gamer, I'll just leave you to your magical teaparty.

Now that is the definition of "dismissive arguments" right there. :amused:

The implication behind the term roll-player is that the target of the comment can be dismissed as they are prioritizing the wrong part of the game and having badwrongfun.

I don't care if you didn't mean it in that sense: I, and almost certainly others, read it in that tone and with that meaning. If that was not your intention, perhaps you should use less loaded language.

For starters you're still mistaken. In this thread and otherwise I've never seen or heard the term used in the way you're stating. In fact I've seen more "badwrongfun" instances and insults being thrown around for role-playing rather than roll-playing (See Ctech and pretty much every discussion there of "OUR FLUFF SAYS YOU CAN'T!").

Less loaded language? We're communication in English through text over the internet. There's no way to be 'less loaded' unless we switch languages all together.

Talakeal

2013-12-31, 01:13 AM

Not really. I rarely claim that others are flat out wrong.

The only way to read that bit differently is to deliberately misread it. Any definition of environment would cover planar traits as a subset.

Which I freely acknowledge people can read differently and as it is, it's irrelevant to most anything that I actually claim to be RAW.

I freely acknowledge that ambiguous rules exist. Most of what people claim as "ambiguous" is, however, nothing of the sort. It's usually "I'm going to claim that my incorrect reading is actually correct so that I can claim that I'm not house-ruling to deal with some level of power that I dislike".

I apologize if I misrepresented what you have said in the past or use "Tippyverse" to mean "The rules according to Emperor Tippy". I was just summarizing a few disagreements that we have had in years past where I felt that you (or perhaps someone else backing you up) was telling me that I was "wrong" for reading the rules the way I do.

Please don't think that I am trying to derail this thread or pick a fight with you. I am not trying to belittle you in any way, you are obviously a very intelligent person, and you know the rules of D&D far better than I ever will, and I would love to have you as one of my play-testers. I just think that you can be overly dogmatic about defending your reading of the rules.

We have already argued the Genesis thing, but I don't think there is any sort of intentional misreading going on, and the assertion that there is exactly the type of statement I was commenting on.

I don't have to insist that everything I see as broken is ambiguous. There are plenty of broken things in D&D that are clearly black and white RAW, including (but by no means limited to) shape change, thought bottles, and XP free SLA wishes. When I run D&D I nerf or ban these things, and I admit they are house rules. If I truly believed Genesis contained unambiguous rules I didn't like I would have no problem doing the same. But in my opinion the spell is ambiguous enough that the DM and the players have to work together to come up with a working interpretation of the rules if they go beyond the listed examples.

If anyone wants to hear my argument as to why manipulation of planar traits with Genesis feel free to read the spoiler below, but be warned that it is slightly off topic and rehashing an old argument.

When Genesis was published Planar Traits were still probably just a twinkle in some designer's eye. Even if they were in early development and the author of Genesis happened to see them, This was also in a period of time when supplements were written in isolation and assumed to be completely modular even when some integration would be really helpful (for example between MoP, Dieties and Demigods, and the ELH). And so we know that there could have been no RAW or RAI link between the genesis and planar traits rules when Genesis was first written, although one might have been created later when the Planar Traits are published.

As a result we have to go by the definition of the word "environment", which is not only inconsistent between dictionaries, but will have half a dozen different definitions within the same dictionary, some of them so vague that a person using environmental control as a RAW ability could do literally anything. When a term like that, especially one so vague, is not defined by the rules you can't really say there is one right reading.

Even the author acknowledges that this is a weak rule by itself and included several examples in the description, adding the words "such as" to make it even more ambiguous.

Just to Browse

2013-12-31, 01:15 AM

Now that is the definition of "dismissive arguments" right there. :amused:Indeed. His post was a clever way of showing that dismissive terms are bad for discussion. You seem to agree with him.

For starters you're still mistaken. In this thread and otherwise I've never seen or heard the term used in the way you're stating. In fact I've seen more "badwrongfun" instances and insults being thrown around for role-playing rather than roll-playing (See Ctech and pretty much every discussion there of "OUR FLUFF SAYS YOU CAN'T!").You can't tell Fax he's wrong and then respond to something he didn't say. We call that a strawman. Fax is saying that "roll-player" is used primarily to dismiss arguments. Until you show that conventional wisdom incorrect, no one cares if it gets used more or less often than other insults like "badwrongfun", "REALSMI" "obamacare", "derp", etc.

Less loaded language? We're communication in English through text over the internet. There's no way to be 'less loaded' unless we switch languages all together.Wrong interpretation of the word "language". You could use almost any synonym for "roll-player" and have it be less dismissive/insulting, just like you could refer to people's race without using a slur.

Particle_Man

2013-12-31, 01:27 AM

Rule of primary sources as defined by the books. The later MMs have no say over anything they didn't newly introduce and thus hold primacy over with specificity. 3.5 RAW is VERY particular about its regulations and methods even if the people who wrote didn't understand the silliness they were actually writing.

In any case, since this thread is about what rules would have to be changed to achieve my objective I would be willing to include changing the "rules of primary sources" rule if necessary. :smallsmile:

georgie_leech

2013-12-31, 01:31 AM

Wrong interpretation of the word "language". You could use almost any synonym for "roll-player" and have it be less dismissive/insulting, just like you could refer to people's race without using a slur.

"Mechanics-focused," "gamist," and "kick-in-the-door-style" all leap to mind. I find that one of D&D's strengths is actually that it's well suited for "Here's a dungeon, there's an artifact in it, go get it." I enjoy campaigns with epic stories, but I find other systems have a hard time managing one-shots quite so easily.

TuggyNE

2013-12-31, 02:20 AM

I apologize if I misrepresented what you have said in the past or use "Tippyverse" to mean "The rules according to Emperor Tippy".

Not everything Tippy does is related to the Tippyverse. For example, he's made some sample builds, contributed to RACSD, and so forth. The Tippyverse is specifically a campaign setting designed by him, and comprises just about what you'd expect from a setting: a history, some sort of general geographic notions (no maps that I know of, but perhaps he has some being prepared for a book or whatever), general cultural and social ideas, descriptions of typical cities and countrysides, and an explanation of how various D&Disms like specific monsters, NPCs, adventurers, and services fit into the milieu. It doesn't have, for example, thoughts on specific ways for adventurers to conquer foes (cast finger of death on sleeping enemy?), ideas on character builds, or other such things.

CIDE

2013-12-31, 03:25 AM

Indeed. His post was a clever way of showing that dismissive terms are bad for discussion. You seem to agree with him.
.

Yes, your point? If you are in some way implying that I in some way presenting a dismissive argument I'd be more than happy to see it. Otherwise you had no reason to bring this up.

You can't tell Fax he's wrong and then respond to something he didn't say. We call that a strawman. Fax is saying that "roll-player" is used primarily to dismiss arguments. Until you show that conventional wisdom incorrect, no one cares if it gets used more or less often than other insults like "badwrongfun", "REALSMI" "obamacare", "derp", etc.

I can tell Fax that they are indeed wrong. What I can't do is prove a negative. Which is what you're asking me to do. Guess what else is poor debate practice...?

Beyond that the rest of my commentary was essentially an anecdotal response and had nothing to do with responding 'to something he didn't say'. I think you need to either recheck your definition of a strawman or reread my post.

Wrong interpretation of the word "language". You could use almost any synonym for "roll-player" and have it be less dismissive/insulting, just like you could refer to people's race without using a slur.

No, as indicated in my post I quite clearly understood the intent of the poster here. The loaded language was choice of vocabulary and I pointed out that using the English language in text-based conversations over the internet where virtually half the conversation is lost without gestures, tone of voice, etc was faulty. that said that unless the language (and here I did shift the meaning) would have to be completely changed from english to something else in order to accomplish what Fax is after.

Finally, I'd like to see some of this less dismissive vocabulary. If anything roll-player is probably one of the least insulting variations that come to mind. Not that I am accepting that the term is inherently insulting.

"Mechanics-focused," "gamist," and "kick-in-the-door-style" all leap to mind. I find that one of D&D's strengths is actually that it's well suited for "Here's a dungeon, there's an artifact in it, go get it." I enjoy campaigns with epic stories, but I find other systems have a hard time managing one-shots quite so easily.

Not that any of those terms are better but rather just different. I will agree with you about D&D's mechanical strength's. That really has no bearing on this particular bit of the discussion, however.

georgie_leech

2013-12-31, 03:37 AM

Finally, I'd like to see some of this less dismissive vocabulary. If anything roll-player is probably one of the least insulting variations that come to mind. Not that I am accepting that the term is inherently insulting.

Not that any of those terms are better but rather just different. I will agree with you about D&D's mechanical strength's. That really has no bearing on this particular bit of the discussion, however.

I've never seen "roll-player" used in any context but as a way to deride people who prefer mechanics to role play. If the words are equivalent but different, it costs you nothing to use the alternate terms, communicates your message without risking as much unintentional insult, and for gamist it's actually shorter to type.

CIDE

2013-12-31, 04:37 AM

I've never seen "roll-player" used in any context but as a way to deride people who prefer mechanics to role play. If the words are equivalent but different, it costs you nothing to use the alternate terms, communicates your message without risking as much unintentional insult, and for gamist it's actually shorter to type.

And using synonyms in its place is somehow less insulting to the crowd that somehow views it as an inherently insulting term...?

TuggyNE

2013-12-31, 04:57 AM

And using synonyms in its place is somehow less insulting to the crowd that somehow views it as an inherently insulting term...?

The synonyms are not perfect synonyms (as is the case for most synonyms). Notably, they lack most or all of the offensive undertones. That's why they are being recommended: they more accurately capture what you are presumably trying to say, while being less offensive.

CIDE

2013-12-31, 05:35 AM

The synonyms are not perfect synonyms (as is the case for most synonyms). Notably, they lack most or all of the offensive undertones. That's why they are being recommended: they more accurately capture what you are presumably trying to say, while being less offensive.

Semantics. Those terms (I'll admit one or two listed above I've never heard before) are being used to describe the exact same type of gamer as "roll-player". Except here the derisive nature that some of you are trying to place on the aforementioned term isn't universally accepted. If those alternatives are in fact lacking of certain descriptors too (I can't tell for the ones I don't know what that may be) then the terms may not in fact be suitable replacements for what myself or others to use in place of "roll-players/ing".

Inevitably this comes down to perception. I don't perceive the term to be offensive. I've never seen the term being used in such a way (no, not even in this thread). And I guess for a very direct comparison it'd be like trying to argue with someone about what they feel is considered sexual harassment and essentially the "victim" is always right in these cases. Or at least I expect that the route for this conversation to take.

georgie_leech

2013-12-31, 05:38 AM

Semantics. Those terms (I'll admit one or two listed above I've never heard before) are being used to describe the exact same type of gamer as "roll-player". Except here the derisive nature that some of you are trying to place on the aforementioned term isn't universally accepted. If those alternatives are in fact lacking of certain descriptors too (I can't tell for the ones I don't know what that may be) then the terms may not in fact be suitable replacements for what myself or others to use in place of "roll-players/ing".

Inevitably this comes down to perception. I don't perceive the term to be offensive. I've never seen the term being used in such a way (no, not even in this thread). And I guess for a very direct comparison it'd be like trying to argue with someone about what they feel is considered sexual harassment and essentially the "victim" is always right in these cases. Or at least I expect that the route for this conversation to take.

Compare instead "Black" or "African" with "Ni----." Whether you intend the latter to be offensive or not, and everyone understands it to refer to the same kind of person as the others, calling someone that is a good way to start fights. Again, if it's not important to you which one you use, why not just use the non-offensive ones?

Togo

2013-12-31, 08:12 AM

I freely acknowledge that ambiguous rules exist. Most of what people claim as "ambiguous" is, however, nothing of the sort. It's usually "I'm going to claim that my incorrect reading is actually correct so that I can claim that I'm not house-ruling to deal with some level of power that I dislike".

Hm.. I disagree with a great many of the rulings used in the construction of the Tippyverse, simply on the basis that they are either ludicrously permissive readings of the text or flat-out wrong. That's not in itself a problem in me using or enjoying the setting, but it does make people who continually insist that Tippyverse is the inevitable product of the one true reading of RAW to be quite annoying.

Once an effect deliberately says you can do something it is up to the effect description itself to place limits on the scope and utility of what you get if there are any. Wish is very explicit in its magic item making limits. Namely the fact that it provides one limitation to the exclusion of all other limitations. You just can't make artifacts.

Nonsense. By that ruling I can grapple spells. Grapple itself doesn't say I can't. Or I can iron heart surge gravity and thow everything on the planet into space.

This is just a variation of the 'it doesn't say I can't' arguement, which is the classic example of a permissive reading of the rules. Anything becomes possible, because the rules don't say you can't.

If you try reading the rules as a coherant whole, then your interpretation of wish is directly contradicted elsewhere.

Inevitably this comes down to perception. I don't perceive the term to be offensive.

Unless it costs you something to use different language, why would that matter?

Fax Celestis

2013-12-31, 10:59 AM

Inevitably this comes down to perception. I don't perceive the term to be offensive.

Other people do. If you don't care about how other people perceive you or the words you're saying, feel free to continue speaking however you like. However, if you give a damn about what people think of you, you'd do well to take into consideration their feelings about the use of certain words.

nyarlathotep

2013-12-31, 11:24 AM

And using synonyms in its place is somehow less insulting to the crowd that somehow views it as an inherently insulting term...?

Then why do you preceive my usage of the phrase magical teaparty to indicate a game where mechanics are de-emphasized insulting. I mean you might call it rules lite or real roleplaying, but I'm calling it magical teaparty a well enough known phrase to indicate rules lite games.

The word roll-player indicates that one believes there is a dicotamy between those who enjoy and utilize mechanics and those who do not, and that by enjoying the use of mechanics one is somehow worse at roleplaying. Similarly magical tea party is used to insinuate those with rules lite games are no longer playing the game and might as well be freeforming on in the most insulting terms "playing tea party". In both cases the culture and intention surrounding the word is intentionally insulting and indicates a thought structure that is toxic to discussion between people or differing game type.

ryu

2013-12-31, 12:55 PM

Hm.. I disagree with a great many of the rulings used in the construction of the Tippyverse, simply on the basis that they are either ludicrously permissive readings of the text or flat-out wrong. That's not in itself a problem in me using or enjoying the setting, but it does make people who continually insist that Tippyverse is the inevitable product of the one true reading of RAW to be quite annoying.

Nonsense. By that ruling I can grapple spells. Grapple itself doesn't say I can't. Or I can iron heart surge gravity and thow everything on the planet into space.

This is just a variation of the 'it doesn't say I can't' arguement, which is the classic example of a permissive reading of the rules. Anything becomes possible, because the rules don't say you can't.

If you try reading the rules as a coherant whole, then your interpretation of wish is directly contradicted elsewhere.

Unless it costs you something to use different language, why would that matter?

Grapple specifically calls out creatures. You could grapple living spells, summons, or really anything that makes minions. Fireball is quite specifically off the table though. Also you totally can IHS gravity. It's highly ill-advised, and I have no idea what that would even mean with D&D cosmology and different falling rules. You still totally can do that though.

Pickford

2013-12-31, 01:14 PM

Grapple specifically calls out creatures. You could grapple living spells, summons, or really anything that makes minions. Fireball is quite specifically off the table though. Also you totally can IHS gravity. It's highly ill-advised, and I have no idea what that would even mean with D&D cosmology and different falling rules. You still totally can do that though.

gravity isn't a condition, spell, or effect though. Gravity is a fundamental law of the universe, a constant.

DeAnno

2013-12-31, 02:58 PM

Deophaun

2013-12-31, 04:40 PM

I think the core problem being addressed here is Player knowledge vs. Character knowledge.

We as players know, just by opening the rule books, that things like Experience, Wish, and Pazuzu exist.

How do the characters know to do things that revolve entirely around clever use of game mechanics? i.e. I need to make a DC 35 knowledge the planes check for my character to know Pazuzu exists in order to get a Wish without costing myself experience points.
^ This

Tippyverse assumes an army of NPCs that all have optimization-obsessed players behind them with access to all splatbooks. Tippyverse also assumes that choices allowed to players are also choices allowed to characters. But, this need not be true.

Yes, you, the player, got to pick black tentacles for your Sorcerer when he leveled. That character, however, probably didn't, as Sorcerers get their magic through the power of their blood, not study. He no more chose black tentacles than he chose his birth parents. It's not that much different with Wizards; maybe few Wizards ever get exposed to the knowledge necessary to learn teleport, even if they wanted to. Whatever, there are practical constraints in life to people doing the optimal thing, which is one of the things that makes PCs exceptional.

NichG

2013-12-31, 08:31 PM

There really aren't as many terribad things as people who are saying "play 4e" or something similarly trite are suggesting. Off the top of my head:

Teleportation Circle, Gate
Ice Assassin, Simulacrum, things like that
Wish or any equivalent
Custom Items (95% of this is the idiotic trap rules)
Shapechange
Any form of permanent mind switching or possession
Any form of having multiple bodies at once or otherwise splitting characters (Fission, Body Outside Body)
Thought Bottles or things that similarly mess with XP
Planes with different time rates
Iron Heart Surge, probably fixable easily with rewording
Maybe Clone? I'm not sure how bad it is with none of the other stuff.

I think that closes most of the strategic level nuclear options off (maybe there are a couple more things.) Of course there are a large variety of "tactical nukes" which will be very effective in battles, but none of those really warp the setting into Star Trek so much as they warp it into Marvel Superheroes.

There are quite a few more abilities in D&D that have the potential to be world-altering (e.g. one person with access to it influences the way the world works on a scale much greater than one person)

Polymorph Any Object - permanently turn anything into nearly anything by chaining them in the right way.
Wall of Iron/Wall of Salt - Destroy the economy
Energy Transformation Field - Who needs resetting traps?
Planar Ally/Planar Binding - Potentially as bad as Gate.
Fell Drain/Animate Dead/Create Undead/Thrallherd/Dominate Monster/Programmed Amnesia/Mindrape/others I'm probably missing - Create large, controlled work-forces. The Shadowpocalypse isn't an end, its a beginning - an un-injurable, starvation-proof citizenry...

The thing is, both our lists are almost certainly incomplete. Spot-banning or spot-modifying things isn't really a good way to '-proof' something because it requires you to have exhaustive knowledge of all the potential tricks. It just takes one trick you've missed to destabilize a setting.

Thats why generally its better to work from the ends rather than work from the means - tell the players 'lets not do the disruptive technology thing in this campaign' and then call people on it if they try.

Talakeal

2013-12-31, 10:05 PM

There are quite a few more abilities in D&D that have the potential to be world-altering (e.g. one person with access to it influences the way the world works on a scale much greater than one person)

Polymorph Any Object - permanently turn anything into nearly anything by chaining them in the right way.
Wall of Iron/Wall of Salt - Destroy the economy
Energy Transformation Field - Who needs resetting traps?
Planar Ally/Planar Binding - Potentially as bad as Gate.
Fell Drain/Animate Dead/Create Undead/Thrallherd/Dominate Monster/Programmed Amnesia/Mindrape/others I'm probably missing - Create large, controlled work-forces. The Shadowpocalypse isn't an end, its a beginning - an un-injurable, starvation-proof citizenry...

The thing is, both our lists are almost certainly incomplete. Spot-banning or spot-modifying things isn't really a good way to '-proof' something because it requires you to have exhaustive knowledge of all the potential tricks. It just takes one trick you've missed to destabilize a setting.

Thats why generally its better to work from the ends rather than work from the means - tell the players 'lets not do the disruptive technology thing in this campaign' and then call people on it if they try.

Why not do both? Establish a mood for the game, ban or modify things outright that you know are likely to violate said mood, and then add to that last as problems arise. If you have a consistent gaming group (even if the players change) this will eventually get you a functional set of house rules that get everyone on the same page.

Togo

2013-12-31, 10:52 PM

Why not do both? Establish a mood for the game, ban or modify things outright that you know are likely to violate said mood, and then add to that last as problems arise. If you have a consistent gaming group (even if the players change) this will eventually get you a functional set of house rules that get everyone on the same page.

And, more importantly in my view, you get a perfectly playable game in the meantime.

The fact is, most people don't end up with Tippyverse. That's not because everyone gets the game wrong except Tippy, and it's both insulting and a bit futile to try and argue otherwise.

Roleplayers are a diverse bunch, and we need to respect that.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-31, 10:57 PM

The fact is, most people don't end up with Tippyverse. That's not because everyone gets the game wrong except Tippy, and it's both insulting and a bit futile to try and argue otherwise.

"wrong" in the sense of playing the game wrong? No, not unless they aren't having fun.

"Wrong" in the sense that their settings are deeply flawed and only exist (and continue to exist) via DM fiat and/or significant house-rules? Yes.

Togo

2013-12-31, 11:15 PM

"wrong" in the sense of playing the game wrong? No, not unless they aren't having fun.

"Wrong" in the sense that their settings are deeply flawed and only exist (and continue to exist) via DM fiat and/or significant house-rules? Yes.

Ah, now that is where we do disagree.

Your setting involves using vast numbers of wish engines to make an unforgeable currency, rather than creating personal utopias. It involves powerful wizards acting as bouncers, patrollers, and holding down other meagre jobs with unsociable hours. It involves trade going through teleport circles despite having established a post-scarcity economy. Why the frack is anyone bothering to tend bar with beer brought through a teleport gate when five minutes alone with a wish engine could produce a personal starship with the size and resources of a planet with instant communication with anyone in the known universe, not to mention a dozen wish engines of your own?

A separate point is that it also relies on extremely permissive and charitable readings of the rules. The setting (explicitly I thought, but please correct me if not) relies on player fiat - that is the assumption that any decision that is left up to the DM be decided on in the most flexible and permissive way possible.

In most settings 'the rules don't say you can't' isn't a licence to choose any outcome you want, it's an absence of information that needs to be decided on. Any game where such rules are not decided on in the most charitable way possible does not result in a Tippyverse. Such games are no more DM fiat than the Tippyverse is.

I can certainly see no plausible basis for the claim that the Tippyverse is the only valid interpretation of the RAW. Is there one?

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-31, 11:39 PM

Your setting involves using vast numbers of wish engines to make an unforgeable currency, rather than creating personal utopias.
No, it does not remotely rely on it. In the cases where such traps are used they are used because having a useful medium of exchange is something that pretty much any society of any kind wants to have and having a medium that can't be trivially forged or created by everyone and their mother is generally a good idea. You don't need Wish based currency but regular gold is utterly worthless as it is way too easy to create ex nihilo by anyone with half a brain and even moderate power.

And those who create such traps are already powerful enough that they can and do often live in personal utopias (however they define the term).

It involves powerful wizards acting as bouncers, patrollers, and holding down other meagre jobs with unsociable hours.
Said wizards being fully mass producible via Simulacrum or Ice Assassin and again not actually being necessary.

It involves trade going through teleport circles despite having established a post-scarcity economy.
Said post scarcity economy not actually being a required part of the setting and said post scarcity economy being largely the result of said teleportation network in the first place.

Why the frack is anyone bothering to tend bar with beer brought through a teleport gate when five minutes alone with a wish engine could produce a personal starship with the size and resources of a planet with instant communication with anyone in the known universe, not to mention a dozen wish engines of your own?
Because Wish traps don't work that way and those who actually can create traps like that have no interest in letting peons have access to them. And Beer comes from a fabricate trap, not a Wish trap.

A separate point is that it also relies on extremely permissive and charitable readings of the rules. The setting (explicitly I thought, but please correct me if not) relies on player fiat - that is the assumption that any decision that is left up to the DM be decided on in the most flexible and permissive way possible.
Not even remotely the case. The setting being established requires nothing at all that is even remotely rules iffy or requires any input, at all, from the DM. Some of the more truly extreme things could potentially be possibly iffy but nothing in the core tippyverse is.

The little thing that people dislike so much is that I tend to deliberately avoid anything that actually requires DM input or is rules iffy. The closest you get to "rules iffy" is magical traps requiring DM input and as written they do not. It's probably not RAI but it is, unquestionably, RAW.

In most settings 'the rules don't say you can't' isn't a licence to choose any outcome you want, it's an absence of information that needs to be decided on. Any game where such rules are not decided on in the most charitable way possible does not result in a Tippyverse. Such games are no more DM fiat than the Tippyverse is.
Stop insulting me. If you want to make a claim like this then actually go and provide an example of where anything I posted is like that. They don't exist in pretty much anything related to the "tippyverse". In point of fact I was deliberately conservative in what I posted and actually restricted things that could otherwise be done with clear cut RAW.

I can certainly see no plausible basis for the claim that the Tippyverse is the only valid interpretation of the RAW. Is there one?
I never said that the Tippyverse is the only plausible interpretation of the RAW. For one it doesn't "interpret" the RAW at all. If you want to claim otherwise then point to anything that is actually RAW iffy enough to require interpretation.

What I said is that any setting that isn't using large facets of the tippyverse and isn't operating with house-rules or fiat is going to be at least a basic tippyverse.

The mere existence of permanent teleportation circles forces that.

georgie_leech

2013-12-31, 11:51 PM

Kazyan

2014-01-01, 12:08 AM

I never said that the Tippyverse is the only plausible interpretation of the RAW. For one it doesn't "interpret" the RAW at all. If you want to claim otherwise then point to anything that is actually RAW iffy enough to require interpretation.

What I said is that any setting that isn't using large facets of the tippyverse and isn't operating with house-rules or fiat is going to be at least a basic tippyverse.

The mere existence of permanent teleportation circles forces that.

What do you consider a "basic Tippyverse?" You don't have to go into details; I know you're trying to sell this setting as a sourcebook and everything.

Consider a setting in which the cities are too small and have not existed for long enough for there to be Teleportation Circle networks. However, there are things like long-distance communication (Simulacrum Spellweavers between three of sixteen cities), non-gold currency (1 Skiurid nodule = 1,000 gold), magic item shops (getting in contact with an Ethereal Doppleganger), and things are just generally done in unconventional ways--using Fire and Earth Elementals to do mining, harvesting wood from Splinterwaif-animated branches, and keeping Balhannoths as an underground city's defense force by throwing around Blessed Bandages when they get ornery. Is that a mild Tippyverse I'm making?

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 12:26 AM

What do you consider a "basic Tippyverse?" You don't have to go into details; I know you're trying to sell this setting as a sourcebook and everything.

Consider a setting in which the cities are too small and have not existed for long enough for there to be Teleportation Circle networks. However, there are things like long-distance communication (Simulacrum Spellweavers between three of sixteen cities), non-gold currency (1 Skiurid nodule = 1,000 gold), magic item shops (getting in contact with an Ethereal Doppleganger), and things are just generally done in unconventional ways--using Fire and Earth Elementals to do mining, harvesting wood from Splinterwaif-animated branches, and keeping Balhannoths as an underground city's defense force by throwing around Blessed Bandages when they get ornery. Is that a mild Tippyverse I'm making?
I wouldn't call it one, yet, but it certainly appears to be on its way.

The pretty much defining trait of the tippyverse is the teleportation circle network and what it does. Given sufficient time it will occur without dm fiat or the like to prevent it and once it does occur the world will largely be reordered around it.

It's a spell specifically made and designed for two things: 1) Moving a large number of individuals between great distances very rapidly and 2) saving the wizard a daily expenditure of spell slots to travel between his secure base and a distant location.

Eventually either some wizard will decide to built a public TC network or some enterprising non wizard will learn about the existence of TC's and see the implications before hiring someone to create one for him.

Whomever first gets access to TC trade routes will massively out compete anyone without access. The closest competition is using Archon delivery services and that rapidly gets more expensive (while also being generally far lower volume).

At any given point in a worlds history the watershed moment might not have occurred yet but it will eventually occur, and the greater the amount of time that civilization has been around the less likely it is that it hasn't occurred yet.

Kazyan

2014-01-01, 01:13 AM

I wouldn't call it one, yet, but it certainly appears to be on its way.

The pretty much defining trait of the tippyverse is the teleportation circle network and what it does. Given sufficient time it will occur without dm fiat or the like to prevent it and once it does occur the world will largely be reordered around it.

It's a spell specifically made and designed for two things: 1) Moving a large number of individuals between great distances very rapidly and 2) saving the wizard a daily expenditure of spell slots to travel between his secure base and a distant location.

Eventually either some wizard will decide to built a public TC network or some enterprising non wizard will learn about the existence of TC's and see the implications before hiring someone to create one for him.

Whomever first gets access to TC trade routes will massively out compete anyone without access. The closest competition is using Archon delivery services and that rapidly gets more expensive (while also being generally far lower volume).

At any given point in a worlds history the watershed moment might not have occurred yet but it will eventually occur, and the greater the amount of time that civilization has been around the less likely it is that it hasn't occurred yet.

So...TC-based instatrade is the core idea, and everything else, though characteristic of your OP advice, seems to be relatively minor problem fixing that doesn't alter the face of the world nearly as much. Got it. Because your setting is so different, it's hard to analyze it. It must get tiring having to correct misconceptions so often!

Irrelevant sidenotes: I've structured my setting specifically so that it's plausible for the TC network not to exist at the time of play. It used to, but then a caster!war happened and Disenchanters ate the network, and no powerful enough spellcasters have remade one yet. I'm definitely using some of your ideas for the "Monsterverse".

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 01:51 AM

So...TC-based instatrade is the core idea, and everything else, though characteristic of your OP advice, seems to be relatively minor problem fixing that doesn't alter the face of the world nearly as much.
Pretty much, although instant trade is only one part of it.

The military implications along with the effect on knowledge spread, the effect on how cities and towns develop and are located, and the effects of what is effectively massive population concentration are all incredibly important and relevant.

Even the large scale deployment of traps doesn't (with a very few exceptions for things like Simulacrum/Ice Assassin traps) as fundamentally alter the world as a whole. Especially as it applies to players and adventuring in the world.

Got it. Because your setting is so different, it's hard to analyze it.
Well its pretty easy to analyze once you throw out preconceptions about what the world should be like and instead start thinking about it with two general basic ideas: 1) what would a world where the things that the D&D magical system makes possible be like and 2) how can the setting be structured so that point 1 is true and yet the players can still do all of the traditional D&D things.

It must get tiring having to correct misconceptions so often!
It can get tiring upon occasion.

Irrelevant sidenotes: I've structured my setting specifically so that it's plausible for the TC network not to exist at the time of play. It used to, but then a caster!war happened and Disenchanters ate the network, and no powerful enough spellcasters have remade one yet. I'm definitely using some of your ideas for the "Monsterverse".
Which is perfectly acceptable, although a bit implausible.

CIDE

2014-01-01, 05:45 AM

Compare instead "Black" or "African" with "Ni----." Whether you intend the latter to be offensive or not, and everyone understands it to refer to the same kind of person as the others, calling someone that is a good way to start fights. Again, if it's not important to you which one you use, why not just use the non-offensive ones?

Nitpick; you can be African but not have black skin. To the actual discussion though--and this answer should be satisfactory-- is that it simply comes down to the fact that I fail to see how the term I've chosen to use is derogatory or insulting in any way.

Familiar language? Or similarly a lack of familiar options. The alternatives listed elsewhere in this thread for example... At least two of them I've never heard before and the third is one I'd expect to be more insulting than my chosen term.

[QUOTE=Fax Celestis;16703859]Other people do. If you don't care about how other people perceive you or the words you're saying, feel free to continue speaking however you like. However, if you give a damn about what people think of you, you'd do well to take into consideration their feelings about the use of certain words.

In a situation such as this I see it as someone getting butt-hurt over something incredibly trivial.

Then why do you preceive my usage of the phrase magical teaparty to indicate a game where mechanics are de-emphasized insulting. I mean you might call it rules lite or real roleplaying, but I'm calling it magical teaparty a well enough known phrase to indicate rules lite games.

That's a lot of words being shoved into my mouth. I never said anything in regards to "magical teaparty" and my response to you in no way hinges on its existence in your comment. To further elaborate the meaning of my response doesn't change at all even considering the fact I didn't know what "magical teaparty'' meant.

The word roll-player indicates that one believes there is a dicotamy between those who enjoy and utilize mechanics and those who do not, and that by enjoying the use of mechanics one is somehow worse at roleplaying. Similarly magical tea party is used to insinuate those with rules lite games are no longer playing the game and might as well be freeforming on in the most insulting terms "playing tea party". In both cases the culture and intention surrounding the word is intentionally insulting and indicates a thought structure that is toxic to discussion between people or differing game type.

News to me.

"wrong" in the sense of playing the game wrong? No, not unless they aren't having fun.

"Wrong" in the sense that their settings are deeply flawed and only exist (and continue to exist) via DM fiat and/or significant house-rules? Yes.

Just my .02....

For the role playing in any way, shape, or form it's only "wrong" when it's no longer fun. I realize this isn't exactly coherent to the entire conversation at hand.

Pickford

2014-01-01, 02:11 PM

The little thing that people dislike so much is that I tend to deliberately avoid anything that actually requires DM input or is rules iffy. The closest you get to "rules iffy" is magical traps requiring DM input and as written they do not. It's probably not RAI but it is, unquestionably, RAW.

Well...if we're talking about 3.5 rules, then I have to disagree (I don't know about PF, 3.0 or other).

If one of your players wants to have his character design and build a particular trap (and you want to go along with the idea), you can take the player through the process described in this section.

That explicitly requires DM approval for all traps, not just magic ones.

Togo

2014-01-01, 05:36 PM

And those who create such traps are already powerful enough that they can and do often live in personal utopias (however they define the term).
...
Because Wish traps don't work that way and those who actually can create traps like that have no interest in letting peons have access to them. And Beer comes from a fabricate trap, not a Wish trap.

Ok, so teleportation circles and fabrication traps are in widespread use, but wish traps aren't. And that's an inevitable result of applying RAW and not at all a judgement call on your part?

Because I'm looking at this and thinking - well what if the people who create teleportation circles have no interest in setting up such a network? Or what if they do have an interest in giving wish traps to every Tom **** and Harry? Neither of those settings would be Tippyverse, and both would appear to use exactly the same rulings as you do. Yet you're claiming that they are 'reliant on DM fiat' and 'deeply flawed'. Why?

That is the bit I don't understand - why you're making such an extraordinary claim, that every single setting ever invented except yours relies on DM fiat and is deeply flawed.

Not even remotely the case. The setting being established requires nothing at all that is even remotely rules iffy or requires any input, at all, from the DM.

Don't traps require input from the DM, by RAW?

Stop insulting me.

Dude, you're the one insulting every single DM who ever created a setting. What I don't understand is why.

AMFV

2014-01-01, 05:41 PM

Ok, so teleportation circles and fabrication traps are in widespread use, but wish traps aren't. And that's an inevitable result of applying RAW and not at all a judgement call on your part?

Because I'm looking at this and thinking - well what if the people who create teleportation circles have no interest in setting up such a network? Or what if they do have an interest in giving wish traps to every Tom **** and Harry? Neither of those settings would be Tippyverse, and both would appear to use exactly the same rulings as you do. Yet you're claiming that they are 'reliant on DM fiat' and 'deeply flawed'. Why?

Sadly, it's true, all it takes is one society using teleport for trade, and then other societies either have to follow or become superfluous completely. Of course you could rule that all Wizards are miserly and live in isolated environments, but that simply doesn't fit with the demographics as provided by the DMG, which further states that most of them are willing to work for money.

Without fundamentally changing certain assumptions of the rules D&D does not produce a believable medieval society, it requires significant handwaving for that to occur, now it may not produce a Tippyverse, you could have a wightapocalypse or something similar instead, but the setting as provided, is deeply deeply deeply unlikely to exist in a world with magic as it is. Just as it's unlikely that people would walk everywhere in a world with planes and cars, or that people will still construct everything by hand. It's Arthur C. Clarke in reverse, Magic is technology, ergo why would people simply ignore it.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 06:03 PM

Ok, so teleportation circles and fabrication traps are in widespread use, but wish traps aren't. And that's an inevitable result of applying RAW and not at all a judgement call on your part?
Teleportation Circle's are in widespread use, Fabricate traps may or may not be (not necessary for a tippyverse).

And I never once claimed that I didn't and don't make judgement calls. In point of fact I have explicitly stated that one of my primary concerns was making the setting playable for all manner of parties, quests, and adventures and because of that I often chose to make use of lower order possibilities instead of whatever would be most likely.

Creating a Wish trap without dedicating anywhere from a few years to a few centuries to it requires using an XP free Wish. I actually pointed out that I houserule (and I noted it as a houserule) that Wish can't be used to create magic traps.

Because I'm looking at this and thinking - well what if the people who create teleportation circles have no interest in setting up such a network?
It's utterly irrelevant whether any given individual has any interest in setting up such a network. Someone will eventually create one, either on purpose or by mistake and once the knowledge that it is possible goes public said network will be created because the benefits are too great for anything else to occur.

Or what if they do have an interest in giving wish traps to every Tom **** and Harry?
Wish traps are not general purpose items. The closest you get to that is a Wish trap to produce Ring's of Three Wishes, and even that can't actually produce magic items of any great value. For a trap the same spell is cast with the same choices made every single time.

Neither of those settings would be Tippyverse, and both would appear to use exactly the same rulings as you do. Yet you're claiming that they are 'reliant on DM fiat' and 'deeply flawed'. Why?
In the first because it's using DM fiat to prevent the TC networks from ever being created.

In the second because it's unplayable as thus by definition a deeply flawed setting.

That is the bit I don't understand - why you're making such an extraordinary claim, that every single setting ever invented except yours relies on DM fiat and is deeply flawed.
Because every single published one does. There is a very real reason why FR is called the land of the short bus wizards. And even then, FR was at one point practically a Tippyverse and ending that required what amounts to major divine intervention (by definition deus ex machina).

The only thing preventing Eberron from going TV is a lack of any high level casters preventing the idea from ever coming up. Eberron is one of those settings where as soon as the idea of a TC network is envisioned it will be widely and fully implemented. Again, all it takes is a level 11 Warlock to create such a network. All that prevents it is that the idea has never occurred to anyone.

And yes, a setting where the PC's can use already known and existent capabilities to drastically and permanently alter the setting with minimal effort is deeply flawed. All that keeps most settings intact is a gentlemen's agreement that the PC's won't use their power to massively revolutionize the world.

Don't traps require input from the DM, by RAW?
No, being the one magic item with creation rules instead of creation guidelines.

Dude, you're the one insulting every single DM who ever created a setting. What I don't understand is why.

"In most settings 'the rules don't say you can't' isn't a licence to choose any outcome you want, it's an absence of information that needs to be decided on. Any game where such rules are not decided on in the most charitable way possible does not result in a Tippyverse."

I chose the most unambiguous, clear cut, rules "interpretations". You are insulting me by stating that the only way a TV can exist is one where the "rules are decided in the most charitable way possible" despite the fact that there is not a *single* rules ambiguity, decision, interpretation, or unclear point involved.

You claim that I "chose any outcome you want" despite the fact that I never once chose to use even a moderately disputed rules interpretation.

If you want to argue otherwise then prove your claims. Point to where I ever chose something that the RAW could be decided otherwise on. In isolation everything I used is RAW and RAI, it's only when everything is taking as a whole that the outcome is unlikely to be RAI.

NichG

2014-01-01, 06:23 PM

Actually... why is trade meaningful in D&D?

Okay, lets say I have this teleportation circle network set up. By the RAW, goods have a fixed price in all jurisdictions, and the only metric of availability is the size of the city. So by RAW, trade seems like it would be a meaningless pursuit.

Furthermore, if you stick to RAW, it suggests that even if you created a way that would allow people in a thorp to walk through a circle and arrive at a metropolis, the availability of goods in the thorp is still fixed by RAW - there is no modifier in the gold-piece limit due to easy access to a city.

This 'economically prescriptive' RAW seems to be a serious problem with 'changing the world' in any strict-RAW game. It basically says, no matter what you do in character, there is a meta-cosmic force holding certain things constant in very weird ways.

WhamBamSam

2014-01-01, 06:33 PM

The traps aren't required for the Tippyverse anyway. Even if you believe that the trap rules require special DM permission (which they don't, at least not any more so than the crafting of a non-custom magic item). I think Tippy briefly discussed accomplishing the city's food and resource needs without them in the original Definitive Guide to the Tippyverse thread. Really it's not that hard. Farming or mining can be done through teleporting to fertile/rich land. Every thread involving the Tarrasque has someone mention turning the thing into a renewable food/resource source, and there are much weaker creatures with regeneration.

He would probably argue that a setting that restricts access to traps involves DM fiat, but it seems that the settings he's arguing are wholly reliant on DM fiat are the ones which haven't been restructured by permanent mass teleportation. And really, a moderately optimized 17+ level Wizard can set up a Teleport Circle network which has no real chance of ever being dismantled within a few days. An 11th level Warlock could accomplish it too, apparently, though I'm not sure how long it'd take him.

Pickford

2014-01-01, 09:35 PM

AMFV

2014-01-01, 09:39 PM

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 10:06 PM

But why would there be a force trying to close the door instead of usurping for their own ends. I mean trader's are all about profit, they might be interested in assassinating the Warlock and then using the TCs for their own purposes, but not in closing them, because that'd require that they continue you to lose a less efficient and more dangerous method of transportation.

Exactly. The individuals and what happens to them doesn't really matter all that much. You can always count on greed, and that greed will see someone else either claim the TC network as their own or take the idea and make their own.

To counteract the motivations involved you generally need, looking at human history, the dominant religion in the area to oppose it along with a devout populace and even then, that tends to just slow things down a bit.

Divine intervention might stop it, but a number of deities would be supportive. In FR, for example, Mystra and Waukeen would both be big supporters of a TC trade network.

Pickford

2014-01-01, 10:12 PM

But why would there be a force trying to close the door instead of usurping for their own ends. I mean trader's are all about profit, they might be interested in assassinating the Warlock and then using the TCs for their own purposes, but not in closing them, because that'd require that they continue you to lose a less efficient and more dangerous method of transportation.

Perhaps they can't assert a power base in that city sufficient to take over the trade routes. Next best option is destroying them.

Sometimes people break things just because they fear them. Or eschew those same things (for example, Luddites historically didn't like technology because it was seen as too efficient).

Either way, if they can't reasonably have a monopoly on the TCs, then destroying them is the remaining option, to prevent a competitor from doing the same thing.

edit: And given that there's maybe a single Wizard capable of even forming these things, the probability of them suffering a fatal incident would be much higher than that of his surviving to complete the TC superhighway.

Dalebert

2014-01-01, 10:14 PM

WhamBamSam

2014-01-01, 10:17 PM

NichG: I'd imagine trade is meaningful in presenting a backstory/establishing the setting. (i.e. Baldur's Gate: subplot involves control of trade).

However, I think there would also be a counter-force upon the realization that a particular entity was cornering trade markets via TC's. I think opposing factions would assassinate the Wizard/Warlock who was making them possible ASAP (if the trade benefits of the TC are that valuable, it would be a higher priority than normal trade machinations) via Greater Teleportation. Alternatively (and more amusingly) they could block the site where the circle's go to.

Just create/move a block of stone there and the circle no longer functions (TC can't go to a solid object). Or a permanent dimensional lock (blocks all teleportation).I'm guessing he scribes a scroll then casts from that. You can, after all, scribe a scroll of any spell you know, which means, if you don't need to know the spell, you can scribe a scroll of any spell, with the appropriate skill checks and pay/circumvent the crafting costs.

There might be some financial interests invested in preventing the TC network, but those would be the middlemen, the industries built around shipping and such. The people who actually do the buying and selling at either end of the line (and hence pay the wages of the middlemen) would be perfectly happy to see the TC network go up (though some might want to take control of it for their own use). And really, if the Warlock is natively part of an adventuring party, or hires one around him, it takes a lot to meaningfully pose a threat to him and his trade empire. The whole "why would high level magic users care?" thing cuts both ways. There has to be some such person with a grudge against the notion of a Tippyverse (which given the vitriol any given thread tangentially related to the subject inspires, might not be so far fetched) and said person must achieve a flawless victory every time a 12th level Warlock, or the Wizard friend of said Warlock, or any of the extraplanar entities with whom the Warlock consorts, or whoever comes up with the idea. If the setting keeps going long enough, the Tippyverse is going to be the eventual outcome.

Establishing a Tippyverse isn't necessarily a trivial task (I think Tippy said that his PCs spent a campaign establishing the TC network in his setting), but I don't see how you can prevent it in perpetuity.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 10:19 PM

I'm surprised there aren't already spells that suppress teleportation in a certain area that could be made permanent. (Are there?) There's no reason why they couldn't be created and be added to the list of things that can be made permanent. It seems like it would be a standard defense of big cities.

They exist but they all tend to suck. Wierdstone's are the best choice and even those aren't that great.

The thing is that you need not just local (as in city level) teleport denial but national teleport denial. And assuming you make the massive investment required for that, you will still be massively out-competed when your neighbors don't try and deny teleports on the national level but instead embrace TC's and gain all of the relevant advantages with very little loss of security.

Brookshw

2014-01-01, 10:24 PM

That is the bit I don't understand - why you're making such an extraordinary claim, that every single setting ever invented except yours relies on DM fiat and is deeply flawed.

Dude, you're the one insulting every single DM who ever created a setting. What I don't understand is why.

Don't like it, vote with your wallet if he ever publishes is, not worth wasting effort arguing about it.

Also as he admits the concept of high magical societies isn't unique to his campaign, its prebaked into the FR history fluff and brought up in a great number of fantasy novels.

Pickford

2014-01-01, 10:34 PM

I'm guessing he scribes a scroll then casts from that. You can, after all, scribe a scroll of any spell you know, which means, if you don't need to know the spell, you can scribe a scroll of any spell, with the appropriate skill checks and pay/circumvent the crafting costs.

Yeah, problem is if the Warlock fails there's no do-over until next level.

There might be some financial interests invested in preventing the TC network, but those would be the middlemen, the industries built around shipping and such. The people who actually do the buying and selling at either end of the line (and hence pay the wages of the middlemen) would be perfectly happy to see the TC network go up (though some might want to take control of it for their own use). And really, if the Warlock is natively part of an adventuring party, or hires one around him, it takes a lot to meaningfully pose a threat to him and his trade empire. The whole "why would high level magic users care?" thing cuts both ways. There has to be some such person with a grudge against the notion of a Tippyverse (which given the vitriol any given thread tangentially related to the subject inspires, might not be so far fetched) and said person must achieve a flawless victory every time a 12th level Warlock, or the Wizard friend of said Warlock, or any of the extraplanar entities with whom the Warlock consorts, or whoever comes up with the idea. If the setting keeps going long enough, the Tippyverse is going to be the eventual outcome.

The Middlemen would be the obscenely rich ones who can afford to put a bounty so great the Warlock is doomed from the get go. It doesn't require a grudge, it only requires self-interest (the same thing that motivates the TC highway). If someone who doesn't have the TC tech allows a competitor to set it up, they may go under financially. Thus, opposing it becomes a matter of survival. Sabotage would become the order of the day, with each side doing their best to completely remove the others ability to have a functioning TC highway.

Establishing a Tippyverse isn't necessarily a trivial task (I think Tippy said that his PCs spent a campaign establishing the TC network in his setting), but I don't see how you can prevent it in perpetuity.

I think undoing a thing is significantly easier than building it. The TC highway can be disrupted as easily as changing the landscape a little bit (raze a few buildings, push a rock in the way, cause an earthquake, etc...)

WhamBamSam

2014-01-01, 10:53 PM

Yeah, problem is if the Warlock fails there's no do-over until next level.A lv. 12 Human Warlock with the Elite Array and all his stat boosts from level ups in Cha, with maxed ranks in UMD and 5 ranks in Spellcraft has a +21 to UMD, meaning a 90% chance to make the DC 24 check to ignore the Teleportation Circle spell component before items, a lv.1 Marshal with motivate Cha, or anything else he might employ to boost the check. He's not going to fail.

The Middlemen would be the obscenely rich ones who can afford to put a bounty so great the Warlock is doomed from the get go. It doesn't require a grudge, it only requires self-interest (the same thing that motivates the TC highway). If someone who doesn't have the TC tech allows a competitor to set it up, they may go under financially. Thus, opposing it becomes a matter of survival. Sabotage would become the order of the day, with each side doing their best to completely remove the others ability to have a functioning TC highway.Is there really anything that can seriously threaten a 12th level party that you can buy with money on short notice? You need to be constantly on the alert for any up and comer who might think of putting a TC network together and have forces capable of snuffing such a person on speed dial for that to be viable. Those are resources that you could be putting toward having a network of your own put together to achieve the monopoly for yourself.

I think undoing a thing is significantly easier than building it. The TC highway can be disrupted as easily as changing the landscape a little bit (raze a few buildings, push a rock in the way, cause an earthquake, etc...)Is there something that suggests a permanent TC will stay broken if you go through the equally easy task of re-leveling the landscape? Reading the spell, it seems that it might stay gone for another 10 minutes, but that's more of an inconvenience than an undoing.

eggynack

2014-01-01, 11:27 PM

@Pickford: The real problem with your assertion is that that would have to happen every single time the situation came up. Every time a wizard constructed a permanent teleportation circle, which would be a decent amount of times after a long enough period, there would have to be a nearby civilization which seeks to destroy said circle, and there would simultaneously have to not be a nearby civilization that wants to use such a circle for its own ends. If the former doesn't exist, then some of the opportunistic latter folks are going to find and use the circle. If the latter does exist, then it doesn't matter how many people there are kicking teleportation sandcastles over, because the idea is there.

The Tippyverse only needs time. Maybe the first ten attempts will yield naught but an exploded circle and a dead wizard, but it only takes one time for the idea to set in, and once the idea is there, it's all over. Maybe public perception of long distance teleportation will change, which is inevitable over the course of hundreds of years. Maybe the wizards will make the network on their own in secret, for other purposes, and the network will be discovered by an outsider. Maybe anything. The Tippyverse isn't necessarily where every setting needs to be. The Tippyverse is the end result; it's where every setting heads in the long term. Things advance, and you can see the results all around you. It's just a matter of time.

Togo

2014-01-02, 05:25 AM

Don't like it, vote with your wallet if he ever publishes is, not worth wasting effort arguing about it.

Also as he admits the concept of high magical societies isn't unique to his campaign, its prebaked into the FR history fluff and brought up in a great number of fantasy novels.

I suppose you're right. I've no real objection to the setting - As you say variations on it have come up before, and it's no more objectionable than a fantasy society that comes up with magical trains, or enchanted gunpowder. It's just the spluttering insistance that this setting is 'right' and every other setting is 'wrong' that I find so bizzarre. It's such a forceful claim, that I expected there to be something behind it other than a passionate belief that that is what would happen. I guess the Emperor Has No Clothes after all, it's just a naked claim.

As for getting published, it can be tough to get a setting published. Assuming you want to attract a publisher rather than go the small press route and do it all yourself, then the value of it is really in the richness of the detail, rather than the theme or idea behind it. It might be best to get some collaborators in on it to really flesh out the implications of the theme, and get some human detail on what it would be like to live, work and run a game at various levels of the society.

Another approach might be to package it as a short story. You literally write up the setting as a discussion, and see if it's suitable for inclusion in an anthology of short stories.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 06:01 AM

It's just the spluttering insistance that this setting is 'right' and every other setting is 'wrong' that I find so bizzarre.
Same here. He leaves out too many relevant factors. And the argument that other settings are reliant on DM fiat? Guess what - the same can be said about Tippyverse. And just like Tippyverse might came to be, given enough time, so will it fall, given enough time.

Also as he admits the concept of high magical societies isn't unique to his campaign, its prebaked into the FR history fluff and brought up in a great number of fantasy novels.
The ancient magical empires of FR mostly lie in ruins even though they probably were more magically advanced than any of the newer ones. Where do you think the name "Forgotten Realms" came from?

AMFV

2014-01-02, 06:07 AM

Same here. He leaves out too many relevant factors. And the argument that other settings are reliant on DM fiat? Guess what - the same can be said about Tippyverse.

And really of anything to be honest...

However printed settings that are quasi-medieval are pretty clearly not very well set up in terms of actual operation they do not follow logically with magic as presented, it might not be the Tippyverse that emerges instead, but definitely something would be different.

For example if you have teleport, fortress walls become practically irrelevant. So large scale fortresses lose their value as defensive institutions. It just doesn't logically follow that you'd have a medieval Europe-like world with advanced technology present in it.

The ancient magical empires of FR mostly lie in ruins even though they probably were more magically advanced than any of the newer ones. Where do you think the name "Forgotten Realms" came from?

Oooh oooh, was it a poem written by Dave Arneson when he was a kid? Or are you not asking seriously. Because that's where the name comes from, it's poetic not actually supposed to refer to the world in any actual sense. Except perhaps in a Conanesque sense that it may have existed or been known before.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 06:12 AM

However printed settings that are quasi-medieval are pretty clearly not very well set up in terms of actual operation they do not follow logically with magic as presented, it might not be the Tippyverse that emerges instead, but definitely something would be different.
They're not more or less illogical than anything else.

For example if you have teleport, fortress walls become practically irrelevant.
I guess you don't have locks on your doors, 'cause anyone could break into your house if he really wanted to, right?

Because that's where the name comes from, it's poetic not actually supposed to refer to the world in any actual sense.
Funny how it fits perfectly.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 06:17 AM

They're not more or less illogical than anything else.

They really are, if magic exists then most medieval tropes don't make sense, at least not with magic in a D&D sense. It'd have to much less accessible or much less world changing to not alter the world in a significant sense.

I guess you don't have locks on your doors, 'cause anyone could break into your house if he really wanted to, right?

Building a fortress is a much bigger investment than putting a lock on a door. We're talking years of time, putting a lock on a door is minutes and like 20 dollars, maybe more if you get a good lock.

We don't build giant castlelike fortresses anymore, because they'd be worthless, even fortifications like the Maginot Line were already worthless as of WW2, because mobile forces can simply move around them, there are too many ways to fly over and get around fortifications in D&D for them to be there, it just doesn't make any sense from a strategic perspective, both because they are difficult and expensive to build, and because they're worthless if the enemy can fly.

Of course it's not bad to handwave them into existence, but it is a handwaving moment.

Funny how it fits perfectly.

I think it may have worked the other way, with the name informing the creation of the world, also Dave Arneson's love for ancient empire type stuff. But it was definitely not named for that quality, it was named and then obtained that quality, which is an important distinction.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 06:33 AM

They really are, if magic exists then most medieval tropes don't make sense, at least not with magic in a D&D sense. It'd have to much less accessible or much less world changing to not alter the world in a significant sense.
Casters are only a percent of world population. You'd have a point if everybody would be casting spells. And before you'll say "Magic Items!", let me remind you that magic items aren't cheap, unless you're an adventurer.

Building a fortress is a much bigger investment than putting a lock on a door. We're talking years of time, putting a lock on a door is minutes and like 20 dollars, maybe more if you get a good lock.
Yeah, you don't build a fortress for simple thieves. Durr. But you build a fortress for armies or monsters.

We don't build giant castlelike fortresses anymore
We don't build fortresses because the age of en masse armies has past.

I think it may have worked the other way, with the name informing the creation of the world, also Dave Arneson's love for ancient empire type stuff. But it was definitely not named for that quality, it was named and then obtained that quality, which is an important distinction.
Which came first isn't really relevant to my arguments. What is relevant is that there was magical empires and they are in ruins now. Maybe it will go better nxt time, but eh, history likes to repeat itself.

TuggyNE

2014-01-02, 06:41 AM

We don't build fortresses because the age of en masse armies has past.

I'm not sure what that means, and I'm even less sure how your point is supposed to counter his: fortresses are wildly suboptimal for <reasons>, thus they are not built, is exactly the reasoning the Tippyverse uses.

Correctly.

Put simply, real-world "optimization" is never total in practice, but it is very rarely nil, and, over time, it tends to remain quite high. Even weapons designers a thousand years ago put a lot of thought into practicality. If it's a matter of life and death, you're going to put the resources you have, including those rare individuals capable of casting spells or researching ballistic trajectories or what have you, into making sure you do a good job.

Brookshw

2014-01-02, 06:41 AM

I suppose you're right. I've no real objection to the setting - As you say variations on it have come up before, and it's no more objectionable than a fantasy society that comes up with magical trains, or enchanted gunpowder. It's just the spluttering insistance that this setting is 'right' and every other setting is 'wrong' that I find so bizzarre. It's such a forceful claim, that I expected there to be something behind it other than a passionate belief that that is what would happen. I guess the Emperor Has No Clothes after all, it's just a naked claim.

As for getting published, it can be tough to get a setting published. Assuming you want to attract a publisher rather than go the small press route and do it all yourself, then the value of it is really in the richness of the detail, rather than the theme or idea behind it. It might be best to get some collaborators in on it to really flesh out the implications of the theme, and get some human detail on what it would be like to live, work and run a game at various levels of the society.

Another approach might be to package it as a short story. You literally write up the setting as a discussion, and see if it's suitable for inclusion in an anthology of short stories.

/Shrug, as far as I'm concerned he hasn't gone far enough! Why do I want a bunch of TC's so I can trade with other Clueless Primes? Craft Portal was introduced in one of the FR books. IIRC you can have multiple exits/entrances tied to a single portal. For starters let's get a portal crafted to one of the gate towns. Now I have access to the Outlands with convenient access to Sigil, and by extention every other gate town and the corresponding planes each is associated with. Now I have an interplanar trading route. Over time if I wanted to make things more convenient I link the portal to each of the gate towns. The planes surely have vastly more wealth and options than what you'll find on a single Prime.

Also there's Union, a demiplane that opens gates to any location it wishes to trade with, the Mercanes sure as heck are happy to engage in trade left, right, front, up, down, backwards, in a box, with a fox.

I miss Planescape :smallwink:

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 06:52 AM

fortresses are wildly suboptimal for <reasons>
Sorry, I'm not arguing fortresses in Tippyverse. It was AMFV who mentioned them. Fortresses are useful for <reasons>. If those reasons don't exist then fortresses are pointless, duh. They (reasons and fortresses) don't exist in Tippyverse. That's fine. Never said they should.
Although it's not exactly right, 'cause there are "fortresses" in RL. They're called bunkers.

Put simply, real-world "optimization" is never total in practice, but it is very rarely nil, and, over time, it tends to remain quite high.
Where did I said anything about optimization?

Even weapons designers a thousand years ago put a lot of thought into practicality. If it's a matter of life and death, you're going to put the resources you have, including those rare individuals capable of casting spells or researching ballistic trajectories or what have you, into making sure you do a good job.
You see, I have nothing against that. survival is a strong motivator. What I don't agree with though, is that apparently in such a setting everyone is always the most practical and optimal. I guess that you can handwave free will and personal goals away, but that's not how I and most people run things.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 07:05 AM

Sorry, I'm not arguing fortresses in Tippyverse. It was AMFV who mentioned them. Fortresses are useful for <reasons>. If those reasons don't exist then fortresses are pointless, duh. They (reasons and fortresses) don't exist in Tippyverse. That's fine. Never said they should.
Although it's not exactly right, 'cause there are "fortresses" in RL. They're called bunkers.

Bunkers are hardly fortresses, those are like tiny rooms at best, and those aren't used to repel attack they're used to avoid air raids and things that you can't directly fight.

The reason why I brought up fortresses is because all of the settings I've seen have them, since they exist and are not sensible to exist in the world, then they are handwaved into existence, they have no purpose, are vastly expensive, basically for them to exist all of the societies in that setting have to be dumb, because there's no reason for them to exist. We're not saying they don't exist in Tippyverse. We're saying if they exist at all in D&D then your setting is non-consistent.

Actually I think Tippyverse has them, but I disagree with some of his rulings on certain spells. So that's neither nor there. The problem is that the settings as presented are wildly and terribly inaccurate to how the world would exist with the things inside the world internal consistency is terrible.

Casters are only a percent of world population. You'd have a point if everybody would be casting spells. And before you'll say "Magic Items!", let me remind you that magic items aren't cheap, unless you're an adventurer.

Casters are still large enough percentage to have magic items, and there are other high level individuals who are not adventurers, certainly enough people to change the setting.

Yeah, you don't build a fortress for simple thieves. Durr. But you build a fortress for armies or monsters.

Armies can fly, fairly cheaply and easily, that makes fortresses irrelevant, forces can teleport, that makes fortresses irrelevant. You can Time Hop the castle gates out of existence, that makes fortresses irrelevant. Fortresses are irrelevant in a D&D setting. Also I'd really appreciate if you didn't insult me while discussing my arguments, that seems a little uncalled for.

We don't build fortresses because the age of en masse armies has past.

There are still large armies... They're just mechanized now. So building fortresses is irrelevant because they can bypass them. The Maginot Line was during World War 2, and there were certainly en masse armies at that point, and the fortress was rendered irrelevant, by tactics and technology.

Which came first isn't really relevant to my arguments. What is relevant is that there was magical empires and they are in ruins now. Maybe it will go better nxt time, but eh, history likes to repeat itself.

I'm not sure how this has any bearing on the argument at all... I was just pointing the actual origin of the setting. Mostly because I like trivia and it's kind of cool, and it does mildly contradict your point.

TuggyNE

2014-01-02, 07:12 AM

Togo

2014-01-02, 08:07 AM

/Shrug, as far as I'm concerned he hasn't gone far enough! Why do I want a bunch of TC's so I can trade with other Clueless Primes? Craft Portal was introduced in one of the FR books. IIRC you can have multiple exits/entrances tied to a single portal. For starters let's get a portal crafted to one of the gate towns. Now I have access to the Outlands with convenient access to Sigil, and by extention every other gate town and the corresponding planes each is associated with. Now I have an interplanar trading route. Over time if I wanted to make things more convenient I link the portal to each of the gate towns. The planes surely have vastly more wealth and options than what you'll find on a single Prime.

I've done a couple of variations on that. In one game I used the fairly relaxed rules for army building to get 'army units' each armed with a well of many worlds. I gave them blaster weapons and called them Scout Group 1, Scout Group 2, etc. Or SG1 for short. :-)

In another, I was a crafter with a merchant fleet. So I gave a few ships helms of planar navigation, and setup trade routes with the elemental planes.

Of course I realise now that any setting in which individuals choose to rely on anything other than teleport circles is simply a deeply flawed game, reliant on DM fiat, while choosing to rely on teleport circles somehow doesn't involve DM fiat at all.

Also there's Union, a demiplane that opens gates to any location it wishes to trade with, the Mercanes sure as heck are happy to engage in trade left, right, front, up, down, backwards, in a box, with a fox.

I miss Planescape :smallwink:

I'm running a planescape game on the PbP boards. It's been going for over two years now with the same players.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 08:15 AM

Bunkers are hardly fortresses
That's why I used the quotation marks. :smallsigh:

those are like tiny rooms at best
Not all are.

and those aren't used to repel attack they're used to avoid air raids and things that you can't directly fight.
Air raids aren't attacks? Wut? :smallconfused:

since they exist and are not sensible to exist in the world
That's your assertion. They are perfectly sensible. They're not only if you make them so.

The problem is that the settings as presented are wildly and terribly inaccurate to how the world would exist with the things inside the world internal consistency is terrible.
Another assertion. I'm interested what basis do you use for words like "terribly inaccurate" for a world that doesn't and couldn't even really exist.

Casters are still large enough percentage to have magic items, and there are other high level individuals who are not adventurers, certainly enough people to change the setting.
So a high level individual has a magical house. The commoners still live in dirt. Unless they're all philanthropists, which we know most people aren't.

Armies can fly, fairly cheaply and easily
Not something I would agree on, but what he heck, lets assume they can. So? There are anti-air measures.

that makes fortresses irrelevant
Um... how? So they fly past the fortress. And? They could just as easily walk past. Or do you mean they fly into the fortress? Again, anti-air measures exist. Half the fliers will be picked off from the sky, the rest will get decimated by the defenders.
Try not having a fortress. Foot soldiers will roll over you and air-forces will have an even easier job killing your people.

forces can teleport, that makes fortresses irrelevant.
Can. Not all of them. Going back to my door lock point, which you so spectacularly missed, you don't give up on a lock only because it sometimes not enough.

You can Time Hop the castle gates out of existence, that makes fortresses irrelevant.
You can also break them down with totally mundane means, like a ram. So?

Fortresses are irrelevant in a D&D setting.
Only when it's a Tippyverse. Otherwise they're fine.

Also I'd really appreciate if you didn't insult me while discussing my arguments, that seems a little uncalled for.
I didn't.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't act obtuse.

There are still large armies...
Yeah. And how many soldiers are deployed for a battle? Do they send the whole army? Half? Or just a small contingent?

and it does mildly contradict your point.
It contradicts nothing I said, other than correcting one thing I was wrong about, which wasn't even relevant to the point.

Then you do not disagree with the reasoning in play, or at least not as much as you might think.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Did I not say "optimization is never total in practice"?
Did I not say that I didn't say anything about optimization?

That's because it isn't, and Tippyverse (perhaps contrary to your expectations) does not assume it to be at all. What it does assume is that it will be quite high: namely, that there will be at some point the beginnings of a group of casters who are motivated to make things like TCs for whatever reason, and that, whether this group remains steady in size or increases, their investments are likely to remain and accumulate, since they have no inherent obsolescence or decay. After they've accumulated for long enough, you get the Tippyverse.
That's highly unlikely and we're back to Tippyverse being possible only with DM fiat. Which I have nothing against, but lets called it what it is.

NEO|Phyte

2014-01-02, 08:35 AM

Air raids aren't attacks? Wut? :smallconfused:

He never said they weren't. What he said was that a bunker isn't there to /repel/ attacks. A bunker doesn't magically let you ward off those bombers, it just helps you survive the bombing.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 08:44 AM

Same thing. They defend.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 08:54 AM

That's why I used the quotation marks. :smallsigh:

Not all are.

All the ones that have seen regular use are, or at least have seen use in the past fifty years.

Air raids aren't attacks? Wut? :smallconfused:

Not ones that an infantry man can fight, but otherwise you should always try to push through the attack whenever possible, modern warfare is about maneuverability and movement, not about holding static positions except for a very few cases. You should Infantry Attacks! by Rommel it's actually really descriptive on this topic of how warfare has evolved in the modern era.

That's your assertion. They are perfectly sensible. They're not only if you make them so.

No they're really not, they're expensive, they don't actually do what they're supposed to, people would notice that after the first two or three fell, and they're time and labor intense as well, it's a huge waste of resources if they don't work, and in 3.5 they won't.

Another assertion. I'm interested what basis do you use for words like "terribly inaccurate" for a world that doesn't and couldn't even really exist.

Perhaps "internally inconsistent" is more to your liking, the system is not consistent with the rules as presented.

So a high level individual has a magical house. The commoners still live in dirt. Unless they're all philanthropists, which we know most people aren't.

But the fundamental medieval economics don't work anymore, at least not as they would in a pseudo-medieval setting.

Not something I would agree on, but what he heck, lets assume they can. So? There are anti-air measures.

There really aren't any good anti-air measures outside of building your city with a roof, which is a problem in other respects. Also what anti-air measures are you talking about? D&D actually has far less effective anti-air measures than exist in real life.

Um... how? So they fly past the fortress. And? They could just as easily walk past. Or do you mean they fly into the fortress? Again, anti-air measures exist. Half the fliers will be picked off from the sky, the rest will get decimated by the defenders.
Try not having a fortress. Foot soldiers will roll over you and air-forces will have an even easier job killing your people.

We don't have fortresses now, because mobility is better, it's better to flank the enemy when he tries to roll over the position you just had then it is to sit and wait, since logistics is better in D&D than even the real world, a siege could be indefinite, without any problems, and you can't defend a siege indefinitely, so even then you're still losing out, even if you can defend against air assault, which I don't think you can.

Can. Not all of them. Going back to my door lock point, which you so spectacularly missed, you don't give up on a lock only because it sometimes not enough.

But you do if it takes millions of dollars, ten to twenty years, and thousands of manhours in labor to build if it doesn't do anything, which I submit it won't.

You can also break them down with totally mundane means, like a ram. So?

That exposes you, Time Hop does not, and its immediate, and you can do it to other sections of wall as well, breaching the walls is far easier in D&D than it is in medieval times, or are you disputing that assertion?

Only when it's a Tippyverse. Otherwise they're fine.

Not so, as we've pointed out flight is fairly easy to obtain and much more difficult to stop.

I didn't.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't act obtuse.

Stating someone's argument and then saying "durr" immediately after it is generally considered a little bit offensive most places. At least to my knowledge

Yeah. And how many soldiers are deployed for a battle? Do they send the whole army? Half? Or just a small contingent?

Often in excess of an entire Army. Several armies were deployed simultaneously by each side, often with cohesive movement of those armies to cut off the enemies, the degree of cohesion between large forces that you see in World War 2 was unheard of previously. And they did deploy entire Armies, frequently. Of course the military definition of Army, which is not 100% of the force, but a very sizable force, far in excess of anything you'd have seen in the medieval time frame.

In fact Conscription created much larger armies than were ever sustainable previously, medieval armies are tiny by comparison, especially when compared to overall population.

It contradicts nothing I said, other than correcting one thing I was wrong about, which wasn't even relevant to the point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Did I not say that I didn't say anything about optimization?

That's highly unlikely and we're back to Tippyverse being possible only with DM fiat. Which I have nothing against, but lets called it what it is.

The point is that the Tippyverse may be unlikely but is dramatically more likely than the printed settings.

Same thing. They defend.

Not the same thing, repeat NOT THE SAME THING. I served in the Marines for five years, repelling an attack and surviving it are completely different things, completely.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 09:53 AM

The point is that the Tippyverse may be unlikely but is dramatically more likely than the printed settings.
Only by DM fiat. Handwave peoples free will away and you have Tippyverse - the setting of machines. Or of dictatorship, in which case it won't last long. (just joking, I don't know what Tippyverse exactly is, I'm not interested in it, I only know what has being said in this thread, so what I'm saying might not even be accurate)
Unlike RW, where technology is commonly available, magic isn't. Someone has to make it available. Good luck with that. Egos, greed, stupidity, jealousy, spite, animosity, hate, religion, etc. won't allow it. That's why RW isn't a one big happy family yet, and never will.

Stating someone's argument and then saying "durr" immediately after it is generally considered a little bit offensive most places. At least to my knowledge
Would get insulted by a "duh" too?

Talderas

2014-01-02, 10:13 AM

To solve the problem of preventing a Tippyverse you must first identify the aspects which permit it to arise. Tippy's own posts have indicated that the core feature to the Tippyverse is the existence of teleportation but more directly it is the teleportation circle.

While teleportation in general destroys a lot of assumptions it still has a lot more natural limitations that what a teleportation circle has. As Tippy has described, the teleportation circle completely changes the notions of trade and warfare. Megacities arise because there's little incentive to use land trade routes when a pemanancy teleportation circle can be used to instantaneously transport trade caravans from city to city. Additionally, with the military threat posed by being able to move large numbers of troops in a short order via teleportation, armies need to be centralized in order to respond to the threat. With the lack of land based trade or any reason to defend anything other than your capital, there exists little reason for people to live outside of these megacities except to create raw materials for production of goods. So teleportation circles would be employed for the purpose of transporting raw materials from the production site to the megacity for production of final goods.

This leads to the second problem inherent with D&D as far as the Tippverse goes. Spells that create stuff. Fabricate, create food, and create water among others all destroy the necessitate for the production of raw materials. This further deincentivizes living outside of the megacity by literally have no incentive to do so. Once again, permanancy causes an issue with the reset traps of X that can create a finite but large quantity of goods. This also eliminates the need for trade caravans as any megacity would be capable of producing everything it needs through magic. However, even without reseting magic traps to produce materials you would still only see people living outside of megacities for the explicit purpose of producing raw materials with a token guard force sufficiently powerful enough to repel any encroachment by the uncivilized beings that live in the wilderness.

If you can solve the problems presented by those scenarios then you go a long way to solving the problem of the Tippyverse. If you're talking about specific power breaking combinations that's a whole different story but not necessarily related to the Tippyverse as much as a pure RAW interpretations of the rules. Removing teleportation circle directly increases the costs of waging war against opposing nations as the cost of teleporting an army via teleport/greater teleport is much much much great than the cost from creating a handful of teleportation circle. This signicantly mitigates the desire to create easily defended megacities. Without the megacities the logistics issue of transporting goods becomes a real problem once more and causes other problems to be not so easily solved. Additionally, preventing the creation spells from creating as much or what they create helps mitigate the second problem. In both cases removing permanancy helps mitigate them by preventing them from being able to exist until the end of time.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 10:24 AM

Only by DM fiat. Handwave peoples free will away and you have Tippyverse - the setting of machines. Or of dictatorship, in which case it won't last long. (just joking, I don't know what Tippyverse exactly is, I'm not interested in it, I only know what has being said in this thread, so what I'm saying might not even be accurate)
Unlike RW, where technology is commonly available, magic isn't. Someone has to make it available. Good luck with that. Egos, greed, stupidity, jealousy, spite, animosity, hate, religion, etc. won't allow it. That's why RW isn't a one big happy family yet, and never will.

I'm confused, so you're saying that people will continue to spend large amounts of money on things that they're not getting a good return on? The TV requires a lot of greed, it's actually it's principle motivation. In any case you're arguing against something you don't know about? I'm very confused by this, the point being that settings that are existing in a normal way are clearly there through lots of handwaving, the TV requires almost no handwaving, although you do need some historical stuff, which isn't that easy to be handwaved.

Magic is pretty available for money, and when money is backing it it will definitely become available, teleportation circles are much cheaper than transit, so they'll be used, they're also less dangerous. Fortresses are not intelligent in D&D, so they won't be used, people on the whole tend to make decisions that are fairly optimal, although not usually completely optimal. Even taking 10% off the top of their decisions... they'd still not waste millions of gold, and years building a fortress when those don't work.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 10:45 AM

All the ones that have seen regular use are, or at least have seen use in the past fifty years.
Fortresses changed just like everything else in warfare, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still there.

modern warfare is about maneuverability and movement, not about holding static positions except for a very few cases
And when your entire army will be able to be this maneuverable and fast then fortresses will become obsolete. When.

No they're really not, they're expensive, they don't actually do what they're supposed to, people would notice that after the first two or three fell, and they're time and labor intense as well, it's a huge waste of resources if they don't work, and in 3.5 they won't.
Yes, they really are. As long as there's armies that can be stopped by a wall, they're having their place.
And well, if magic is as readily available as you assert then the cost, time, labor and wasting resources area moot point.

Perhaps "internally inconsistent" is more to your liking, the system is not consistent with the rules as presented.
Non-simulationist rules aren't good for world simulation. What a shock!

But the fundamental medieval economics don't work anymore, at least not as they would in a pseudo-medieval setting.
If you make magic commonplace, which you need DM fiat to do.

Also what anti-air measures are you talking about?
Um... ranged weaponry? Air-forces of your own? The aforementioned roof over the city?
When you got broken in by a window you don't throw your door lock to the thrash, you buy a lock for the window. And even when you buy a house alarm you don't go and dismantle your doors. :smallconfused:

That exposes you, Time Hop does not
Time Hop has a range of close. You're plenty exposed.

Not so, as we've pointed out flight is fairly easy to obtain and much more difficult to stop.
For all soldiers? Don't think so.

the TV requires almost no handwaving
It requires lots of handwaving. Like the fact that magic isn't commonly available.

Magic is pretty available for money
Only to some (primarily those that have money).

Fortresses are not intelligent in D&D
In Tippyverse maybe.

they'd still not waste millions of gold, and years building a fortress when those don't work
Already solved by the very same thing that you're using as an argument.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 10:56 AM

Fortresses changed just like everything else in warfare, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still there.

They're not... They're really not, you don't have fortresses any more. If you talking about bomb bunkers almost all of those were... built by private folks not the government. I'm not even sure what you're talking about, I've been in the military, I've been to war, and I've never seen a fortress, hell I've only seen a few bunkers and most of those weren't being used as bunkers.

And when your entire army will be able to be this maneuverable and fast then fortresses will become obsolete. When.

Message fixes this problem, communication and logistics are the real problems with an army moving. So if you have create food and water and message or correspond you can move your army exactly as fast as it can march, which is pretty quick.

Yes, they really are. As long as there's armies that can be stopped by a wall, they're having their place.
And well, if magic is as readily available as you assert then the cost, time, labor and wasting resources area moot point.

What magic builds a castle? Quickly and without cost, particularly permanently? I mean some might, but again its still a waste of investment. The armies aren't stopped by a wall, with a teleportation circle they don't have any logistics problems, they can hold a siege indefinitely forever. That makes defending a fortress untenable. Also they can fly over the fortress, it's not that hard to do so.

Non-simulationist rules aren't good for world simulation. What a shock!

Lacking internal consistency isn't a problem with simulationism (a model I loathe by the way. The GNS model is perhaps one of the worst generalizations and modeling systems I've ever seen) but it's a problem with setting design, the TV shows that you can develop a setting that has internal consistency within that ruleset, so it's possible.

If you make magic commonplace, which you need DM fiat to do.

Population guidelines per the DMG make it fairly common after all, you only need a few level 12 warlocks and all magic is available to you.

Um... ranged weaponry? Air-forces of your own? The aforementioned roof over the city?

Ranged weaponry isn't going to do a lot of good against my animated dragons that I'd be using to fly my forces in. It turns out zombies are really good at dealing with that stuff. Also wind wall, there we go, level 2, all ranged attacks nullified, they fly over the wind wall into the city.

When you got broken in by a window you don't throw your door lock to the thrash, you buy a lock for the window. And even when you buy a house alarm you don't go and dismantle your doors. :smallconfused:

But you don't build a moat around your house either, inefficient and antiquated security procedures are generally not used. We don't have arrow slits in our houses. We don't have bomb shelters even in our houses, because they are now not necessary.

Time Hop has a range of close. You're plenty exposed.

But conveniently invisible, move a force up under an invisibility circle, destroy the gate, they move in and take the gate house and lower the gate for when it reappears and viola, they've taken the gate, that easy.
For all soldiers? Don't think so.

It requires lots of handwaving. Like the fact that magic isn't commonly available.

Per the DMG guidelines it is available... You can buy scrolls, purchase them, they're not expensive, that's all you really need.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 11:08 AM

Those guidelines are for players and the DM to play a game. Nothing more. If you use them to simulate a world, well, then silly things happen. Nuff said.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 11:15 AM

Those guidelines are for players and the DM to play a game. Nothing more. If you use them to simulate a world, well, then silly things happen. Nuff said.

The guidelines under the section that describes building a world? Those very guidelines, there are guidelines for building a world or setting, those are actually some of the rules that I am referencing.

Talderas

2014-01-02, 11:25 AM

Fortresses changed just like everything else in warfare, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still there.

The only things fortresses do in mobile warfare is put a potential threat behind an advancing force. Very few fortresses were assaulted during WW2 (Metz being about the sole exception). Every other fortified position was bypassed and a force left behind to encircle, besiege, and prevent hostiles from breaking out and having fun behind your main combat line.

Fortresses don't make sense in D&D because of teleportation. Teleportation eliminates the cost of assault a fortress by making the walls and defenses pointless. You just dump troops inside the fortress and the defenders hope that they can hold out from within (which rarely will happen against a better supplied force).

There's no point to construct a fortress as troop barracks. The cost of constructing a fortress is far greater than the cost of building regular, unfortified, barracks.

Elderand

2014-01-02, 11:27 AM

Those guidelines are for players and the DM to play a game. Nothing more. If you use them to simulate a world, well, then silly things happen. Nuff said.

Except they aren't for just players and DM the dmg gives a population breakdown. It tells you exactly how many spellcasters you get in any given town of any given size. That's worldbuilding.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 11:58 AM

When you treat guidelines as the holy bible then no wonder you have problems with perfectly fine settings.

Elderand

2014-01-02, 12:00 PM

When you treat guidelines as the holy bible then no wonder you have problems with perfectly fine settings.

When you completely ignore what can be accomplished by the rules no wonder you got no problem with setting with shoddy internal consistency.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 12:04 PM

When you treat guidelines as the holy bible then no wonder you have problems with perfectly fine settings.

The settings are fine just not consistent with the rules, even without treating the guidelines as a holy bible and using just the information in said setting books. Forgotten Realms has way more magic than the standard Greyhawk setting, and Eberron certainly would have at least one 12th level Warlock, probably several.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 02:09 PM

When you completely ignore what can be accomplished by the rules no wonder you got no problem with setting with shoddy internal consistency.
I ignore nothing. I know full well what can be accomplished by the rules. I have no problems with settings because I realize that they're not governed only by rules, like some like to believe.

eggynack

2014-01-02, 02:18 PM

I ignore nothing. I know full well what can be accomplished by the rules. I have no problems with settings because I realize that they're not governed only by rules, like some like to believe.
I don't understand. The setting may not only be governed by the rules, but if it hopes to retain logical consistency, that it will be governed by the rules in a big way. If entire armies can teleport directly into any location instantly, then that's going to change how locations are defended. It's as simple as that. People are smart. Not necessarily all people, but some people. Some of those smart people are going to be about as smart as we are, despite our system rules omniscience. Those people are going to come up with these ideas, because they are things that are not only possible, but logical.

Tippy's assertion with his setting only assumes that the rules are accurate. They don't even really assume that things will be governed entirely by those rules, because he doesn't even make that many leaps. The Tippyverse isn't necessarily the only logical outcome of the rules, but the inevitable conclusion of those rules is something different from the settings we've been presented with. Because wizards are actually really smart, smarter than anyone in our world, and in most settings they do things in a stupid way. You mentioned that you haven't really looked at the Tippyverse. Maybe you should (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007).

Pickford

2014-01-02, 02:30 PM

A lv. 12 Human Warlock with the Elite Array and all his stat boosts from level ups in Cha, with maxed ranks in UMD and 5 ranks in Spellcraft has a +21 to UMD, meaning a 90% chance to make the DC 24 check to ignore the Teleportation Circle spell component before items, a lv.1 Marshal with motivate Cha, or anything else he might employ to boost the check. He's not going to fail.

We're talking NPCs, any manipulation of them to make them UMD specialized requires DM intervention (which is explicitly disallowed under tippyverse conventions).

Is there really anything that can seriously threaten a 12th level party that you can buy with money on short notice? You need to be constantly on the alert for any up and comer who might think of putting a TC network together and have forces capable of snuffing such a person on speed dial for that to be viable. Those are resources that you could be putting toward having a network of your own put together to achieve the monopoly for yourself.

Assuming the person was publicly profiting from this and the Trading consortiums didn't have to investigate how their competition was getting through, I'd say about a week. Going around killing people on contract is basically all Assassins do. Thieves can be hired to steal scrolls from the Warlock, Assassins to kill/kidnap him, etc... It wouldn't be cheap, but it would be less expensive than letting them succeed.

Is there something that suggests a permanent TC will stay broken if you go through the equally easy task of re-leveling the landscape? Reading the spell, it seems that it might stay gone for another 10 minutes, but that's more of an inconvenience than an undoing.

TC can't exist except on a level surface, therefore disrupting that surface destroys the TC as the target is no longer valid.

@eggynack: I totally think there can be TCs...just no TC Trade Highway. Its value is too high for anyone who isn't in control of it to allow it to exist, so constant sabotage would be the order of the day.

Person_Man

2014-01-02, 02:33 PM

You could either make the game more limited and legalistic (fewer spells/powers/abilities, with more limited effects, and those effects are carefully written so as to avoid abuse) or you provide a clearly defined "god" role for the DM (magic is wondrous and mythical, but there is an all-powerful being or cosmic order of some sort which prevents players from departing too far from the established norms of the game).

Most DMs do one or both of these things already, which is how D&D normally functions. Either they ban stuff which "breaks" their game world, or they allow it but prevent players from abusing it via gentleman's agreement or mutually assured destruction (if you Polymorph, expect to fight enemies with Polymorph).

eggynack

2014-01-02, 02:39 PM

@eggynack: I totally think there can be TCs...just no TC Trade Highway. Its value is too high for anyone who isn't in control of it to allow it to exist, so constant sabotage would be the order of the day.
I don't see how that's the case. Teleportation circles are necessarily under the protection of high powered wizards, which makes them pretty hard to sabotage, and most people who would seek out a TC would be more likely to attempt to control such a trade network. Meanwhile, it takes the merest look at the world around us to note that our many trade networks have continued to exist in spite of theoretical enemy agencies seeking their destruction. Look at the history of shipping networks, railways, and plane based transportation. Valuable things don't necessarily incite their own destruction. More often, they incite imitation or theft. Alternatively, folks could support the construction of trade networks that greatly aid them in things like trade, because trade is a thing people like to do. Symbiosis and all that.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 02:41 PM

If entire armies can teleport directly into any location instantly, then that's going to change how locations are defended.
That's cool. Show me where I said otherwise.

Pickford

2014-01-02, 02:46 PM

I don't see how that's the case. Teleportation circles are necessarily under the protection of high powered wizards, which makes them pretty hard to sabotage, and most people who would seek out a TC would be more likely to attempt to control such a trade network. Meanwhile, it takes the merest look at the world around us to note that our many trade networks have continued to exist in spite of theoretical enemy agencies seeking their destruction. Look at the history of shipping networks, railways, and plane based transportation. Valuable things don't necessarily incite their own destruction. More often, they incite imitation or theft. Alternatively, folks could support the construction of trade networks that greatly aid them in things like trade, because trade is a thing people like to do. Symbiosis and all that.

It's a level 12+ Warlock that is making them (cities only having a wizard up to level 16).

When you only have 1 highish level wizard, they're probably not a subject of the state or member of the trade consortium and they've surely got better things to do than guard a TC that's intended to be a main trade vein.

All that's needed for sabotage is to remove the current TC (that's one spell cast) and then replace it with another one leading somewhere obscure). Assuming you do this stealthily (i.e. rogues with UMD scrolls and good stealth magic equipment) none would be the wiser until it's too late!

AMFV

2014-01-02, 02:58 PM

It's a level 12+ Warlock that is making them (cities only having a wizard up to level 16).

When you only have 1 highish level wizard, they're probably not a subject of the state or member of the trade consortium and they've surely got better things to do than guard a TC that's intended to be a main trade vein.

All that's needed for sabotage is to remove the current TC (that's one spell cast) and then replace it with another one leading somewhere obscure). Assuming you do this stealthily (i.e. rogues with UMD scrolls and good stealth magic equipment) none would be the wiser until it's too late!

But why do this? The Trade consortium loses on this bet, they can no longer trade over long distances, with zero risk, if its disabled. The trade guilds win out in the end. The only people that lose out are the shipbuilders and don't tell me that the shipbuilding guild is powerful enough to order a hit.

eggynack

2014-01-02, 03:02 PM

That's cool. Show me where I said otherwise.
You seem to say, pretty often, that fortresses and castles are reasonable defenses to any extent. They're not, because even if they have the chance of stopping crappy enemies, that doesn't matter much, because the real threat is more dangerous, and you need to defend against them. Making castles sacrifices some of your ability to deal with these circles, so they don't work.

It's a level 12+ Warlock that is making them (cities only having a wizard up to level 16).

When you only have 1 highish level wizard, they're probably not a subject of the state or member of the trade consortium and they've surely got better things to do than guard a TC that's intended to be a main trade vein.

All that's needed for sabotage is to remove the current TC (that's one spell cast) and then replace it with another one leading somewhere obscure). Assuming you do this stealthily (i.e. rogues with UMD scrolls and good stealth magic equipment) none would be the wiser until it's too late!
I'm pretty sure that it's high level wizards making these circles, because even if there aren't many of them, they have a massive impact on a setting. As for protecting TC's, that's done in the classic shadesteel golem with factotum levels manner which Tippy is so fond of. I mean, I can look right at the Tippyverse right now and it clearly states that you're wrong about a lot of the stuff you're saying. The whole setting seems rather internally consistent.

Trunamer

2014-01-02, 03:06 PM

The answer is quite simple, play 4th edition.
My thoughts exactly. I've been enjoying this solution for almost a year now!

Mind you, I do think it's possible to avoid the Tippyverse by nerfing/banning 3.5's problematic stuff without "turning it into a new game." It's just a lot more effort for the same gain.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 03:14 PM

You seem to say, pretty often, that fortresses and castles are reasonable defenses to any extent.
Because they are. Maybe in Tippyverse they aren't.

eggynack

2014-01-02, 03:19 PM

Because they are. Maybe in Tippyverse they aren't.
Well, then that's the thing you said that is mistaken. When you can automatically teleport an insane mass of troops behind an enemy's wall within a minute, then basing your defenses around nothing but some walls is pointless, and possibly even counterproductive. The offensive techniques available in the Tippyverse are the same as those that are available in any other setting. His setting just acknowledges the possibility of those techniques. Castles left the world of viable warfare strategy against a form of siege significantly less powerful than that available in the D&Dverse.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 03:47 PM

Because they are. Maybe in Tippyverse they aren't.

No, in D&D 3.5 all that a basic fortress gets you is anywhere from a round to a minute of bought time.

You can make a "fortress" but it's not anything like a traditional castle.

skyth

2014-01-02, 04:04 PM

Kazyan

2014-01-02, 04:07 PM

Forts, keeps, etc.. are best against monsters, not other civilized races. Monsters don't make TC networks.

Elderand

2014-01-02, 04:08 PM

Castles also serve as a base camp/living quarters/supply center/seat of government/show of strength/symbol of authority. they also give you a bonus to your leadership feat.

Not to mention that in most settings, the capability to teleport masses of troops would not be commonplace or in use by every opponent out there. A marauding orc, bandit, or goblin band wouldn't be using mass teleports/flying assaults. You are also assuming that there is a larger prevalence of magic use than a 'standard' campaign.

Actually no, "standard" campaign simply fail to account for their own rules and distribution of magic/casters.

These things exist, are relatively easy to get access to, most campaign don't use them because they want to preserve the "like medieval europe except..." feeling of things. And they do so by ignoring a lot of things.

Particle_Man

2014-01-02, 05:44 PM

These things exist, are relatively easy to get access to, most campaign don't use them because they want to preserve the "like medieval europe except..." feeling of things. And they do so by ignoring a lot of things.

So getting back to the OP :smallsmile:, what sorts of things are being ignored that could be explicitly banned to get the "like medieval europe" feel, with some fantasy elements, without going full bore into the tippyverse and without having to ignore some stuff that would otherwise make sense in setting for people to do.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 05:53 PM

So getting back to the OP :smallsmile:, what sorts of things are being ignored that could be explicitly banned to get the "like medieval europe" feel, with some fantasy elements, without going full bore into the tippyverse and without having to ignore some stuff that would otherwise make sense in setting for people to do.

Lots and lots and lots of stuff, and just banning it gets rid of lots of classic fantasy elements.

Pretty much every one of the shapechange methods needs to go (Wilde Shape, Polymorph, Alter Self, Shapechange, etc.).

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin need to go.

All methods of limitless magic need to go. No Mage's Lucubration, no Bestow Power, no magical traps. All of the permanent duration spells need to go.

Magic items pretty much need to go as well.

All of the long range communications methods need to go.

All methods of summoning and binding pretty much need to be dumped.

Teleportation of all kinds needs to be dumped.

This is not an even remotely complete list but it is all stuff that I can think of ways to use off of the top of my head to significantly alter the setting from "like medieval Europe" with relatively minimal effort.

JaronK

2014-01-02, 06:01 PM

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 06:05 PM

I actually think forts would be incredibly common. They're cheap as dirt to build... even a low level caster can use Unseen Crafter, and every large city evidently (according to the DMG) has at least one Wizard capable of casting Wall of Stone and Fabricate. Assuming that Wizard would like his city to be safe, he can just make city walls, fortifications, and so on as long as he's bored and has nothing better to do today. Wizards have such useful stone type spells that I'd imagine almost every Wizard would have their own personal castle, fort, tower, or similar. Heck, a Bard with a Lyre of Building could quickly construct all sorts of stuff, and an undead Bard doing the same could do it all day long.

Now, will this stop a dedicated military assault? No. But it'll keep out the bandits, the dire animals, and other similar threats. And that's certainly worthwhile.

JaronK
Wall's exist, everything should have solid stone walls around it. One Mage's Lucubration trap and a Wizard 9 can cast Wall of Stone upwards of fourteen thousand times per day. Get a Simulacrum of a Beholder for Disintegrate to clear and level ground and you have one of the better D&D building teams.

The problem is that walls like that tend to buy you, at best, a minute. Most of the time they will buy you one standard action.

Everything that they are actually a real challenge to is basically so worthless as to not really be a threat in the first place anyways.

WhamBamSam

2014-01-02, 06:17 PM

Having two threads with essentially the same discussion is a bit irksome, but ah well.

We're talking NPCs, any manipulation of them to make them UMD specialized requires DM intervention (which is explicitly disallowed under tippyverse conventions).It's also assumed that NPCs behave relatively intelligently or in ways that make sense. Generally that means that NPCs should be assumed to be fairly optimized. Also, the Elite Array is the standard assumption for NPCs with class levels. If Cha wasn't one of his better stats, why would he have become a Warlock? And even if his array and stat boosts were chosen purely at random, you'd still end up with a high Cha one every once in a while.

But whatever. Let's say that we've got a 12th level NPC party. You might think that this is moving the goalposts a bit, but a group like this has to turn up every now and again. Let's also assume that they only have the bare minimum to actually use their class features in their stats.

Phil the Psion
Willamina the Warlock
Barbara the Bard
Mark the Marshal

Make Barbara a Bard 9/Marshall 1 and get rid of Mark if you feel that fewer participants is more reasonable, but I decided to keep everyone single classed.

If Wilamina doesn't have the appropriate UMD/Spellcraft ranks, Phil can PsyRef her so that she does. If you feel like going the extra mile, use Inspire Greatness first, so she can get up to 17 UMD ranks. That covers the skills issue, and gets a +17 to +19 on it's own. If Mark doesn't have Motivate Cha, he can be PsyRefed as well so he does. If Phil doesn't know Psychic Reformation, he can get a dojre of it.

Barbara can use Eagle's Splendor (possibly from a wand) to buff Wilamina, Mark and herself. Wilamina's Cha is now probably high enough on its own to ensure success, but if it's not, you can throw on Mark's Motivate Cha and Inspire Competence as well.

Assuming the person was publicly profiting from this and the Trading consortiums didn't have to investigate how their competition was getting through, I'd say about a week. Going around killing people on contract is basically all Assassins do. Thieves can be hired to steal scrolls from the Warlock, Assassins to kill/kidnap him, etc... It wouldn't be cheap, but it would be less expensive than letting them succeed.There's no reason to assume that the assassin/thief is any more optimized than the party (that'd be fiat). So in order to be a serious threat, he has to be around CR14 to 16. If you can afford someone like that on your payroll, why are you putting those resources toward stopping the construction of TC networks rather than building your own.

TC can't exist except on a level surface, therefore disrupting that surface destroys the TC as the target is no longer valid.

A permanent teleportation circle that is disabled becomes inactive for 10 minutes, then can be triggered again as normal.

Seems to me if you make the surface level once more, a Permanent TC will become active again in 10 minutes time. You'd have to use Disjunction or something, and that's also preventable if you feel like going all out.

Seer_of_Heart

2014-01-02, 06:21 PM

We're talking NPCs, any manipulation of them to make them UMD specialized requires DM intervention (which is explicitly disallowed under tippyverse conventions).

Eventually we are going to get enough warlocks that want to try given enough time and one of them is going to have enough of a umd bonus/lucky enough roll that they will succeed. Unless every single warlock who ever tries has never invested enough into UMD that they simply cannot pass the check.

Tippy the following is your basic premise for the tippyverse right? There is a non 0 amount of people who are capable of setting up a TC network. Eventually one of the people capable has to think of a TC network or get hired by someone else who thought of it (another non 0 chance). Eventually a TC network will be set up because of people seeing the utility of TCs (another non 0). And then there will be a restructuring of society as you detail in the tippyverse due to teleport circles. As time goes on it is more and more likely for the setting to turn into a tippyverse because they ordinarily would not collapse.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 06:38 PM

Tippy the following is your basic premise for the tippyverse right? There is a non 0 amount of people who are capable of setting up a TC network. Eventually one of the people capable has to think of a TC network or get hired by someone else who thought of it (another non 0 chance). Eventually a TC network will be set up because of people seeing the utility of TCs (another non 0). And then there will be a restructuring of society as you detail in the tippyverse due to teleport circles. As time goes on it is more and more likely for the setting to turn into a tippyverse because they ordinarily would not collapse.

Pretty much.

Combine with the issue that most settings have cities, civilizations, nations, and even individuals that have survived thousands of years then the odds of it not having occurred are almost infinitesimally small.

This is even more true when you get into the issue of superhuman intelligence and the various motivating factors along with the truly absurd populations that actually exist if you go with the standard planar cosmologies.

JaronK

2014-01-02, 06:38 PM

Wall's exist, everything should have solid stone walls around it. One Mage's Lucubration trap and a Wizard 9 can cast Wall of Stone upwards of fourteen thousand times per day. Get a Simulacrum of a Beholder for Disintegrate to clear and level ground and you have one of the better D&D building teams.

The problem is that walls like that tend to buy you, at best, a minute. Most of the time they will buy you one standard action.

Everything that they are actually a real challenge to is basically so worthless as to not really be a threat in the first place anyways.

Walls will keep out the sort of threats that peasants and such worry about. They're not much to be done about a massive demon invasion anyway. But they still get the job done against the random animals and such that are out there.

JaronK

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 06:41 PM

Walls will keep out the sort of threats that peasants and such worry about. They're not much to be done about a massive demon invasion anyway. But they still get the job done against the random animals and such that are out there.

JaronK

Yes, but random animals don't threaten cities. They are threats to villages and towns.

ryu

2014-01-02, 06:47 PM

Yes, but random animals don't threaten cities. They are threats to villages and towns.

I think he's pointing out that the walls have no cost and aren't being put up to actually deter anything threatening. They're just there as a convenience the wizard put up as a form of pest control. Are flies a legitimate threat to any given household? If not why do we have bug-zappers? Pretty much the same reason.

Elderand

2014-01-02, 07:01 PM

I think he's pointing out that the walls have no cost and aren't being put up to actually deter anything threatening. They're just there as a convenience the wizard put up as a form of pest control. Are flies a legitimate threat to any given household? If not why do we have bug-zappers? Pretty much the same reason.

I thought bug zapper were there for the sweet spectacle of seing a being slowly roast alive as electricity courses through it's body until the twitching stops and the smell of burning flesh oozes from the charred remain.

Talakeal

2014-01-02, 07:18 PM

Ok, how exactly are we teleporting armies?

Teleport is a fifth level that can teleport 1/3 caster level extra creatures. It also has a pretty significant failure chance when teleporting into an unknown area until the 7th level version.

If we are following the world building guidelines no kingdom is going to have enough wizards to teleport even a small army.

Are we using a different spell / item / class ability that I am unaware of?

I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but they all involve some heavy cheese that the setting designers never intended, and imo, a DM interested in playing by the book D&D should house rule.

Karnith

2014-01-02, 07:24 PM

Ok, how exactly are we teleporting armies?
Teleportation Circles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm) can move a whole lot of people, even when not Permanencied. Their use is one of the defining features of the Tippyverse.

Gemini476

2014-01-02, 07:28 PM

Kazyan

2014-01-02, 07:36 PM

Also, teleporting an army can be done via Wish. Wish can transport an unspecified number of people to anywhere on any plane. Yes, even there. Tippy's particular Tippyverse seems to have a fair amount of Wishaporting.

Pretty much.

Combine with the issue that most settings have cities, civilizations, nations, and even individuals that have survived thousands of years then the odds of it not having occurred are almost infinitesimally small.

This is even more true when you get into the issue of superhuman intelligence and the various motivating factors along with the truly absurd populations that actually exist if you go with the standard planar cosmologies.

So for a non-TC-connected world to be plausible, it should be a relatively young world with small populations--specifically, small cities so that 17th+ level casters aren't available. The latter is fairly important; you often mention high-level solutions to problems, e.g. Simulacra. Which work, but if getting a 7th level spell is as difficult as an IRL moon landing due to the rarity of high-level characters, transitional solutions would last quite a while.

Talakeal

2014-01-02, 07:37 PM

Gemini476

2014-01-02, 07:43 PM

Scrolls of Teleportation Circle are still available, however, and can be made by a 15th level Artificer or 12th level Warlock (with CL boosting). You can probably get the Artificer to be lower level as well.

ryu

2014-01-02, 07:47 PM

But Teleport circle and Wish are both 9th level spells. According to the demographics in the DMG (and most campaign settings) there are no 17th level wizards in a given kingdom.

Saying that no fortress in the world would ever be built because a mage could teleportation circle an army into it would be like discussing the impact of nukes on a war between two third world nations. It just isn't something that the people wanting to storm your average fort are going to have access to.

Mid level warlocks can do it via crafting and they are a lot more common. Also artificers. Also various forms of minionmancy to bring things with more casting ability for incredibly large numbers of solution possibilities. Most of which doable by level nine if the person actually cares enough. Ninth level spells aren't nearly as impossible as you make them out to be.

Melcar

2014-01-02, 08:01 PM

One thing that have worked for me in the past, and hopefully will work in the future, is sitting the whole team down to a little chat about the game and telling them that you dont want any "press enter to win" characters or abilities brought to the table. Tell the players, that you want people to create some sort of concept behind their characters and that powergaming is not allowed. If they still try (most do) then tell them politly to create a new character and explane why. Also tell them that everything must be approved by the DM before taken.

This has helped me. Hope it helps you!

Talakeal

2014-01-02, 08:10 PM

Mid level warlocks can do it via crafting and they are a lot more common. Also artificers. Also various forms of minionmancy to bring things with more casting ability for incredibly large numbers of solution possibilities. Most of which doable by level nine if the person actually cares enough. Ninth level spells aren't nearly as impossible as you make them out to be.

According to the demographics in the DMG 0% of the population is made up of warlocks or artificers as they are non core classes. And the latter exists only in Eberron iirc.

Obviously, warlocks and artificers are intended to exist, but we are going by pure RAW here, so the only ones in the setting are PCs and those placed by DM fiat.

I am not sure of the exact methods, but I would imagine that using minionomancy or level boosting to cast spells ~double your own level would fall under cheese if it can be done reliably.

Obviously everyone has a different tolerance for cheese, but if playing by strict RAW the world should just dissolve into a nonsensical free form world where everyone is near omnipotent the moment the first wizard learns to cast planar binding.

But then again, I suppose that is really the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? That if we allow cheese that the designers never thought of / intended than the world won't look like the setting the designers thought of / intended, which isn't really a surprise. The two schools of thought would then be those who try and fix the fluff to match the RAW or change the RAW to match the setting as intended. Or people who think the problem is overstated.

eggynack

2014-01-02, 08:20 PM

You don't really need some decent percentage of every kingdom to be 17+ level wizards. You just need a couple, like over the course of history. These teleportation circles are pretty permanent, especially if the golem is sticking them with long term defenses, and some of these wizards are going to be pretty permanent as well, especially if they're Tippy wizards. It seems to be an inconsistency with the setting, like any other, that there's a decent number of 16th level wizards but no 17th level wizards. I mean, what's even stopping these high level wizards from becoming slightly higher level wizards? Even a concerted anti-wizard force is decently likely to just produce a higher level wizard.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-02, 08:20 PM

So for a non-TC-connected world to be plausible, it should be a relatively young world with small populations--specifically, small cities so that 17th+ level casters aren't available. The latter is fairly important; you often mention high-level solutions to problems, e.g. Simulacra. Which work, but if getting a 7th level spell is as difficult as an IRL moon landing due to the rarity of high-level characters, transitional solutions would last quite a while.

Or TC just hasn't been invented yet.

For Simulacrum you just need to bind a Mirror Mephit.

But Teleport circle and Wish are both 9th level spells. According to the demographics in the DMG (and most campaign settings) there are no 17th level wizards in a given kingdom.
Epic Level Handbook extends that demographics table up to cities with a hundred thousand or more people, and those have level 20+ characters.

You can also get early access in any number of ways. Artificer 1/ Magic Mantle Ardent 1/ anything else 7 with five feats spent on Practiced Manifester x2, Practiced Spellcaster x2, and Psiotheurgist gives you a CL of 18 (20 for some things) at ECL 9.

Saying that no fortress in the world would ever be built because a mage could teleportation circle an army into it would be like discussing the impact of nukes on a war between two third world nations. It just isn't something that the people wanting to storm your average fort are going to have access to.
Teleportation isn't what makes walls worthless. Energy Substitution (Acid), Maximized, Twinned, Energy Admixture (Acid), Fireball wands are what make walls worthless. Forty feet of stone wall (80 if you throw on Widen) just took 352 points of damage (after hardness) and only a single charge was expended.

Or flight. Or Xorn Movement + Bag of Holding. Or Smokey Confinement. Or Dimension Door. Or Time Hop. Or Shrink Item. Or Fabricate. Or Polymorph Any Object. Or Planar Binding. Or Disintegrate.

Your expectation should be that stone walls will buy you between six seconds and a minute of time before they are breached.

Brookshw

2014-01-02, 08:21 PM

I've done a couple of variations on that. In one game I used the fairly relaxed rules for army building to get 'army units' each armed with a well of many worlds. I gave them blaster weapons and called them Scout Group 1, Scout Group 2, etc. Or SG1 for short. :-)

In another, I was a crafter with a merchant fleet. So I gave a few ships helms of planar navigation, and setup trade routes with the elemental planes.

Sounds fun, kudos for the SG reference. I've likewise enjoyed using similar setups over the years. World hopping games can be a ton of fun and the exploration aspect leaves tons of room for building.

I'm running a planescape game on the PbP boards. It's been going for over two years now with the same players.

Good times. We just wrapped up a PS game that lasted a bit over a year. I'm pretty happy with the results though so many things were left open ended (partially intentionally) that I kinda want to do a follow up campaign at some point. Always a pleasure to meet another PS enthusiast /tip hat.

@ Particle man: I have to admit, I simply don't understand what the problem you're trying to over come is. Does your group have issues with communications? Can you not simply say "here's what I'm envisioning for this campaign, traditional medieval setting, low magic" and get them to roll with it? Is this a group that you're not familiar with? Strangers? Have you guys played together long? In over twenty years of DMing I simply can't recall an instance where I've hit a wall when laying out what a particular campaign setting was supposed to be about (but I switch them up between campaigns constantly so maybe that's why it doesn't make sense to me). Sure there might be a player here or there that really wants something that doesn't mesh, but usually that can be tweaked to either fit or we'll compromise and either I'll move things where it doesn't compromise the core concept or the next campaign will be something that suits their desire. Anytime I've said, "hey, let's do an Oriental campaign" people have pretty easily gone along with it, or "hey, it's a modern/D&D hybrid, you're warforged working to bring about the creation of Skynet" it's never been a problem. Could you kindly expand upon the OP? I'm really not getting what the particular hang up is :smalleek:

Gemini476

2014-01-02, 08:49 PM

Mid level warlocks can do it via crafting and they are a lot more common. Also artificers. Also various forms of minionmancy to bring things with more casting ability for incredibly large numbers of solution possibilities. Most of which doable by level nine if the person actually cares enough. Ninth level spells aren't nearly as impossible as you make them out to be.
This is an extreme version of what he's saying, but nonetheless:

As an example, you can get a ninth level slot at level one with Sanctum Spell + Elven Domain Generalist Wizard. Oh, and domain slots from level one to nine, but the ninth-level slot is what we care about.

Getting CL17 to cast that spell, however (something Tippy is known to enforce) is slightly trickier. Wild Mage 1 with Practiced Spellcaster gives one CL boost from an array of possibilities, those being 1d6, or an average of +3.5. Elder Giant Magic can give you +3 if you spend some extra time (and why not?). Ioun Stones can give you an additional +1, and Beads of Karma can be UMD'd to give +4. Or you can take Cloistered Cleric 1 to skip UMD and still get a net +4, since you have Practiced Spellcaster.

So that's +9-+14, with an average of +11,5. So an upper character level of eight and a lower level of six to cast the spell.

You need to make a DC 24+(1 per previous check) Concentration check every round you boost your spell with Elder Giant Magic, though.

This build gets nines in E6, in other words.
Elven Domain Generalist Wizard 4/Cloistered Cleric 1/Wild Mage 1
1: Magical Aptitude
Flaw: Spell Focus
3: Metamagic School Focus
6: Practiced Spellcaster
E1: Elder Giant Magic

Outside E6, EDGW 5/CC 1/WM 1/ X2 gets all of the necessary feats to get nines at level nine. Without flaws, since bonus feats are great.

I'm sure that there are faster methods. (Domain Wizards get +1CL to domain spells, for instance.)

Lord Ruby34

2014-01-02, 09:12 PM

Honestly the best way to avoid a Tippy-Verse is to simply play at lower levels and disallow cheesy or broken spells. If the highest level character in the world is a ninth level warblade you don't really have to worry about teleportation circle, or even teleportation in general.

You can use E6 or a lower level world in general, and you stick closer to standard Heroic Fantasy. You would still have to disallow or fix some things (mostly spells and items), but quite a bit fewer than if you play up to 20. The magic that powers the Tippy-verse simply not existing is the most logical way to prevent a setting from turning into one.

Togo

2014-01-02, 09:55 PM

Good times. We just wrapped up a PS game that lasted a bit over a year. I'm pretty happy with the results though so many things were left open ended (partially intentionally) that I kinda want to do a follow up campaign at some point. Always a pleasure to meet another PS enthusiast /tip hat.

Same to you. It may be a seriously flawed setting that relies on DM fiat, but it can be enormous fun. I find it's almost impossible to entirely tie up all the loose ends in a setting like that - in practice all plotlines tend to expand outwards, like ripples in a pond.

Making it very hard to keep games to a reasonable length. But then that's generally my problem.

More recently, I've been trying to combine spelljammer with PS, by turning the astral into a variation on known space, and making spelljammers astral vehicles. The problem comes in that Sigil isn't easily a port, and making it into one contradicts the somewhat claustraphobic feel. I tried just having some portals to suitable ports in the astral, but having only one feels odd, and having several rather defeats the purpose of having spelljammers...

The Tippyverse isn't necessarily the only logical outcome of the rules, but the inevitable conclusion of those rules is something different from the settings we've been presented with.

That seems like a reasonable position. However, it directly contradicts Tippy's assertion, that the Tippyverse is the only logical outcome of the rules. All other settings are seriously flawed and possible only via DM fiat.

Which was the point of the OP. All settings must be Tippyverse, or be seriously flawed and rely on DM fiat. So what sort of fiat do you need to permit variations?