PDA

View Full Version : Dealing With Creative Spell Exploits



Sparky McDibben
2021-03-28, 07:07 PM
This is my attempt at creating a game structure for handling situations when players use their abilities in creative ways that are clearly outside the intended scope of the ability. It focuses more heavily on casters, but could be easily adjusted to include martial abilities.

We've all been there: some player proposes a use of an ability that wildly stretches what that ability was supposed to be used for. For me, I was struck by the idea of using the suggestion spell to give multiple commands to a target. For instance, why not say, "You will think that everything I [the caster] say to you [the target] for the next 8 hours is a phenomenal idea, and you will attempt to carry it out to the best of your ability." This amounts to wishing for more wishes - instead of one command that requires an 8 hour concentration duration, I can give a whole bunch of commands with an 8 hour concentration duration.

My first thought was, "This is a great idea!" My second thought was, "I don't know of a single DM that would go for that." Now, I hate shutting down my player's ideas, and I also think, "Because I said it doesn't work," is a weak-sauce DM-fiat crap. So, I got to thinking about how I would handle this situation at the table if it ever came up, and it led me down a couple of interesting rabbit holes.

This might be horrendously dull, which is why I've hidden it behind a spoiler - the core basis boils down to: Understand why spells in your world operate the way they do on a fiction level.

I decided that in my worlds, spells aren't just a rote effect: they're hardcoded into the structure of the multiverse. That's why a fireball on Eberron and a fireball on Oerth are the exact same mechanical fireball, requiring the same components, casting times, and ranges. Notably, this is also why names like Mordenkainen are known on places Mordenkainen has no record of visiting: He literally signed his name into the structure of Reality. Mages in Wildemount see the same spellcraft as the ones in Faerun, literally saying, "Mordenkainen came up with this spell." Ergo, someone has to embed this structure into the Weave of magic itself, threading it throughout the cosmos. That sounds like a task that would require a whole bunch of mystical energy, and could piss off a large number of entities (which is why Mordenkainen didn't try it until he was an archmage).

Therefore, if you wanted to create a spell across the entire multiverse, you've got to get literal divine sanction, even for arcane spells. You've got to go to every god whose duties this spell impacts and get them to sign off on your effect. That's why enchantment spells have limited durations and bunch of fine print - the god/dess of Destiny put those codicils in there because when people act according to their free will, it screws up the Ineffable Tapestry of Fate.

Knowing why spells behave a certain way is more than just good worldbuilding; it informs your response when players try to push those spells beyond their restrictions. I immediately started thinking about how the god/dess of Destiny would react if casters started abusing their good nature. Those weird assassins brotherhoods from Wanted! Wildly improbable Final Destination shenanigans! Psychotic flumphs (for absolutely no reason)! Then I calmed down and realized I needed a system that could potentially encompass every supernatural entity, even the little gods. This is what I came up with:

When a player uses an ability in a way authorized by the text but clearly outside its intended function, the player draws the notice of otherworldly powers. The powers are put on notice that someone is tampering with the Way Things Ought To Be, and begin actively seeking the player out. Roll 1d4 and consult the following table:



1d4
Catastrophe Die


1
1d6


2
1d8


3
1d10


4
The player has drawn attention from two or more powers. Roll again to determine the size of the Catastrophe Die, ignoring this result on subsequent rolls



Next, determine the powers involved in searching for the PC. For example, if player is abusing the sleep spell to hurt people, they might draw the attention of Morpheus, god of dreams. Consider how Morpheus might react. Morpheus might stage a dream-test for the PC, illustrating likely consequences for their actions (perhaps that could be run as a skill challenge, with failures dealing psychic damage, or even temporarily erasing the sleep spell from the PC's mind!). Alternatively, Morpheus could send dreams to the PCs acquaintances, implying what the PC has been doing and generating social pressure. Finally, if the PC still isn't getting the message, Morpheus might trap the entire party in a nightmare-maze, confronting them with the ghosts of the PCs victims and harrowing them through a series of horrifying nightmares until the PCs escape. If you can't think of an entity right then, I find the Inevitables are a good default option for this.

If the PC has attracted attention from two power, its possible that one of the powers involved likes what the PC is doing. For example, if your PCs are using fire-based spells to cause wildfires, its possible that the goddess of fire is seeking them out to offer them divine patronage, while the Obad-Hai, the Green Man, is seeking them out to bestow a divine can of whoop-a$$. Have the player keep track of two Catastrophe Dice, each starting at the same level.

Catastrophe Dice are a countdown clock. The higher the die size, the longer the time left on the clock. Every time the PC uses their ability after the first time, have them roll the Catastrophe Die. If the die comes up as anything other than a 1, nothing happens. On a 1, however, the power they've irritated tracked down the PC's position, and takes action. Using the example with Morpheus, this might be when Morpheus sends the PC the dream-test. After the power takes action, the Catastrophe Die is reduced one step (from a d10 to a d8, for example). The Catastrophe Die cannot be increased, and cannot be reduced lower than a d4. Should the PC roll a 1 on a d4, the power involved should be throwing significant obstacles at the PC (angelic Kill-Teams of an appropriate CR, elemental eruptions, omens of doom for anyone who helps the party, etc.).

The way to get this attention to stop is actually fairly simple: the PC just has to encode a new spell into the fabric of Reality. On a metagame level, that means working with the DM to decide an appropriate level for the new spell, along with any other restrictions (concentration, casting time, etc). On a narrative level, however, that means an adventure of some kind. In my worlds, I make the PCs travel to an appropriate place (Astral Plane, the very first temple, the Stone Table, etc), and run it as a skill challenge. If the PC has wisely restricted their activities, heeded warnings, and generally not pissed too many people off, they can use the Catastrophe Die as a bonus to their rolls (if the Catastrophe Die comes up a 1, though, they've put their foot in their mouth; they roll the Die again and subtract it from their skill check). If the PC has seriously angered the Powers That Be, they might suffer disadvantage, a higher DC, or they might have a bunch of restrictions on their proposed spell. For this reason, I usually have the player create the spell they want to have, and then I identify three restrictions on it. Depending on the player's rolls, those restrictions can be either bypassed or loosened, and the final result written down. And from then on, in every campaign, that spell is part of the new canon.

Two very important points - the player should be the one rolling the Catastrophe Die, and you should tell the player exactly what's happening. The player has to be the one to roll because otherwise it starts to feel punitive, discouraging creative play. Also, the player should know when the dice come up with bad news, because that tells them "Something bad is about to happen; you should prepare for that." This raises tension, produces conflict, and lets you build anticipation. You should tell the player what's happening because 1) the character would probably know the metaphysical constraints of their magic, 2) the character is definitely not the first person to try pushing their luck in this way, so knowledge of these consequences exists in the game world, and 3) doing so empowers the player to make informed risk/reward decisions.

The intended function is enable the player to enjoy a creative use of a spell or ability without that creative use becoming a crutch. I have seen several instances when players realize they've come up with a use for an ability that is more powerful than intended and it becomes their "go-to" move. This system tries to place elastic consequences (in that you can scale the severity of the consequence up or down to taste) that can build over time, introducing a long-running element in your game. Similarly, this structure tries to reduce DM fiat - it acts as a prompt: why are you uncomfortable with the player's proposed use of this ability? What resources should they be expending to achieve the desired result? Then, it gives you a framework for how your world pushes back that takes "Because I said so" off the table. The desired end-state is one where both parties are having more fun.

To that end, be very careful when designing the Power's intrusions. If it feels like "Rocks fall, everybody dies," that defeats the purpose of the system. I find that using these intrusions as a complication to existing play goals tends to work the best. It sucks when diabolical bounty hunters from Nessus ambush you at the inn. It sucks way worse when those same bounty hunters crash the Harvesttide Ball, letting everyone in town know the PCs are reckless troublemakers and not to be trusted.

This system can be abstracted and used for any circumstance when the party has irritated a person or faction with resources greater than theirs. Let's take an example: the party just robbed the baron's tax collectors, but failed their Stealth check. You know that the party will be in this area for a while, and rather than introduce the baron as immediately tracking the PCs down, decide to let the baron's antagonism simmer in the background for a bit. As such, the failed Stealth check represents the PCs leaving some incriminating or identifying information at the scene.

So the baron is the antagonist; that leaves us the trigger, the consequences, and the resolution.

The trigger is the condition that causes the players to roll the Catastrophe Die. In this case, I would have the trigger be "whenever the PCs take an action that might get them identified by the baron's minions." Go to the market, head out on adventure, hit up your contacts...make a roll. Rather than decide if the baron has minions patrolling all these locations, or who the minions have paid off for information, etc., I just let the dice tell me that information, then make note of it. If the PCs roll a 1 when they go to visit Blind Clem, well, it turns out Blind Clem has outstanding warrants, and cut a deal with the baron for clemency.

The consequences can vary according to the antagonist's resources. The baron probably has a Goon Squad, a staff wizard or cleric, an assassin on payroll, and the powers of High, Middle, and Low Justice in their domain. Consequences could involve the Goon Squad roughing up the player's associates, making it harder to fence their loot. Or the wizard might summon an invisible stalker to hunt the PCs down. Or the baron could declare them all outlaws and now they're on the run, with their faces plastered everywhere and the assassin after them.

The resolution is how the players get out of this predicament, and requires knowing the antagonist's weaknesses. Weaknesses might include a secret escape tunnel that leads to the baron's bedroom, compromising blackmail material currently held by the local bishop, or the fact that the baron's sole heir is due back from Loxdon University in a week. The PCs might break in and either threaten or outright kill the baron (in which case they now have to deal with the baron's heir), or they might steal the blackmail material and use it to force the baron to back off, or they might kidnap the heir and use them as a hostage to make the baron call off their Goon Squad.

Dalinar
2021-03-28, 07:48 PM
I think you've come up with an incredibly creative and cool solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist.

Or at least, not with regards to your example, the Suggestion spell, which has the disclaimer "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." What constitutes reasonable? Good question! That's the sort of thing you should talk out with your player when they express interest in taking that particular spell.

I think it'd be really hard to make "agree to do anything I say for the next 8 hours" sound reasonable unless you're also making everything you say for the next 8 hours sound reasonable. Suggestion is very obviously intended to *not* be mind control--that's what stuff like Dominate Person is for--and while I think it's fair to say there's a lot of room to interpret what is and isn't possible with the spell, it's hardly "DM fiat" to say you can't use it to wish for more wishes, as it were.

If your player disagrees, immediately ask them to agree with everything YOU say for the next 8 hours. :P

BTW, despite my critical tone here, I actually was serious when I said your solution is both creative and cool. I'm just unsure how needed it is.

Unoriginal
2021-03-28, 08:00 PM
I decided that in my worlds, spells aren't just a rote effect: they're hardcoded into the structure of the multiverse. That's why a fireball on Eberron and a fireball on Oerth are the exact same mechanical fireball, requiring the same components, casting times, and ranges. Notably, this is also why names like Mordenkainen are known on places Mordenkainen has no record of visiting: He literally signed his name into the structure of Reality. Mages in Wildemount see the same spellcraft as the ones in Faerun, literally saying, "Mordenkainen came up with this spell." Ergo, someone has to embed this structure into the Weave of magic itself, threading it throughout the cosmos. That sounds like a task that would require a whole bunch of mystical energy, and could piss off a large number of entities (which is why Mordenkainen didn't try it until he was an archmage).

That's actually how it works canonically. Just with the added detail about how planar and divine influences affecting the world's Crystal Sphere sometime affect spells too. And how while some deities could be piss off with it it's somewhat safer than you're saying here (Mordenkainen didn't wait to be an archmage to do it, for example). You're basically writing your name in the wet concrete of the Weave's fabric.

One of the devs even said that Mordenkainen sometime introduced himself to worlds he never visited by going "hello, I'm Mordenkainen. Yes, the guy who made X and Y spells".



To that end, be very careful when designing the Power's intrusions. If it feels like "Rocks fall, everybody dies," that defeats the purpose of the system. I find that using these intrusions as a complication to existing play goals tends to work the best. It sucks when diabolical bounty hunters from Nessus ambush you at the inn. It sucks way worse when those same bounty hunters crash the Harvesttide Ball, letting everyone in town know the PCs are reckless troublemakers and not to be trusted.

Honestly, just the DM saying "no, it doesn't work like that" would be more than enough. Having in-game consequences for meta-concerns isn't a good idea, as far as I'm concerned. To give an example, if you'd rather have a player not take an 1-lvl-dip in Hexblade with their Paladin, it's much better to say "I don't allow that multiclass at my table" than saying "you can do that multiclass but you'll be branded an heretic by your order and...".

Sparky McDibben
2021-03-28, 10:32 PM
I think you've come up with an incredibly creative and cool solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist.

That's very on-brand for me! :)


Or at least, not with regards to your example, the Suggestion spell, which has the disclaimer "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." What constitutes reasonable? Good question! That's the sort of thing you should talk out with your player when they express interest in taking that particular spell.

I'm understanding this as, "You're proceeding from a false example" (which is a solid critique!) but I actually think this is an example of different play priorities. For me, every second I'm debating the reasonableness of imaginary actions taken by imaginary actors in an imaginary world ( :smallbiggrin: ) is a second of game time lost. What I'd rather do is, "Sure, but..." The problem with "Sure, but..." is that I need a framework to build the rest of that sentence off of. That's part of what this is trying to do, which is encourage player creativity while reining in their excesses by giving them all the rope they want. They'll either hang themselves with it, or bring it back around a nice shiny adventure hook. I don't really work out, "here's how I read this spell" with my players for anything except polymorph, and that's mostly to answer their questions around "What animals can I turn into?" For the rest, I want to have a solid, reasonable game structure that lets me make decisions on the fly.


BTW, despite my critical tone here, I actually was serious when I said your solution is both creative and cool. I'm just unsure how needed it is.

You didn't come across as critical at all! I'm just glad someone read all my nonsense!! :)

So, I'm a financial analyst in real life, and one of the things I do is collect modeling tools. Even if I don't have the perfect model for a given situation, I can usually grab one that's close enough and make it work. I have the same magpie-like tendency as a DM, where I want a lot of tools hanging off my belt. With this one, you can genericize the utility quite a lot, right? Instead of "You pissed off a god," maybe it's "You bushwhacked the baron's tax collectors and robbed them blind." Now I set the Catastrophe Die, but instead of the trigger being "every time you use this ability in this way," it's "every time you would risk being seen by the baron's henchpeople." Finally, instead of "make a new spell," the end state is "fix things with the baron." That just requires me to know the baron's assets, liabilities (and equity - ah, accounting humor) and have maybe four statblocks and a couple locations prepped. Either way, the structure helps measure risk and lets me know "Do they get seen?" without me having to decide if the baron's henchpeople routinely patrol the lower town, what their Perception checks are, etc.


That's actually how it works canonically. Just with the added detail about how planar and divine influences affecting the world's Crystal Sphere sometime affect spells too. And how while some deities could be piss off with it it's somewhat safer than you're saying here (Mordenkainen didn't wait to be an archmage to do it, for example). You're basically writing your name in the wet concrete of the Weave's fabric.

That's hilarious! Thanks for letting me know!


Honestly, just the DM saying "no, it doesn't work like that" would be more than enough. Having in-game consequences for meta-concerns isn't a good idea, as far as I'm concerned. To give an example, if you'd rather have a player not take an 1-lvl-dip in Hexblade with their Paladin, it's much better to say "I don't allow that multiclass at my table" than saying "you can do that multiclass but you'll be branded an heretic by your order and...".

I hear you. I think that having in-game consequences for bad faith player actions is a bad idea, re Grod's Law, but I consider the mechanics and the fiction self-reinforcing loops; anything that affects the one should affect the other. As an example, the warlock in my group just took Minions of Elemental Chaos as an invocation. I asked him how that looked, and after listing a few possibilities, he decided the elemental would manifest as being powered his father's damned soul (long story). I decided that meant that if he lost concentration on the spell, he could try to banish the elemental with an action and a DC 15 Arcana check, rather than just having an angry elemental running around.

I also think your point is an outcome of different play styles - for me as a player, I'd want to know what the in-universe reason is. Not to question the DM, but just to make the world seem logical again in my head. If the DM just doesn't allow hexblades, that's an awesome move and it says something unique about their world. If they feel that multiclass breaks with the tone of the campaign, that's a similarly awesome move and it comes to much the same result. But when I hear, "I just don't allow it because I don't like it," well, that damages the world's reality to me. Probably not irreparably, but enough that it takes some of the fun away.

So, when I DM, I challenge the player: "What kind of patron are you looking for, specifically? Just to be aware, the rest of your order might not be super-onboard with this move - do you want to hide your patron from them (and if so, do you have a plan for that, considering they have resources X, Y, and Z), or are you OK having to defend your actions to your peers? If you fail, are you OK with having to deal with the consequences of that failure? Do you realize that if you want multiclass, you're going to have to adventure to go get it? I'm going to need some time to build a hook for this into the campaign; are you OK with waiting until after the current adventure concludes?"

Good feedback, by the way! I love it when I can hear how other folks play the game!!

Theodoxus
2021-03-28, 11:34 PM
I think you've come up with an incredibly creative and cool solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist.

100% agreed. Having a deep dive into the crunch of 'why' is always fantastic, but I would let said crunch dictate the results, not build mechanical rules to integrate 'DM Fiat' into the fabric of your universe. The suggestion conundrum, for instance, instead of creating rules around trying to prevent 'infinite wishes' type effects, I'd simply have the spell's power slowly weaken over time. The first couple of commands, sure, they seem reasonable, but then (and especially if the commands become more problematic) the target begins to reject the original suggestion. Perhaps corrupting the intent to follow its own mores; perhaps just ignoring part of the command. I wouldn't even comment to the player, until it became clear and they (might) complain that you're not following the original suggestion. At that point, I would describe the underpinning of the magic system, and that the player was trying to stretch it beyond the means of the spell. But I'd also offer a chance for the character to research a more powerful Suggestion type spell that would keep a target enthralled and pliable through multiple requests. Still weaker than Dominate, but more powerful than Suggestion.

I'd even let the player keep using Suggestion in this pseudo-buffed form, but only against new targets each time, and always with a similar diminishing return.


Honestly, just the DM saying "no, it doesn't work like that" would be more than enough. Having in-game consequences for meta-concerns isn't a good idea, as far as I'm concerned. To give an example, if you'd rather have a player not take an 1-lvl-dip in Hexblade with their Paladin, it's much better to say "I don't allow that multiclass at my table" than saying "you can do that multiclass but you'll be branded an heretic by your order and...".

That's interesting. Like Sparky, my own inclination would be to say 'Sure, you can do it, but these are the problems you'll encounter. Your knowledge of past heretics in your order is sufficient to know going in exactly what you're in for.' I'm a huge proponent for 'Yes, and?' improvisation. As you state, if the campaign world doesn't have that as an option, you're SOL, but if both classes/archetypes exist, even if they're at odds (or even massively MAD), I'd offer the opportunity to explore them as a multiclass - with character knowledge (if appropriate) and definitely player knowledge of potential problems that might arise.


I'm understanding this as, "You're proceeding from a false example" (which is a solid critique!) but I actually think this is an example of different play priorities. For me, every second I'm debating the reasonableness of imaginary actions taken by imaginary actors in an imaginary world ( :smallbiggrin: ) is a second of game time lost. What I'd rather do is, "Sure, but..." The problem with "Sure, but..." is that I need a framework to build the rest of that sentence off of. That's part of what this is trying to do, which is encourage player creativity while reining in their excesses by giving them all the rope they want. They'll either hang themselves with it, or bring it back around a nice shiny adventure hook. I don't really work out, "here's how I read this spell" with my players for anything except polymorph, and that's mostly to answer their questions around "What animals can I turn into?" For the rest, I want to have a solid, reasonable game structure that lets me make decisions on the fly.

And that's perfectly reasonable. I guess for me, it's the informing the player of the underlying structure of how your spells work that removes the mystery. As a player, I find it far more interesting when I try something (like stretching the boundaries of a spell) and be told 'something is off' or 'it didn't quite work as you thought' and then have the opportunity to research what happened than be told to roll some dice on table "You effed up your spell." Now, of you're keeping everything on your side of the screen and the player doesn't know - then awesome! But once the players grok how the otherwise mysterious forces of the universe actually work, then you're going to start down the rabbit hole of them trying to break your system (and players are notorious for finding things you didn't think up - great for playtesting new systems, really crappy when you've tried to put together a cohesive universe.)

But, and this is most important, you know your players and your game. You do you :smallbiggrin:

Droppeddead
2021-03-29, 04:01 AM
I think you've come up with an incredibly creative and cool solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily exist.

[---]your solution is both creative and cool. I'm just unsure how needed it is.

Yeah, pretty much this. Especially considering that the example given already goes against the rules.


We've all been there: some player proposes a use of an ability that wildly stretches what that ability was supposed to be used for. For me, I was struck by the idea of using the suggestion spell to give multiple commands to a target. For instance, why not say, "You will think that everything I [the caster] say to you [the target] for the next 8 hours is a phenomenal idea, and you will attempt to carry it out to the best of your ability." This amounts to wishing for more wishes - instead of one command that requires an 8 hour concentration duration, I can give a whole bunch of commands with an 8 hour concentration duration.

Not only is it not given as an actual suggestion (which is a minor point but can still be important), the way it is phrased makes it more than a single suggestion. "Everything the caster says is a phenomenal idea" is a completely different suggestion from "you will attempt to carry it out to the best of your ability."So just up there the DM needs to step in.

That said, anyone who has played White Wolf's Mage: the Ascension knows what a fun system paradox can be. It can probably work if you incorporate it into D&D but I think that is something you need to to talk to your players beforehand. You will allow a bit of shennanigans with spellcasting but there will be consequences. It does kind of step on the toes of Wild Mages though so that's something to look out for.

Unoriginal
2021-03-29, 05:50 AM
That's interesting. Like Sparky, my own inclination would be to say 'Sure, you can do it, but these are the problems you'll encounter. Your knowledge of past heretics in your order is sufficient to know going in exactly what you're in for.' I'm a huge proponent for 'Yes, and?' improvisation. As you state, if the campaign world doesn't have that as an option, you're SOL, but if both classes/archetypes exist, even if they're at odds (or even massively MAD), I'd offer the opportunity to explore them as a multiclass - with character knowledge (if appropriate) and definitely player knowledge of potential problems that might arise.

As I said, it's if the DM doesn't want it. If a DM is fine with it then they'll do it the way they want, and if they want to use it to base more in-universe fun stuff on the better for them.

But a DM who doesn't want something at their table should just say "no". It's not a tool to use willy-nilly, but it's a needed one to keep the game healthy for the DM.

When a DM always goes "sure, I'll allow X" or "Yes, and ..." to make the players happy when they aren't fine with X, it eventually weight on them and make the game frustrating for them. Many campaigns die with that as one of the causes.

Sparky McDibben
2021-03-29, 11:04 AM
I guess for me, it's the informing the player of the underlying structure of how your spells work that removes the mystery.

That's an excellent point I never called out - I've added a "Communications" section to the structure above to cover that. Thanks for the feedback!