Community

Jun 17, 2011 -- 6:16PM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

This reminds me of a certain film in which the line "A rogue of my level..." is used.

 

Very funny movie.

 
Can a normal guy seem as intelligent or wise as an ageless being? No - no one asked him to.
Can that normal guy portray a being of grand intelligence and wisdom well enough that the game is fun? Yes - and he can do so without shooting down the player's good ideas because "a creature of his longevity..."

 

Not if he only spends 15 minutes planing the encounter - not everyone wants to spend hours of real time going over countless contingencies and then fall victim to the BBEG getting offed because he forgot to put on his seat belt that morning.  Thats just kinda lame.

 Alternate way that this "thousands of years and most likely beaten his share of heroes" example plays out: Infinite arrogance, overconfidence, and maybe even forgetting - thanks to his extremely long existence - that he isn't invulnerable.

Doesn't work all the time, sure, but then neither does "well... that wouldn't work because someone so smart would have prepared for it."

That's true, but the party should not expect to be able to scry on the BBEG and then teleport in for the climactic battle when he is having a bath either.

Its like the many many complaints I hear about not being able to run a murder mystery in 3e because of the spell "Speak with Dead" or the like.  Its rediculous that a murderer in DnD would not at least consider that someone may have access to spells like that and take the very simple precautions of wearing a mask, attacking from behind or using an illusion to appear like someone else for example.

Jun 17, 2011 -- 8:12PM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Jun 17, 2011 -- 7:23PM, Shasarak wrote:

Its like the many many complaints I hear about not being able to run a murder mystery in 3e because of the spell "Speak with Dead" or the like.  Its rediculous that a murderer in DnD would not at least consider that someone may have access to spells like that and take the very simple precautions of wearing a mask, attacking from behind or using an illusion to appear like someone else for example.

I don't think making speak with dead work, but not actually be helpful to your goal, is a fair comparison to spontaneously causing the spell to fail.

I feel that it is exactly the same: did the spell do what you wanted it to do? Yes/No.

Banishment: Creature disappears/does not
Speak to Dead: Corpse identifies killer/does not

The only difference is that in one the DM has to make a roll, and the other he makes a judgement call.  Why is it out of the DMs province to not make a judgement call for the first if he has a reason to do so?

A fair comparison would be more along the lines of the DM deciding that when you cast speak with the dead on a corpse you happen to walk past on your way through a dungeon that is meant to hint at coming events but not really slow you down that, instead of the spell letting the corpse answer some questions, it instead does absolutely nothing.

Well, I could see how a random flavour corpse might not have too much to offer the party - but it could also make an interesting plot twist or event if it turned out to be more then the DM expected initially.

And as for spending 15 minutes making up an encounter... that sounds like plenty of time to decide that the murderer hides himself from his victim in case of speak with dead... and enough time to decide that the extraplanar creature has added resistance against being sent to his home plane.

...I know that others probably can't do so, but I can plan out an entire session (including jotting down notes to remember the plan by) in 15 minutes... so I guess I am assuming too much that other DMs are capable of the same - much like we all, at least sometimes, assume others to be like ourselves.

I assumed the first 14 minutes was stating up the creature.  ;0)

Jun 17, 2011 -- 9:58PM, obryn wrote:

Please tell me you understand the difference among (1) thinking this sort of stuff through ahead of time and planning for stuff, (2) coming up with perfectly rational ideas you hadn't thought of before during the game based on reason instead of your desired outcome, and (3) cheating your dice rolls so your BBEG doesn't get petrified in the first round or otherwise forcing the story towards your desired conclusions.

So, if I decide 2 days ahead of the game that monster X is immune to spell Y because of reason Z that is ok.

But if I decide at the table that monster X saves against spell Y because of reason A that is not ok?

 

Jun 17, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Shasarak wrote:

I feel that it is exactly the same: did the spell do what you wanted it to do? Yes/No.

Banishment: Creature disappears/does not
Speak to Dead: Corpse identifies killer/does not

It seems that we have reached an empasse in our discussion on the matter, clearly identified by the above.

You see it as a distinction between whether casting the spell had your desired outcome - the creature disappearing or the corpse identiying its killer - and I see it as a distinction between whether the spell had it's listed functionality actually used - rolling a save and accepting results of pass or fail, or allowing conversation with a corpse or not allowing that conversation.

As for things arbitrarily during an encounter so that a certain outcome does or does not happen... my opinion is that there is no such thing as a "good reason."