What needs to be removed to make high level dungeons work?

[DSMatticus]

Actually, what you did is demonstrate that you don't even know the actual text of Gate in at least to places, and present an argument that even where it is correct, is still no more correct than other interpretations.

I'm looking at Gate in the SRD right now, and I can see the exact text I quoted. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Are you referring to the fact that I said the spell uses 'known individual' and 'particular individual' as synonyms for particular being? If so, I'll happily concede that that was a weak supporting fact based on context and is completely debatable. However, it is also completely unimportant to the core of my argument and its exclusion in no way weakens my position, which is based on the plain English definition of 'particular' + 'being.'

So I will apologize for making an assumption based on context, and we can completely drop that from my argument and my argument is exactly as strong as it was before.

If my quoting of the text is 'wrong' or 'liberal' in some other way, you'll really have to point it out to me, and tell me where you're reading Gate.

That's fine, except what I actually said was that no two people can agree on what Gate even means, so statements like "it's pretty clear what it does once you figure out what it's saying." are obviously incorrect.

Pretty clear was poor word choice, excuse me. I did not mean to imply the 'language' of the spell was clear. What I meant to imply was that the Gate spell has a clear, singular interpretation once the language is understood and stripped away. And being confusingly written does not mean something has multiple valid interpretations. Keyword on valid. I can propose plenty of interpretations of spells that are wrong based on my confusion about the language. Gate is just such a spell, because it's written truly awfully. The fact that people can't agree on an answer doesn't mean there is no such answer.

But most of the other interpretations in this thread involve one of two things that literally contradict the text of the spell. And if it contradicts the text of the spell, then it cannot be a valid interpretation.

(For reference, those two things are...
A) 'Balor' or similar things are a particular being. This contradicts the text of spell because that is just not what particular being means. If I can propose two different beings that are the same particular being, then it is by definition not particular. This cannot be a valid interpretation.
B) 'Particular' = 'unique'. This interpretation causes the text of the spell to contradict itself. This cannot be a valid interpretation in light of the fact that there are clear definitions of unique which do not cause the spell to contradict itself.)

[Username17]

The fact that a "particular being" can be pulled though "willing or unwilling" completely shoots the "Bob is Unique" bullshit. In the face. The reason people doggedly refuse to drop that obviously fraudulent reading is not because it is in any way defensible from the text as a whole, but because the spell is completely fucking broken and people are actively looking for ways to stealth nerf that shit.

The only slightly confusing thing about Gate is that it still talks about "Unique" creatures because it still uses the AD&D wording even though 3e D&D no longer has a Frequency mechanic. But it isn't unclear what that means, it's just unclear what special monsters that actually corresponds to because that information is missing from the Monster Manual.

But the thing is that since the tag is missing from the Monster Manual, the correct interpretation is that it doesn't apply to anything, not that it applies to everything.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

It never ceases to surprise me how people can read something that I think is totally unambiguous and take away an entirely different meaning based on interpretation of the wording, or by emphasising one part over another.

One that sticks in my mind was a friend doggedly insisting that the phrase on a Magic card "Cannot be the target of spells or effects that target only creatures" meant that the card could not be targeted by spells. At all. Because the restriction clause came after the word "effects" it obviously only referred to them.

Something to think about when wording your own abilities and rules methinks.

[K]

The fact that a "particular being" can be pulled though "willing or unwilling" completely shoots the "Bob is Unique" bullshit. In the face. The reason people doggedly refuse to drop that obviously fraudulent reading is not because it is in any way defensible from the text as a whole, but because the spell is completely fucking broken and people are actively looking for ways to stealth nerf that shit.

Maybe people just come up with a different houserule to resolve the same problems with the text?

I mean, the spell is supposed to summon extraplanar creatures and it says that, but not boss monsters that are "unique" like important named demons. That is clearly the intent and spirit of the spell.

The whole "well, everyone is extraplanar to somewhere" is a houserule that breaks the game with Gate, not the Gate spell.

I mean, we could just as easily say that we are taking the definition of "extraplanar creature" from the Summon Monster text that says "summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane)." Then we could look at the context of that list and fact that the base setting is the Prime Material Plane and just assume that "extraplanar being" is supposed to mean "native to a non-Prime plane."

Coming up with a different interpretation from someone else doesn't require bad faith or bad reasoning. It just requires a different perspective.

PS. The same "everyone is extraplanar to somewhere" reasoning that would allow Gate to call anyone as long as it's used on a different plane would also let you cast Banishment on anyone at any time, regardless of where they currently are.

Heck, you could even use the extraplanar subtype text that says "A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane)." By this text, you could say that you could only define "extraplanar creatures" as "creatures with the extraplanar subtype," meaning you couldn't call anything currently on it's own plane (or a Transitive Plane).

[Kaelik]

So I will apologize for making an assumption based on context.

If my quoting of the text is 'wrong' or 'liberal' in some other way, you'll really have to point it out to me, and tell me where you're reading Gate.

You explicitly state that you can summon a diety or unique being, even though the spell specifies exactly "Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord."

Which is of course, not the same as you being able to summon them, since deities can come or not, depending on if they want to, and deities already know if you want them to come somewhere, and deities can already appear if they want to as a Free action. So you are actually spending a standard action and 1000XP to do literally nothing.

Additionally, you use the word summon at least three times, and the Gate spell does not summon.

Pretty clear was poor word choice, excuse me. I did not mean to imply the 'language' of the spell was clear. What I meant to imply was that the Gate spell has a clear, singular interpretation once the language is understood and stripped away. And being confusingly written does not mean something has multiple valid interpretations. Keyword on valid. I can propose plenty of interpretations of spells that are wrong based on my confusion about the language. Gate is just such a spell, because it's written truly awfully. The fact that people can't agree on an answer doesn't mean there is no such answer.

So then don't say that it's pretty clear, and don't whine when someone tells you it's obviously not pretty clear.

[wotmaniac]

yeah, the Gate spell is yet another example of just doing a copy-paste from the previous edition (there was lots of that in 3rd).
"Unique" was indeed a Frequency indicator ..... and in the 2ndEd MM, there was exactly 1 monster with a frequency of "unique" -- the tarrasque.
However, aside from the gods, creatures that hold a special place in the cosmos could indeed be considered "unique".

"Bob the halfling" is most definitely not unique. "Bob" just happens to be a member of the halfling population. Bob may be a weirdo, and may be the only halfling named "Bob", but that does not make him unique -- at least, not in the cosmological sense. Just like "Xzlhfglrvb the Pit Fiend" happens to be a member of the pit fiend population.
Cerberus, on the other hand, could probably be considered unique.

Wow -- has this really been 2 pages of arguing over what "unique" means?

[sabs]

they didn't want you to be able to summon Orcus with a Gate Spell.

[DSMatticus]

Additionally, you use the word summon at least three times, and the Gate spell does not summon.

Kaelik, I'm aware of the difference between summoning and calling. I was using the terms in an English sense, and not the D&D sense. I am not the only one in this thread to have done the exact same thing. If you'd really like, I can repost/edit/PM (reposting would probably be rude, and I don't think I can edit anymore...) my entire argument with all instances of 'summon' replaced with 'call (as per the D&D definition),' or you can stop pretending to not understand what I meant. Either way, we're back at square one, so this was pretty pointless.

Which is of course, not the same as you being able to summon them, since deities can come or not, depending on if they want to, and deities already know if you want them to come somewhere, and deities can already appear if they want to as a Free action. So you are actually spending a standard action and 1000XP to do literally nothing.

Yes, I suppose that means casting Gate to summon a deity makes you a tool (or is just a more explicit way of appealing to the gods and the DM to save you from an arse-whooping, but if you're getting your arse-whooped at level 17 you probably deserve it). Even if it is a dumb use of the spell, that doesn't change that it's a use of the spell. Or matter in anyway, really. That was perhaps tangential to the point? Though very true - using gate on a deity is already up to DM fiat, and deities already have the power to do exactly what Gate allows them, so DM fiat could already bring them to your door anyway.

You explicitly state that you can summon a diety or unique being, even though the spell specifies exactly "Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord."

No, I specifically state that you can 'summon' deities but cannot compel them. Several times...

Well, it is possible to gate any specific balor (i.e. Bob the Balor) in atleast the same way you can gate deities or unique creatures. That is, they can choose to come through if they desire, even if you can't compel them.

Deities and unique beings (summon one, cannot be compelled or commanded).

As a matter of fact, it seems like in the two instances I mentioned using Gate on deities and unique creatures, I specify that they can't be compelled. You literally just told me, "You're wrong, gate doesn't work like X. It works like X."

So then don't say that it's pretty clear, and don't whine when someone tells you it's obviously not pretty clear.

You missed my point. I was using pretty clear as a descriptor for the interpretation (as in, there is only one interpretation of Gate that makes any sense, even if it is broken, and this is obvious once you get past the language, and it takes mental gymnastics and wishful thinking to make anything else out of Gate). You thought I meant pretty clear as a descriptor of the language of the spell (which is not what I meant). I apologized for making it insufficiently clear that I was talking about the interpretation, not the language. But this, also, is a non-issue. If you want me to say, "oops, my bad," well... oops, my bad?

[Swordslinger]

Kaelik, I'm aware of the difference between summoning and calling. I was using the terms in an English sense, and not the D&D sense. I am not the only one in this thread to have done the exact same thing. If you'd really like, I can repost/edit/PM (reposting would probably be rude, and I don't think I can edit anymore...) my entire argument with all instances of 'summon' replaced with 'call (as per the D&D definition),' or you can stop pretending to not understand what I meant. Either way, we're back at square one, so this was pretty pointless.

Yeah, just ignore the semantic arguments Matticus, It's just a lame gaming den tactic to try to avoid fighting the main point by bogging the conversation down in nuances while trying to take attention away from the fact that his basic argument is totally wrong.

As Frank said, the people arguing against you just want to stealth nerf the spell and have developed their own crazy interpretation of it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The easiest and most sensible way is to eliminate the idea of there being a 'high level dungeon' at all. Characters with high-level superpowers in other media stop fighting in what you would call dungeons after awhile anyway.

[Swordslinger]

The easiest and most sensible way is to eliminate the idea of there being a 'high level dungeon' at all. Characters with high-level superpowers in other media stop fighting in what you would call dungeons after awhile anyway.

I wouldn't say easiest, because it involves making spellcasters even more powerful. One of the only limitation on spellcasters in 3E is that their spells are daily abilities, so if there's more battles per day, they'll have fewer spells level which further screws with the gap between warriors and just encourages everyone to go nova every fight, which means that they can totally blow away even encounters over your EL that should be tough.

It makes the game really easy, and to make it difficult in a one encounter day, you need to go to the ultra deadly, which can easily result in TPK with a botched initiative roll.

[DSMatticus]

@K, that clearly is the intent of the spell, actually.

Bob the Balor is a particular being [source: English language], and the spell clearly states that you can call particular beings and compel them to come through [source: Gate text].

There is ambiguity on whether or not you can control Bob the Balor (a literal interpretation seems to say by asking for 'Bob the Balor' instead of 'a balor' you are forfeiting the ability to control it). Though, you can still pull Bob the Balor into one hell of a trap, even if you can't make him twiddle his thumbs for 17 rounds while you beat his face in. Though, as Bob is a called creature, he gains the one time ability to return to the plane he was called from. The game does not define what sort of action that is, presumably a standard, so on Bob's first turn he bails away to lick his wounds. Or woundless, if he wins initiative. Gate opens a giant portal and pulls you through - I doubt he's not expecting something on the other end. He may stroll through willingly and prepared, just to keep himself on his toes instead of yanked through. So there's probably no surprise round just because you grabbed him through a portal.

There is also ambiguity in the case of what extraplanar means, and that ambiguity exists even with the summon monster spells, as you point out. It's fairly clear, though, that it cannot be the case that extraplanar creatures are creatures with the extraplanar subtype, because then summon monster spells don't really work. At all. And if they do, it's because some crazy wizard kidnaps creatures from other planes to keep in his basement and you stole one, which is just weird. (Though, you do return it in perfect condition, since that's how summon spells work.)

But summon monster says something pretty enlightening about what they mean by extraplanar creature... "typically ... native to another plane." Do they mean a different plane than the caster? I.e., can demons gate humans, and humans gate demons, but neither can gate themselves? Or do they just mean a different plane than the caster is currently on, so you have to go to some random plane and you can gate anything not currently on the plane with you?

It gives absolutely no indication which, but it does give strong indication that it's one of those two. Either non-native to the plane of casting or does not share native plane with caster seem to be the two options for extraplanar as proposed by summon monster. The extraplanar subtype can't be reasonably considered because the spells would stop working.

@Swordslinger, that's sort of a separate issue. Even in a dungeon romp, you can't force the wizard to do a 4-encounter day, because he has tons of spells which allow him to escape encounters and go rest somewhere. The only way to get a 4-encounter day out of a smart wizard is to put him on a time limit, and doing that all the time is no fun.

Really, I may be preaching to the choir by saying this, but the 4-encounter day is the stupidest thing ever. What was there plan exactly? That wizards would conserve spells, and spend half of every combat twiddling thumbs? Or that they would nova, and completely dominate two combats while they spent the other two thumb-twiddling? And that the fighter, in the absence of magic spells that completely outclass him, would be able to shine while the wizard thumb-twiddled?

It's like their idea was, "we can balance it by making wizards 50% awesome and 50% useless. That way, when wizards are owning, the fighter is a laughable n00b. Then when the wizard runs out of ownage, the fighter is still a laughable n00b, standing next to a glorified commoner (i.e., wizard out of spells)." But there's no reason for the wizard to not just wait and get his spells back once he's out of awesome. As a matter of fact, not doing so would make him an idiot.

[Swordslinger]

Really, I may be preaching to the choir by saying this, but the 4-encounter day is the stupidest thing ever. What was there plan exactly? That wizards would conserve spells, and spend half of every combat twiddling thumbs? Or that they would nova, and completely dominate two combats while they spent the other two thumb-twiddling? And that the fighter, in the absence of magic spells that completely outclass him, would be able to shine while the wizard thumb-twiddled?

It's like their idea was, "we can balance it by making wizards 50% awesome and 50% useless. That way, when wizards are owning, the fighter is a laughable n00b. Then when the wizard runs out of ownage, the fighter is still a laughable n00b, standing next to a glorified commoner (i.e., wizard out of spells)." But there's no reason for the wizard to not just wait and get his spells back once he's out of awesome. As a matter of fact, not doing so would make him an idiot.

I can understand people thinking the resource system is stupid. Because there's certainly reasonable cause to argue that, but nonetheless it is the system of 3E, and a definite concern you should have.

One solution is to simply cutting the number of slots a wizard gets to 1/3rd the normal amount if you're going to assume he is going to rest after each fight. I'm just saying you need some kind of solution to try to keep spellcasters in check.

In considering any deviance from the 4 encounters/day design setup, you have to consider what effects it may have on balance.

[K]

The easiest and most sensible way is to eliminate the idea of there being a 'high level dungeon' at all. Characters with high-level superpowers in other media stop fighting in what you would call dungeons after awhile anyway.

I wouldn't say easiest, because it involves making spellcasters even more powerful. One of the only limitation on spellcasters in 3E is that their spells are daily abilities, so if there's more battles per day, they'll have fewer spells level which further screws with the gap between warriors and just encourages everyone to go nova every fight, which means that they can totally blow away even encounters over your EL that should be tough.

It makes the game really easy, and to make it difficult in a one encounter day, you need to go to the ultra deadly, which can easily result in TPK with a botched initiative roll.

Unsurprisingly, you are wrong again. Fighting guys are actually more nerfed by spellcasters having less spells and by doing more encounters per day.

Fighting guys need a constant stream of buff spells, healing, and combat control to survive combats and be ready for the next combat. Fewer spells per day actually means that fighting guys can do fewer combats per day.

In fact, just having fighting guys in the party causes the party's overall number of survivable encounters per day to go down. This is why 4e gave healing surges to everyone AND removed monsters' ability to do anything interesting.

[Emerald]

Really, I may be preaching to the choir by saying this, but the 4-encounter day is the stupidest thing ever. What was there plan exactly? That wizards would conserve spells, and spend half of every combat twiddling thumbs? Or that they would nova, and completely dominate two combats while they spent the other two thumb-twiddling? And that the fighter, in the absence of magic spells that completely outclass him, would be able to shine while the wizard thumb-twiddled?

It's like their idea was, "we can balance it by making wizards 50% awesome and 50% useless. That way, when wizards are owning, the fighter is a laughable n00b. Then when the wizard runs out of ownage, the fighter is still a laughable n00b, standing next to a glorified commoner (i.e., wizard out of spells)." But there's no reason for the wizard to not just wait and get his spells back once he's out of awesome. As a matter of fact, not doing so would make him an idiot.

There's a middle ground between "Throw spell then pull out crossbow" and "Nova and own everything," you know. At higher levels, the wizard's base spells alone allow him to throw at least one spell per round without a problem. A 10th level wizard has 16 spells, excluding cantrips and bonus spells, which means if your combats last 3 rounds he can go through 4 encounters casting a spell every round and still have spells left over for retreating and securing himself while resting, and if your combats last longer you just need to pass up a round or two of casting, which you might need anyway if you need to retreat or your enemies are out of position or whatever; a 20th level wizard has 44 non-cantrips at minimum, meaning he can throw a normal and a quickened spell every single round for 4 5-round combats and still be able to put up his Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion at the end of the day.

Now, as you noted, the concept of "We can always force 4 encounters or the equivalent per day and will therefore balance casters based on this fact" is stupid because past level, oh, 4 when you can use a metamagic rod for an extended rope trick, the wizard has complete control over when he stops to rest, barring an external factor like a time limit. However, if the players play along and choose to adhere to a 4-encounter workday for whatever reason, it actually works fine past level 7 or so, it doesn't have to devolve into wizard is useless vs. wizard novas.

[Almaz]

Really, I may be preaching to the choir by saying this, but the 4-encounter day is the stupidest thing ever. What was there plan exactly? That wizards would conserve spells, and spend half of every combat twiddling thumbs? Or that they would nova, and completely dominate two combats while they spent the other two thumb-twiddling? And that the fighter, in the absence of magic spells that completely outclass him, would be able to shine while the wizard thumb-twiddled?

It's like their idea was, "we can balance it by making wizards 50% awesome and 50% useless. That way, when wizards are owning, the fighter is a laughable n00b. Then when the wizard runs out of ownage, the fighter is still a laughable n00b, standing next to a glorified commoner (i.e., wizard out of spells)." But there's no reason for the wizard to not just wait and get his spells back once he's out of awesome. As a matter of fact, not doing so would make him an idiot.

I can understand people thinking the resource system is stupid. Because there's certainly reasonable cause to argue that, but nonetheless it is the system of 3E, and a definite concern you should have.

One solution is to simply cutting the number of slots a wizard gets to 1/3rd the normal amount if you're going to assume he is going to rest after each fight. I'm just saying you need some kind of solution to try to keep spellcasters in check.

In considering any deviance from the 4 encounters/day design setup, you have to consider what effects it may have on balance.

A smart caster will still have the ability to budget spells efficiently, and will not supernova all their spells away unless it is absolutely necessary. Even when they do go for broke, it is common for them to only burn through 1/3rd of their spells or less, even at the maximum rate of battle consumption possible, though it depends on their specific spell list obviously. Really, you have merely mandated the 5 minute workday, not actually harmed the wizard's abilities any.

[Ghostwheel]

One solution is to simply cutting the number of slots a wizard gets to 1/3rd the normal amount if you're going to assume he is going to rest after each fight. I'm just saying you need some kind of solution to try to keep spellcasters in check.

Another solution might be using the recharge magic variant, and from there tweaking individual spells to whatever recharge rate works for the game. Gate (for example) might be abused less if it had a recharge time of one day... or one week... or one month, or whatever works for a specific campaign/group.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, what, change the '15 minute workday' concern to a '15 minute workweek' or '15 minute work month' or whatever?

[Ghostwheel]

Only if your players feel as though you're such a bastard that they MUST to gate in half a dozen ancient celestial wyrm dragons to succeed in every combat. It changes Gate and the like from a first and last line of defense to a last resort like the bombs in those shooter games.

(Replace Gate with whatever other spell you feel uncomfortable players continually spamming mindlessly as their win button. For me it's been glitterdust at low levels.)

[RadiantPhoenix]

Usually the players won't need to gate things in; sometimes they will, and when they do, and their gate spell is now on recharge, they will not want to adventure until it comes back, because something similar might on one of those adventures, when it does, they won't have their trusty gate ready to deal with it.

[NineInchNall]

This thread is full of meandering, competing "conversations" that are painful to follow. Can someone give me a quick summary of why treating dungeons as just another member of the set of obstacles that are outgrown (e.g., 20' wide chasms, 5 first level kobolds, your mom) is being rejected?

I mean yes, the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, but you're not generally dealing with the latter at low levels, so why should it be required to deal with the former at high levels?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Because we want places to lock PCs up so we can keep our stagnant campaign settings?

[fectin]

This thread is full of meandering, competing "conversations" that are painful to follow. Can someone give me a quick summary of why treating dungeons as just another member of the set of obstacles that are outgrown (e.g., 20' wide chasms, 5 first level kobolds, your mom) is being rejected?

I mean yes, the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, but you're not generally dealing with the latter at low levels, so why should it be required to deal with the former at high levels?

Because the question going in was "My high level players want to do a dungeon crawl. How do I make that challenging?"

[NineInchNall]

Hm. That just sounds like, "What's at the end of an infinitely long string," to me. I guess I'll just ignore this thread, then. Thanks.

[VladtheLad]

I know I am quoting a 2nd page response in a 13 page thread...

Another true story: I was a player in Red Hand of Doom. The plot called for us to XP up on random encounters on the road, but once we figured out that the DM was following a timeline we got a zombie chimera and flew to the next part of the adventure. The DM had to adjust encounters because the set-pieces that were supposed to happen on the road weren't going to happen on the road (for example, the encounter with a friendly elven village had to happen where they flew up on giant owls to wave us down. I almost Fireballed them).

The encounters on the road aren't necessary.

Also the campaign is not very clear in leading you from the starting village (1st arc) to the elven swamp (2nd arc).
I dmed the campaign and I don't even remember why the pc's went to the swamp.