Designing the perfect Caster class

[erik]

1162896595[/unixtime]]
So you simply add a house rule that you can only cast buffs once in combat. We need that rule anyway to prevent crap like scry and die, because it's not like slots do a great job of preventing prebuffing anyway. So 1 round/level buffs can only be cast in combat and go away the moment combat ends.

No, the scry and die prep simply starts with someone using summon monster I to summon a hostile monster in order to start combat and let the buffs roll right before you go to the big bad battle.

The cure is worse than the disease there, since suspension of disbelief just ain't gonna happen.

[RandomCasualty]

1163408674[/unixtime]]
No, the scry and die prep simply starts with someone using summon monster I to summon a hostile monster in order to start combat and let the buffs roll right before you go to the big bad battle.

The cure is worse than the disease there, since suspension of disbelief just ain't gonna happen.

Were this a computer game, that might be an issue, but this is a game with a human DM who can obviously curtail people trying to cheese the system by a clumsy and obvious exploit like that. Besides, even combat transitions could be difficult to exploit. If for instance you buffed up in one combat and teleport, then you'd effectively end that combat and start a new one.

You could also solve that problem by having Summon spells be a "1 combat" duration too, (they're 1 round/level like buffs anyway).

The problem with D&D is that 'in combat' is not defined beyond the perspective of the character. It isn't a computer game.

IMO the slight cost of book keeping is worth not having the 'suspension of disbelief.'

The advantages of doing it this way are far greater than mere bookkeeping, in fact, buffing itself gets more balanced if you limit it to combat only. Prebuffing tactics are generally ways to exploit the power of 1 round/level spells, which are so short in duration and so high in power because you're expected to expend a combat round to use them. Once you've opened the door to scry and die and other methods of getting your buffs off while not in combat, you have heaps of balance problems anyway.

As far as suspension of disbelief, this is magic we're talking about. Nobody says that the duration of magic has to exist in terms of scientific units and has to be a constant fixed duration. If anything, that hurts my suspension of disbelief. This is magic we're talking about, it's supposed to be more about storyline and feel than hard numbers. To me, it makes more sense that combat magic fades when there is no danger and has to be cast in combat than the current "My buff lasts exactly 54 seconds." crap we have now. It's pretty easy to redefine flavor. Lets face it, it's magic, it can work however we want it to work.

[AlphaNerd]

Were this a computer game, that might be an issue, but this is a game with a human DM who can obviously curtail people trying to cheese the system by a clumsy and obvious exploit like that. Besides, even combat transitions could be difficult to exploit. If for instance you buffed up in one combat and teleport, then you'd effectively end that combat and start a new one.

You could also solve that problem by having Summon spells be a "1 combat" duration too, (they're 1 round/level like buffs anyway).

Summon spells aren't the only problem. You could find a goblin, or if you are hard pressed, a small child.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe the bloody problem is bloody teleport?? Just give everyone word of recall, and be done with it. And set up some teleportation rings to travel long distances between friendly areas or something. I mean, we're already talking about getting rid of sacred cows -- why not pull down the golden idol as well?

(offtopic)
If we're talking about infinite casting, then we can either put buffs on the list or not. How about we cut out the middle man and eliminate buffs as something that is done by magic? Why not simply hand out enhancement bonuses to stat as a class ability, resistance bonuses, divine bonuses, etc., and let them stack with each other, but not with items (or change the cost of items). That would be more satisfying to me, for a variety of reasons -- heck fighters could make all the swords and shields and armor they pick up magical too while we're at it. That would put magic items back into the realm of "magic" and "neat", and out of the realm of "but I need it to feel not-small in the pants" or "commodity", both of which aren't good, IMO.

[RandomCasualty]

1163437610[/unixtime]]
Summon spells aren't the only problem. You could find a goblin, or if you are hard pressed, a small child.

well, again, the DM can just use the "uhhh.... no" method to control this sort of clearcut abuse of the system. We do have a human DM and it's fine to just let him regulate this sort of thing. You just need to say that you can't create artificial battles solely to buff.

And besides, as soon as you teleport, the combat is over and your buffs go away.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe the bloody problem is bloody teleport?? Just give everyone word of recall, and be done with it. And set up some teleportation rings to travel long distances between friendly areas or something. I mean, we're already talking about getting rid of sacred cows -- why not pull down the golden idol as well?

yeah, well nerfing teleport is certainly a good thing, but it doesn't solve all the problems.

If we're talking about infinite casting, then we can either put buffs on the list or not. How about we cut out the middle man and eliminate buffs as something that is done by magic? Why not simply hand out enhancement bonuses to stat as a class ability, resistance bonuses, divine bonuses, etc., and let them stack with each other, but not with items (or change the cost of items). That would be more satisfying to me, for a variety of reasons -- heck fighters could make all the swords and shields and armor they pick up magical too while we're at it. That would put magic items back into the realm of "magic" and "neat", and out of the realm of "but I need it to feel not-small in the pants" or "commodity", both of which aren't good, IMO.

Well it's not a bad idea, but I don't really want to get into rewriting the entire rules from the ground up and that change would be very invasive. I'd like to have a character class (or set of classes as the case may be), that is playable out of the box without changing a lot of other rules. It's okay to simply eliminate spells by not putting them on the character's list, but I don't want to get into rewriting spells and the entire game unless the change is something simple like "all 1 round/level spells go away at the end of combat and can only be cast during combat."

[AlphaNerd]

1163440650[/unixtime]]
well, again, the DM can just use the "uhhh.... no" method to control this sort of clearcut abuse of the system. We do have a human DM and it's fine to just let him regulate this sort of thing. You just need to say that you can't create artificial battles solely to buff.

And besides, as soon as you teleport, the combat is over and your buffs go away.

Verily.

Well it's not a bad idea, but I don't really want to get into rewriting the entire rules from the ground up and that change would be very invasive. I'd like to have a character class (or set of classes as the case may be), that is playable out of the box without changing a lot of other rules. It's okay to simply eliminate spells by not putting them on the character's list, but I don't want to get into rewriting spells and the entire game unless the change is something simple like "all 1 round/level spells go away at the end of combat and can only be cast during combat."

It shouldn't be too hard to ad-hoc:

Resistance increase by +1 every 4 levels
Stats are arranged in primary/secondary/tertiary/etc.
Primary get +2 at 4,8,12
Secondary gets +2 at 5,9,13
Tertiary gets +2 at 6,10,14
Quaternary gets +2 at 7, 15
Pentenary gets +2 at 8, 16
Hexenary gets +2 at 9,18

Then, all you need to do is add in another table for armor/weapons/competence items, and you're set. These are probably class dependent, but might go something like:
Fighter/Barbarian +1/2 levels
Rogue/Ranger/Paladin/Bard/Monk* +1/3 levels
Cleric/Mage/Sorceror + 1/4 levels
* Applies to his monk attacks as well

Maybe have a similarish table for armor. Easy to fake, hard to balance, but you can always go straight to the gold/level table and balance from there (if you think it is balanced).

Enhancement bonuses can be traded for bonus abilities, whenever you gain a new bonus, but not the other way around. Let the two weapon fighting feat give you a different set of abilities for your "offhand weapon", but only your offhand.

Give out some "skill bonus" special abilities as well, that grant +level/2 or +level something every few levels. Rogue maybe +1/4 levels, everyone else +1/6 levels or so?

This probably frontloads treasure equivalancy some, but it could certainly be adjusted as need be.

[PhoneLobster]

Look I'm a big fan of durations like "A Combat" or even "The Next Combat" or EVEN "Something like the next combat, maybe even a the one after if they are pretty soon and rather close together".

Fuzzying up those there durations to make for less accounting and ensuring that key powers that no one really wants to see drop out mid combat don't. (or in the case of mose level 1 D&D shorter durations like ONE ROUND after casting).

But the whole point of doing something like that is that you are realizing that arbitrary time periods like "a combat" just can't really be used as a strict formal restriction, and certainly not a cost or limitation.

You can't just say game time is basically meaningless and arbitrary so your powers always last just long enough to be fun AND say that on the other hand the players ability to activate powers have strict time limitations and costs that rely entirely on the GMs arbitration of this meaningless and arbitrary element called game time.

Thats just like putting a big "You only get to use this power when the GM wants you to" label on everything with a combat duration.

[User3]

1163417717[/unixtime]]
As far as suspension of disbelief, this is magic we're talking about. Nobody says that the duration of magic has to exist in terms of scientific units and has to be a constant fixed duration. If anything, that hurts my suspension of disbelief. This is magic we're talking about, it's supposed to be more about storyline and feel than hard numbers. To me, it makes more sense that combat magic fades when there is no danger and has to be cast in combat than the current "My buff lasts exactly 54 seconds." crap we have now. It's pretty easy to redefine flavor. Lets face it, it's magic, it can work however we want it to work.

"One Combat" is a completely arbitrary measure, as Phonelobster says. In D&D it's defined by 'as long as I'm rolling for initiative every round.' This is not a good basis as far as balance or realism.

What makes sense is not 'my buff lasts 64 seconds,' or 'my buff lasts until I decide to stop measuring time in rounds,' but 'my buff lasts until I stop continuously expending energy to keep it up.'
Thiss is a system which works with prebuffing, works with in-combat buffing, and works with basically any other low-plot changing ability.

[Fwib]

If you define teleporting as ending combat, then the problem just gets delayed until the players get Gate.

[RandomCasualty]

1163451727[/unixtime]]
But the whole point of doing something like that is that you are realizing that arbitrary time periods like "a combat" just can't really be used as a strict formal restriction, and certainly not a cost or limitation.

....

Thats just like putting a big "You only get to use this power when the GM wants you to" label on everything with a combat duration.

Well, really, 1 round/level isn't really a good cost or limitation for the most part. Not when you can teleport or otherwise prebuff. Combat duration, if done right, stops that.

As far as being arbitrary, I mean, I think we all know what combat duration means... You have to use a combat action to cast it, and it wears off as soon as you end combat or start a new combat. It isn't really an adjudication problem unless PCs deliberately try to abuse it, in which case, well they're trying to abuse it, so it's ok for the DM to just tell the guy to stop being a tool.

While it's hard to explicitly state what combat duration is, it is a self-evident concept in the game when you're playing it. You know when people are trying to abuse it and you know what it's supposed to do.

With a few examples it'd be easy to get DMs and PCs on the same page. It basically says "As long as they're in the same encounter, keep the spell up." along with the provision that "attempts to prebuff automatically fail, and attempts to prolong buffs beyond that encounter into multiple encounters also fail."

Really, that's all you need, and you can let the DM adjudicate from there.

What makes sense is not 'my buff lasts 64 seconds,' or 'my buff lasts until I decide to stop measuring time in rounds,' but 'my buff lasts until I stop continuously expending energy to keep it up.'
Thiss is a system which works with prebuffing, works with in-combat buffing, and works with basically any other low-plot changing ability.

Surprisingly, bufsf which last as long as you keep paying energy aren't always great either, unless they exclusively prevent you from having others up at the time. If you are capable of blowing your wad and having tons of buffs up at once, that's bad for the game and encourages scry and die.

Really, I think combat duration is the best way of handling and balancing buffs. It feels arbitrary, but balance wise, it works.

[PhoneLobster]

As far as being arbitrary, I mean, I think we all know what combat duration means...

I for one don't know what a combat duration means.

Its a term I use in game play but I don't know what it means.

Which is OK because I try to use it such a way that it isn't really important, I'm not trying to hang a magical pixie scry and die fix off it like its a foundation of solid steel.

It isn't really an adjudication problem unless PCs deliberately try to abuse it, in which case, well they're trying to abuse it, so it's ok for the DM to just tell the guy to stop being a tool.

I call big BIG BIG bull crap on that line. In the very next bit of text you say...

While it's hard to explicitly state what combat duration is...

Thats right its hard to state because you, like me, don't know what it is. Niether do the players therefore there WILL be adjudication problems if you try and use it as a firm limitation.

Here are a "few examples" where trying to use this thing as a limitation is far from magically self explanitory.

I sneak up on a guy. I perform a combat action, but its not an attack, he doesn't know, is it combat? How do people know its combat yet anyway? Does some guy go around announcing it, is it a magical sense everyone has? Ooh, my I think I'm in combat, that guy just over there who I can't see or hear who hasn't performed a direct attack action against me TOTALLY is combatting me...

We fight a bunch of guys. Another bunch come in while we are still looting the warm corpses. Is it a new combat or the same combat? If we had let the halfling keep wrestling the enemy midget for half an hour like he wanted to (for entirely non abusive if annoying reasons) would all our buffs still be up or not? If the reinforcements had arrived 30 seconds earlier would the combat have gone half an hour longer while we fight them but now doesn't because their was a brief 5 second gap before their arrival?

We see some guys, like WAY over there. Its a long way a way but we hate each other very much. We start charging toward each other. Is it combat? If not EXACTLY when does combat begin? What if only ONE lot of us saw the other? What if NIETHER of us saw each other? What if we saw each other but at one point during the mad charge to meet each other sight is briefly occluded between us does combat end and restart?

Does combat only begin once someone gets hit? What if everyone misses first round? What if everyone doesn't attack first round? If only some characters attack and others don't do the others count as experiencing the same combat duration? Do they count as experiencing ANY combat duration?

If you outnumber the enemy do the combat durations of anyone not attacked expire? What about the combat durations of those participating but not even threatened? What if you aren't currently threatened OR participating but MIGHT be later on in what may or may not be classified as the same fight?

If no one brings a gun to the knife fight does that mean combat starts closer/later than it would if someone had ranged weapons? If only one side has ranged weapons does combat begin when they shoot or when we stab them? If they use their superior range to use shoot and run then set up to do it again are they performing multiple combats or just one?

If someone's combat action ever so briefly prevents their opponents from executing a combat action of any kind, like say briefly slamming a door closed in the face of the guy you were fighting does combat end until he opens the door and then restarts or is it the same combat all along while everyone performs non combat actions for a while? Or are there combat action versions of all non combat actions that you can use during combat without voiding the combat duration but which you can't just use unless it is combat already? Which actions were which? How can you tell? Can someone end the combat duration by saying "look over there a UFO" and making everyone do a spot check?

...

I'm pretty sure someones gone over similar ground to this with you before but seriously I for one don't firmly know how long combat is, when it starts or even what it is. If you introduce it to your game as a term then you are making the game MORE vague and less restrictive NOT adding a hard intuitive or definite restriction that solves anything, let alone the problems it itself creates.

[shau]

You could find a goblin, or if you are hard pressed, a small child.

Sounds like a game I would like to be in...

DM: What's this last item on your character sheet?

Player: A baby.

DM: A what?

Player: A baby.

DM: So your roleplaying a father or something?

Player: No, nothing like that. I just use it so all of my buff spells last forever.

Dm: Come again.

Player: Well, my buffs last until combat ends. I figure I am still in combat so long as something can see me and wants to kill me. So I keep a baby with me and slap him every thirty seconds or so. He wants to fight me because of that (of course he can't do anything cause he's a baby) and so combat never ends.

DM:

[User3]

1163457492[/unixtime]]
Surprisingly, bufsf which last as long as you keep paying energy aren't always great either, unless they exclusively prevent you from having others up at the time. If you are capable of blowing your wad and having tons of buffs up at once, that's bad for the game and encourages scry and die.

If you're capable of 'blowing your wad' and having tons of buffs up at once, it's because the game is set up to let you do lots of things at once and because you've 'blown your wad' of buffs. Which will mean that when it comes to attacks, you're 'shooting blanks.'

That's only assuming that you use a shared energy pool for all abilities. If you have a seperate pool for buffs, you can't run into that 'problem.'
For example, if a character has a 'mana pool' (buffs only) of 4, he can continue to maintain 4 buffs (or maybe one realy strong buff) every round. It isn't even possible for him 'blow his wad.' If he wants to add a new buff, he drops one and casts another. Assuming you don't want everyone walking around with crazy auras all the time, you can do something really simple like 'spot and listen checks are a buff.'

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Well, my buffs last until combat ends. I figure I am still in combat so long as something can see me and wants to kill me. So I keep a baby with me and slap him every thirty seconds or so. He wants to fight me because of that (of course he can't do anything cause he's a baby) and so combat never ends.

I, too, hate the idea of an "encounter" being used as a measure of time. Like Frank's case in the past, just because I carry around a blindfolded monkey does not mean that every encounter should start with a surprise round. In the same vein, just because I'm willing to beat the hell out of a party member does not mean I should be able to regain all of my "combat only" abilities.

There's no good way to adjudicate that, unless one goes with a recent Sage Advice column wherein it was posited that "for the remainder of the encounter" meant that, yes, you could use it out of combat but that means it's unaviable in the next combat.

Of course, that also means if I just stamp on the barbarian's foot, I've entered combat… and that's stupid.

[erik]

1163417717[/unixtime]]
If for instance you buffed up in one combat and teleport, then you'd effectively end that combat and start a new one.

Incorrect, just teleport your enemy from your buffing combat with you.

And it doesn't have to be teleport, it can be just outside the room of the big bad guy.

And it doesn't have to be a summoned creature, you can spar with your allies and teleport with them.

If you end all encounters with teleport, then that makes things really weird and stupid since the ultimate debuff is to teleport your enemy.

Combat encounters are not usable durations, even with teleport out of the equation.

[RandomCasualty]

1163468884[/unixtime]]
I sneak up on a guy. I perform a combat action, but its not an attack, he doesn't know, is it combat? How do people know its combat yet anyway? Does some guy go around announcing it, is it a magical sense everyone has? Ooh, my I think I'm in combat, that guy just over there who I can't see or hear who hasn't performed a direct attack action against me TOTALLY is combatting me...

Did you roll initiative? Are you in the surprise round or a combat round. If so, then it's combat. If not, then it's not combat.

As far as when combat begins it can be said that your character knows that somehow. Is it a magical sense? Yeah maybe in the same regard that all creatures space themselves in 5 feet increments in battle as a magical sense, they just seem to know how much game space they take up and act accordingly. In much the same way that people know the difference between AC and DR when both can represent hardened armor with a description of "your attack didn't seem to penetrate his defenses", one requires you to hit harder, the other requires you to hit more accurately, yet somehow characters just know.

If that doens't especially bother you, I don't see how combat duration should.

We fight a bunch of guys. Another bunch come in while we are still looting the warm corpses. Is it a new combat or the same combat?

New combat. All the old combatants are dead and you've started a new encounter.

If we had let the halfling keep wrestling the enemy midget for half an hour like he wanted to (for entirely non abusive if annoying reasons) would all our buffs still be up or not?

I can't think of a reason you'd do that that isn't abusive. Eventually you're going to tie him down or he's going to stop struggling and combat will end.

If the reinforcements had arrived 30 seconds earlier would the combat have gone half an hour longer while we fight them but now doesn't because their was a brief 5 second gap before their arrival?

Yeah, could be. As was stated, time in this case is no longer measured in scientific units, but rather in plot units. So the actual number of seconds that happens between events is no longer relevant for combat durations.

We see some guys, like WAY over there. Its a long way a way but we hate each other very much. We start charging toward each other. Is it combat? If not EXACTLY when does combat begin? What if only ONE lot of us saw the other?

Yes, it'd be combat assuming both sides were in initiative. If one side is aware, then it behaves much like a surprise round. Whenever you're acting in rounds, then you're in combat effectively.

What if NIETHER of us saw each other?

Then why are you casting buffs? We don't even care about this one, because it's irrelevant.

What if we saw each other but at one point during the mad charge to meet each other sight is briefly occluded between us does combat end and restart?

No, not if the same scene is still going on. You can briefly lose sight of someone and it will still be considered the same encounter.

Does combat only begin once someone gets hit? What if everyone misses first round? What if everyone doesn't attack first round?

Nothing to do with attack rolls or attacks. It's simply whenever the DM decides to move into initiative mode. If the break in the action is sufficient that you're no longer acting in sequential rounds, it's generally safe to assume an encounter has ended.

If you outnumber the enemy do the combat durations of anyone not attacked expire? What about the combat durations of those participating but not even threatened? What if you aren't currently threatened OR participating but MIGHT be later on in what may or may not be classified as the same fight? If no one brings a gun to the knife fight does that mean combat starts closer/later than it would if someone had ranged weapons? If only one side has ranged weapons does combat begin when they shoot or when we stab them? If they use their superior range to use shoot and run then set up to do it again are they performing multiple combats or just one?

All irrelevant. If you're acting in rounds, even if you're just delaying or moving, you're in combat. It's really that simple.

Effectively as guidelines. Combat begins when:

-You roll initiative.

Combat ends when:

-You move out of describing actions on a round by round basis and go back to freeform adventuring mode.
-You begin a new encounter (by teleporting into a new room or something similar).

Does it require a degree of DM adjudication? Sure. Is it difficult and prone to cause arguments? Not really.

If you can answer the basic questions of "has a new encounter begun?" and "Are we still acting in rounds?" Then you can handle most situations. Besides that you just throw in the general DM guidelines of not allowing the PCs to abuse the rules deliberately. And lets face it, if PCs are slapping babies or attacking each other to try to keep buffs up, then we know what they're doing.

[RandomCasualty]

1163509853[/unixtime]]
Incorrect, just teleport your enemy from your buffing combat with you.

And it doesn't have to be teleport, it can be just outside the room of the big bad guy.

And it doesn't have to be a summoned creature, you can spar with your allies and teleport with them.

Again, this ain't a computer game. You know these tricks are all about abusing the system, and so does the DM, so he just says no and you move on.

This is exactly why we don't wnat to write extremely rigid codified rules defining the start and end of an encounter. Phonelobster and the rest of you are probably right that it can't be done. So why bother doing it? This isn't a computer game, and a DM can rather easily make a ruling given some basic examples. I really didn't have any trouble whatsoever with PhoneLobster's various examples, and I doubt any reasonable DM would either with a few basic guidelines.

If you end all encounters with teleport, then that makes things really weird and stupid since the ultimate debuff is to teleport your enemy.

Well not all teleportation ends buffs, just teleportation that ends the encounter. Dimension door out of a forcecage doesn't end your buffs. You're still in round by round structure.

I, too, hate the idea of an "encounter" being used as a measure of time. Like Frank's case in the past, just because I carry around a blindfolded monkey does not mean that every encounter should start with a surprise round. In the same vein, just because I'm willing to beat the hell out of a party member does not mean I should be able to regain all of my "combat only" abilities.

Well in this case, people won't be regaining any abilities, so starting artificial combats won't do them any good.

[RandomCasualty]

1163492437[/unixtime]]
If you're capable of 'blowing your wad' and having tons of buffs up at once, it's because the game is set up to let you do lots of things at once and because you've 'blown your wad' of buffs. Which will mean that when it comes to attacks, you're 'shooting blanks.'

That's only assuming that you use a shared energy pool for all abilities. If you have a seperate pool for buffs, you can't run into that 'problem.'
For example, if a character has a 'mana pool' (buffs only) of 4, he can continue to maintain 4 buffs (or maybe one realy strong buff) every round. It isn't even possible for him 'blow his wad.' If he wants to add a new buff, he drops one and casts another. Assuming you don't want everyone walking around with crazy auras all the time, you can do something really simple like 'spot and listen checks are a buff.'

Well, the thing is that it would require that buffs as a whole be weakened, having 2-3 round/level buffs on all the time is a real big deal. Divine power, spikes and righteous might for instance is going to really shake things up power wise. Whereas having bull's strength on all the time won't make anyone care. So buff points aren't the greatest idea.

The basic idea of a buff is that you burn an action in combat to gain bonuses in later actions. That can actually work if done right. It's very difficult to actually "code" with clearcut literally interpreted rules, but not that hard to play with if you assume a human is at the controls. So long as the DM isn't out to be a jerk and the PCs aren't going to be rules abusing tards then everything will work out rather simply.

[User3]

Thing is, writing anything that assumes that is a badly written mechanic, no matter how elegant the idea. You should never rely on the players or DM's not to abuse things on a code of "honor"

[RandomCasualty]

1163529516[/unixtime]]Thing is, writing anything that assumes that is a badly written mechanic, no matter how elegant the idea. You should never rely on the players or DM's not to abuse things on a code of "honor"

Well, I dont' know about that. The DM is already on a code of honor system. He could easily kill off the party at his whim, but he doesn't since his goal is more oriented towards people having fun rather than winning. It's not an unreasonable request to ask your PCs not to cheese out the game.

This isn't telling them not to min/max, but it is saying not to deliberately try to exploit the system in a metagame fashion. And that's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

But regardless, whether the PCs try to cheese the system or not doesn't matter much, since ultimately the DM is expected to veto it if they do. And nobody should really get upset with that.

The game balance paradigm is:

-Casting a buff requires a combat action in any given combat, thus any attempt to get the buff wtihout spending a combat action won't work.

I'm not sure why it's unreasonable for the DM to just enforce that. I mean, it's expected that the DM just outright tell the PCs what the balance paradigm is. If they try to abuse it, they can expect their cheese will get shut down, the same way you can expect your cheese to get shot down if you try to create a planar binding loop or infinite wealth trick.

In fact, just writing a direct guideline telling the DM what tactic not to allow is a lot safer than the current system of rules because it prevents people from finding cute ways to get around rules based on bad wording. You really don't know what the next supplement of WotC will bring, you're not sure if they'll write something new that you hadn't planned for, but a guideline saying specifically what you can't do protects you from all that. Often times the easiest and most effective way to prevent rules abuse is to simply instruct the DM not to allow it. Then you're covered.

[Tokorona]

Because you cannot guarantee the DM is good and the players aren't - for example, if the DM is bad but the players know the rules the DM will overrule them if it's not a outright rule.

It simply does not work to depend on the DM. Ever. THe rules should run so that hte DM can know nothing - he doesn't have to use common sense. And your system isn't D&D because you want to do that - it's some other system entirely.

[RandomCasualty]

1163553951[/unixtime]]Because you cannot guarantee the DM is good and the players aren't - for example, if the DM is bad but the players know the rules the DM will overrule them if it's not a outright rule.

If the DM is bad... well then the game sucks anyway. Contingencies against bad DMing are much like trying to teach a blind man what to do if he ever finds himself driving a car. There just isn't any magic wand that's gonna make a game with a crap DM any good.

DM sucks, game is frelled anyway.

It simply does not work to depend on the DM. Ever. THe rules should run so that hte DM can know nothing - he doesn't have to use common sense. And your system isn't D&D because you want to do that - it's some other system entirely.

Doesn't work to depend on the DM? DM who knows nothing? I'm not talking about D&D you say? I don't think you're describing any RPG system anywhere.

The majority of the responsibility of the game falls upon the DM, he has to know what he's doing. There's no way around that.

[power_word_wedgie]

The thing is that the evaluation of the rules on the requirements of GM "competance", though is accurate, is a little subjective.

For example, my whole response to the ,"Well, 1st level spells never get exhausted sp they should be unlimited" argument is basically this: if that is the case, then the DM in your group is not pushing your group enough in challenge level of encounters. If you really think 1st level spells are irrelevant for an 11th level caster, then I truly believe that the DMs in your group is shorting yourself out of the experience of pushing your character to the limit. Ok, now with that said, it falls back to only one fact: it's completely subjective.

Now, with the "DM/other players are just right for making the rules right for your group", frankly you're looking at the wrong edition to play - just play B/X. It has the most stripped-down of rules allowing the DM and other players just to make up/modify rules to allow a balance DM/group to play.

[User3]

On 1st level spells being irrelevant.

Expected Damage of Magic Missile at 9th level: 17.5

Expected Damage of a Fireball at *10th* level: 35
With successful save (likely): 17.5

So our first level spell competes with the fireball for damage.

Pros Fireball: AoE (usually a disadvantage, stupid party)
Cons Fireball: Targets limited by clumping and number of available targets, elemental damage (susceptible to resists)

Pros MM: Can target one creature only, hits incorporeal and ethereal with no miss chance, untyped magic damage (force)
Cons MM: ... Nope, can't think of any.

And we haven't even started talking about the good stuff, like grease or colorspray yet. Cast grease all day long? Hell yeah. I can't imagine a 1st level spell list that anyone would care about which wouldn't have something that infinite castings per day wouldn't be a serious power increase.

I get a lot of mileage out of my first level spells. Even if i'm intentionally gimping myself by playing a sorceror. (In my standard Core only sorceror build, Magic Missile is the only primarily damage-dealing spell i ever take).

[PhoneLobster]

Did you roll initiative? Are you in the surprise round or a combat round. If so, then it's combat. If not, then it's not combat.

Did we roll iniative? Who knows? I'll ask the question players WILL ask you, "Why does it matter?"

When does surprise end if nothing you do alerts the surprised characters to your presence? Or does everything you do ALWAYS alert them? In that case how can you actually surprise anyone at all in the first place?

But ultimately your explanations are all purely arbitrary, you give responses to my examples willy nilly, there is a simple way to display that, again by asking you the questions your players will when you pull this little stunt on them.

I can't think of a reason you'd do that that isn't abusive.

Why?

Eventually you're going to tie him down or he's going to stop struggling and combat will end.

Why?

So the actual number of seconds that happens between events is no longer relevant for combat durations.

Why?

Yes, it'd be combat assuming both sides were in initiative. If one side is aware, then it behaves much like a surprise round. Whenever you're acting in rounds, then you're in combat effectively.

Why?

Heck I'm going to go further than need be here and point out that again how the hell long can surprise last? Sight range is PRETTY DAMN HUGE. If this works then there are endless situations that give you all the buffs/whatever durations any the time you give a damn.

No, not if the same scene is still going on. You can briefly lose sight of someone and it will still be considered the same encounter.

Why?

If the break in the action is sufficient that you're no longer acting in sequential rounds, it's generally safe to assume an encounter has ended.

Why?

All irrelevant. If you're acting in rounds, even if you're just delaying or moving, you're in combat. It's really that simple.

Why?

In fact I'll add to that one an additional "What the Heck?". So the halfling decides to wrestle some midget, again, everyone else standing around is so clearly in the same combat duration from the midget wrestle that you think you can dismiss the whole thing with a "why thats a simple yes!", "Yes to what?", "Just Yes!"

Hell you dismissed the idea as an obviously impossible situation outside of abuse in the first bit but now you think its natural and intuitive? Players HATE double standard subjective wierdness like that.

Similarly you always carry around an archer even if you have NO ranged specialities because the added potential encounter range lets everyone else get their buffs up? Everyone learns to fly so they can all buff up while flying around out of reach of the troll before they go konk it on the head some time after round three or four? Alternately even if everyone CAN fly over the troll they send someone down to wrestle him so they can all get their buffs up first?

I repeat. "What the heck?"

Effectively as guidelines. Combat begins when:

-You roll initiative.

Sounds simple. Let me try that out.

Me as player: "When does combat begin?"

Me as RC style GM: "When you roll initiative."

Me as player: "When do you roll initiative?"

Me as RC style GM: "When combat begins."

I see a problem there.

Combat ends when:

-You move out of describing actions on a round by round basis and go back to freeform adventuring mode.
-You begin a new encounter (by teleporting into a new room or something similar).

But again when do you move out of round basis into "free form" basis? Why of course, when combat ends...

When do you begin a new encounter? Why of course after the old one ends...

Don't you see the problem here, there is no explanation, no rules, no hard or firm ground at all, just a vague sort of "when the GM feels like it". Your fix for duration effects is literally to create a rule which ultimately is little more than "you can't use them unless the GM lets you".

And lets face it, if PCs are slapping babies or attacking each other to try to keep buffs up, then we know what they're doing.

And lets face it, when the GM is encouraged to arbitrarily decide if combat ends and restarts or not every time you step through a doorway or stop to watch a midget fight then we know what he and the game designers are doing as well.

[RandomCasualty]

Now, with the "DM/other players are just right for making the rules right for your group", frankly you're looking at the wrong edition to play - just play B/X. It has the most stripped-down of rules allowing the DM and other players just to make up/modify rules to allow a balance DM/group to play.

Well, I'm not talking about some floating changing rules. I'm talking about setting up a new rule that everyone follows.

Adjudication wise, it's the same as managing a 1 minute/level spell. Keep in mind that how much time passes out of combat is entirely DM fiat too, since when you're not acting in rounds, the DM can effectively declare it takes you any amount of time he wants to do something. In fact, the combat limitation is probably easier to manage because in my opinion, it's more cut and dry than measuring out of combat time.

Ask any two DMs how much out of combat time they'd apply to spell durations for various events and you'll get a wide battery of answers. Ask them when they'd roll initiatve and declare combat over and the answers will most likely match up pretty well.

While a duration of 1 minute/level may sound more scientific, it's actually way more arbitrary than a straight combat duration. So once we accept that durations of 1 hour or 1 minute/level or 10 minutes/level are okay, then combat durations are only a minor degree of extra arbitration added.

1163584046[/unixtime]]On 1st level spells being irrelevant.

Not truly irrelevant, just not good enough that they need to be especially limited. Magic missiles become much like the warlock's Eldritch blast. You can cast em all day long and nobody cares. There's the sacred cow concept that wizards should be able to totally run out of juice and be able to effectively do nothing but fire a crossbow like a crappy fighter. THis may be okay for low level wizards, but high level wizards need to be able to get a bit more out of their combat actions than firing crossbows.

1163591417[/unixtime]]
Did we roll iniative? Who knows? I'll ask the question players WILL ask you, "Why does it matter?"

Because it signifies the start of combat and that's a prerequisite to casting the spell. Do players commonly ask you "why does it matter?" when you ask if they have a free hand to cast somatic spells?

When does surprise end if nothing you do alerts the surprised characters to your presence? Or does everything you do ALWAYS alert them? In that case how can you actually surprise anyone at all in the first place?

Surprise is whenever you get a free surprise round. By definition in the rules, when the surprise round ends, both sides can act normally. If it really bothers you, you can always say combat duration spells make some flash of light and noise that makes them obvious to anyone around and enemies become instantly aware.

Heck I'm going to go further than need be here and point out that again how the hell long can surprise last? Sight range is PRETTY DAMN HUGE. If this works then there are endless situations that give you all the buffs/whatever durations any the time you give a damn.

Sure, if you happen to be on a super open battlefield and get in an army style conflict, then yeah, you can start out prebuffed. That's just a consequence of the terrain and I'm okay with that. Spellcasters are much like artillery. You don't want to fight them on an open field.

Similarly you always carry around an archer even if you have NO ranged specialities because the added potential encounter range lets everyone else get their buffs up? Everyone learns to fly so they can all buff up while flying around out of reach of the troll before they go konk it on the head some time after round three or four? Alternately even if everyone CAN fly over the troll they send someone down to wrestle him so they can all get their buffs up first?

Not worried about that kind of stuff. If you can fly and the enemy can't reach you, then you could just as easily kill him with ranged weapons. So getting your buffs up isnt' even an abuse. If you get your buffs up then land to melee the creature, then you're actually worse off than if you just picked it off with your bow at zero risk. So that's not even an abuse. It is an issue with flight, but there are far worse issues with flight than using it to prebuff.

Sounds simple. Let me try that out.

Me as player: "When does combat begin?"

Me as RC style GM: "When you roll initiative."

Me as player: "When do you roll initiative?"

Me as RC style GM: "When combat begins."

I see a problem there.

Yeah, it is DM arbitrary, but the point is that we already rely on the DM to figure out when to roll init, so if we assume he can do that (and D&D rules do), then there's nothing wrong with attaching other effects to that event.

Don't you see the problem here, there is no explanation, no rules, no hard or firm ground at all, just a vague sort of "when the GM feels like it". Your fix for duration effects is literally to create a rule which ultimately is little more than "you can't use them unless the GM lets you".

Well, in a way all abilities are like that. Disable device is useless unless the DM places a trap in your path. Flight does no good if you're in tight crawlspaces for the entire quest. Lets not kid ourselves that the DM doesn't have an extroardinary amount of control over the game.

And yeah, these durations take a bit of DM adjudication, but nothing unreasonable at all. Basically as long as people are burning a combat action (one they could have used to fire a bow, swing a sword, etc.) to buff, then they get that buff against their enemies for that combat.

I mean, you're nitpicking minor points here. If your DM doens't know when to roll initiative, then he probably shouldn't even be behind the screen. I take it he doesn't run encoutners with tavernkeepers in rounds? Or does he.

And lets face it, when the GM is encouraged to arbitrarily decide if combat ends and restarts or not every time you step through a doorway or stop to watch a midget fight then we know what he and the game designers are doing as well.

Well heres the thing.

THE DM ALREADY DOES THAT.

As stated before, the DM determines when to roll initiative and when to move out of initiative. He already handles when combat starts and ends, so this is nothing different.

You're making a big deal out of nothing.

As I said before, if you want to get on a soapbox about unfair DM adjudication, deal with management of noncombat time. That's far more arbitrary and random than figuring out when combat starts and ends.