PREFACE

1) The purpose of this thread enumerating the design tools we have available in this situation, not analysis (or the bitching that passes for analysis here and elsewhere) of existing games and/or systems. I will include examples for illustrative purposes only. If you use my ideas either bitch about or defend an edition/class/whatever in my thread, I'll consider it off topic and most likely won't respond. I'm mostly interested in anything I missed, and whether one of my items or observations is invalid for some reason.

2) This thread presumes a certain goal (the party should be able to defeat the monster / NPC , or failing that escape/circumvent them) which is only circumstantially valid. In games where impossible to defeat foes are part of the genre or tone, or for monsters outside the range the party should be able to defeat, of course all this is useless.

3) If the thread is civil and generates interest you'll get more like it. I think the next one may either be a more ambitious post on certain aspects of the math of hp systems (covering DR, damage per round vs targets per round, optimal tactics in the default system, etc.) or a simple post on different methods for codifying similar things, and why you'd want to do it one way vs the other.

___________________________________________

INTRO

Without some way around them, certain spells or abilities can be problematic in the hands of NPCs or monsters. If you want to make it possible to defeat the NPCs or monsters, these spells or abilities may need weaknesses or methods for bypassing them. Before you mention solutions based on clever play, note that I'm counting such solutions within bounds of "weaknesses" or "methods for bypassing." For brevity's sake I'll be calling the problem spells or abilities "problems" and the weaknesses etc. "answers" from here on out.

For the purpose of this thread, I'll be using set examples of problem spells. You may not agree that all of these problems need answers, or you may see some that I failed to mention. But what you consider a problem spell is up to you and your design goals. These are only here as examples. For each spell and answer I'll try to give an example from D&D, my homebrew, or just some hypothetical implementation.

________________________________________________

SAMPLE PROBLEMS

Invisibility: In many games, invisibility prevents targeting and attacking among other things. It can also circumstantially be a near perfect means of escape (even when you find you can be targeted).

Flight: Likewise, flight is a near perfect defense against many (mostly melee) attacks before answers are built in. And because it allows access to inaccessible terrain it likewise aids escape and ambush tactics.

Teleportation: Another insanely useful defensive/ambush spell.

Regeneration: Combined with ambush tactics, regeneration becomes hugely powerful. It can prolong a fight virtually indefinitely used well.

Divination: A foe that can see far away somehow might make circumvention or escape difficult (if they are aggressive)

Walls: In groups with combat niches, splitting the party can negate niches that would be strong against the monster or NPC that makes use of walls. Offensive teleportation can be used similarly, but I've got too many examples already.

________________________________________________

SIX ANSWERS

The First Three: Build Answers Into the Party.

Let Them Keep Up: Sometimes, you can solve the problem by giving the party similar abilities.

>Invisibility: NA (though if both parties are undetectable combat doesn't happen)
>Flight: Works. Flight solves flight.
>Teleport: NA unless problem is sight range or party also has divination.
>Regeneration: NA. If it extends fights indefinitely, it'll be even more of a problem if both parties have it.
>Divination: NA. If it prevents escape or circumvention the problem will only be doubled if both parties have it.
>Walls: Ditto Divination.

Let Them Resist/Bypass It: Resist refers to allowing one character to ignore the effect.

>Invisibility: See invisibility.
>Flight: Superior range (solves defensive capacity only).
>Teleport: Divination and teleportation.
>Regeneration: Damage that ignores regeneration.
>Divination: (Some protective spell)
>Walls: Phasing through walls or some forms of teleportation.

Let Them Negate It: Negate refers to allowing a character to end or suppress the effect.

>I won't be doing examples here. It's mostly self-explanatory.

SPECIAL NOTES: In a game with strong niche protection, it is absolutely okay to give different classes different answers to the same problem. It's even okay if every class doesn't have an answer for every problem, especially if one class has Negate as an answer. The latter three answers are also useful if not everyone has one of the above three.

The Next Three: Build Answers Into the Problems.

Limit Casting And Duration: You probably need both for this to work. If a thing can cast a limited duration problem at will, it can still cast indefinitely and keep it active forever. If a thing can cast a permanent problem once, same problem. Also this works best on problems with duration, and that feel spell like (applying this to regeneration might feel weird for some). Instead of going spell by spell I'll be enumerating a few methods of application.

>Long Casting Time: Prevents casting in combat. Best paired with interruption or severely limited duration.
>Resource Management: Prevents indefinite casting. Best paired with interruption or limited duration.
>Interruption: Can happen during casting or after. A good example might be vanilla invisibility (where the interruption condition prevents its abuse in combat).
>Duration: We know how this works. Best if a problem doesn't last all day (unless there's also another answer in interruption or negation).

Limit Range, Area, Speed, Effect, Etc. Sometimes reducing something's range below infinite, its speed below horse, and so on might make a problem's utility more circumstantial and/or less ridiculous.

>Invisibility: Not a great answer here. Hypothetically you could reduce the speed of the invisible foe and the answer becomes as simple as walking away I guess.
>Flight: Levitation is less of a problem than proper flight.
>Teleport: Shortening the range can limit its ability to end fights.
>Regeneration: If you set the rate so a dedicated party can kill it before it flees, it's less of a problem.
>Divination: Again, short range can limit scry-and-die tactics.
>Walls: If they only block small areas that can reduce the problem.

Built In Bypass Sometimes its easiest to just put a hole in the perfect defense that anyone can exploit, allow a defense for the perfect attack, etc.

>Invisibility: Area effects bypass the targeting difficulty (okay it's not an everybody thing, but you get the idea) and just closing and watching doors can help with the escape bit and so on.
>Flight: Anyone with better range can hit a flying foe.
>Teleport: NA
>Regeneration: Fire
>Divination: Tinfoil hats, lead-lined walls, whatever.
>Walls: Wall of webs vulnerable to fire (an example).

SPECIAL NOTES: D&D makes heavy use of all of the above in characters (resource management, fixed durations, interruption, loopholes, and limits) and many of the problems stem from an absence of these balances. Personally, I strongly prefer these last three solutions when they work to the former three, but I'll use whatever works.

_________________________________

NON-ANSWERS (but I might chat about them if asked)

Synergy Busting: Some problems are only problems in concert with other problems. Huh? Example: Scry and die. Divination plus teleportation is more problem than one or the other. Another example: Regeneration and ambush tactics. Regeneration's not so bad if you get the number right, but if the monster can both escape indefinitely and keep putting pressure on the party, it can become more of a problem. I can get into ways to break synergies, but it's sort of outside the scope of the discussion.

Long Term Consequences: Great for PCs (who are persistent between sessions). Less so for NPCs/Monsters (who sometimes are not).

The Strikethrough: The easiest solution to something you don't like is to not allow it. This post is sort of based on the premise that you actually want to use the problem spell or ability but don't want it to overwhelm the party. The second that doesn't apply we're outside the scope of the discussion again.

_________________________________

If anything's not super clear feel free to ask. Thought of this a while ago and needed to get it out before it faded from my memory.

Personal Solutions:
Invisibility: All forms of invisibility merely allow a character to use their stealth when they otherwise wouldn't be able to (hide in plain sight essentially). The problem. This keeps invisibility from kicking stealth people in the pants (allowing people who didn't earn it to be stealthy) and allows it to be a good option without it being an outright necessity for stealth characters.

Flight: Make it dangerous. Falling hurts of course but it isn't as easy to trigger as most things. I treat flying a bit like climbing where getting hit can mess you up. Also make it not the go to option. Jumping, teleporting, ranged abilities, and climbing should all, in some way, be available so that players who don't have flight as an ability have other options.

Teleportation: Most characters are limited to short range teleportation and that is restricted by sight. Long range teleportation is limited to portals. So not only do you have to have been to the place before but you have to build a portal around it.What's more is portals are a bit more difficult to open. It costs some expenditure of resources or a "key" usually requiring a quest.

Regeneration: It takes a long time to regenerate in general (longer than a normal round of combat will give natural regen monsters/players. Regen doesn't prevent you from dying (Wolverine doesn't get to live 'cause of healing factor).

Divination: Divination isn't nearly as powerful, easy, or accurate as in DnD. Scrying at random on someone is impossible. At best Clairvoyance allows you to look at an area you know about,sight wards can be set in places you've been, but there are no person seeking spells that can just be used to find anyone anywhere at anytime. The lack of Long Distance TP prevents scry/die from being an option. In my game the actual Spell: Scry just allows you to see through someone else's POV and they have to be willing and in range for you to cast it on them. This makes spying still a thing you can do but takes a lot more work.

Walls:Walls that are just "created" are weaker than normal walls all the time, no exceptions. So bashing, teleporting past, phasing through, or maneuvering around them is always a possibility. Additionally created walls must always be maintained so losing line of effect or not spending actions to keep the wall means that the wall disappears. This allows spell disruption to also be an option in ridding oneself of random wall propping.

Invisibility actually comes with a host of imbedded restrictions and weaknesses. For one, the character will still leave physical evidence of their passing and location...footprints, noise, etc. Secondly, under most circumstances an invisible character cannot immediately make any substance they subsequently come into contact with invisible, and it's very likely they can remain spotlessly clean for any extended period. After only a few hours in most environments they will at the least have accumulated a layer of dust or dirt. An invisible character will find sleeping difficult , as they can see through their eyelids. And invisibility only affects one of an opponent's senses. animals and monsters who rely primarily on their sense of smell or hearing will have no problem targetting an invisible character.

Not keen on the whole approach.

You have a physical rules engine.

You have some effects that break those rule but do so in a reasonably classic fashion.

You are now trying to nerf the effect for gameplay reasons. that doesn't sit right to me.

Take invisibility. There are loads of invisibility options.
i) LotR - the person and all their stuff vanish. You still leave footprints and all that but the implication si you can still see your self. All your personal stuff you are wearing /carrying is invisible too.
ii) Harry Potter - cloak of invisibility. Just one example of the cloak option. whatever is covered in the cloak is invisible you do other stuff you show up
iii) The Invisible Man - take your kit off and you are invisible notign else is invisible.

Just pick an option. i is the toughest option iii is the weakest. Just pick one and all rules follow.
You don't need to give out special powers to nerf it it is what it is.

Now I would make invisibility in D&D have a much shorter duration or make it a concentration thing. You do something else and you need to make a wis check with modifiers based on difficultly.
I liek Rules that are rational rather than rules that yield a desired game effect. Now if ther eare a host of options I might then pick the one that has a set effect but i want simialr effects to work the same way.
So just pick an option

Quote from: jibbajibba;587952Not keen on the whole approach.

You have a physical rules engine.

I'm not proposing an alternative to that; I'm proposing a supplement to it.

Unless you're saying you don't design with who wins what fights when and how in mind. Assuming you do, and assuming you run into problems, this is an extremely broad strokes categorization of rules solutions.

QuoteYou are now trying to nerf the effect for gameplay reasons. that doesn't sit right to me.

I'm not arguing what needs nerfing, only how it can be done should the need arise.

QuoteTake invisibility. There are loads of invisibility options.
i) LotR - the person and all their stuff vanish. You still leave footprints and all that but the implication si you can still see your self. All your personal stuff you are wearing /carrying is invisible too.
ii) Harry Potter - cloak of invisibility. Just one example of the cloak option. whatever is covered in the cloak is invisible you do other stuff you show up
iii) The Invisible Man - take your kit off and you are invisible notign else is invisible.

i)Minimal limits, possibly limited effect.
ii) Limited effect, limited casting/duration (you can be separated from your cloak / the cloak can be removed)
iii) Limited effect

QuoteJust pick an option. i is the toughest option iii is the weakest. Just pick one and all rules follow.
You don't need to give out special powers to nerf it it is what it is.

These procedures are for *after* you've decided you've hit a snag. What you do most of the time is your business and beyond the scope of what I'm saying.

QuoteNow I would make invisibility in D&D have a much shorter duration or make it a concentration thing. You do something else and you need to make a wis check with modifiers based on difficultly.

Personally I love stuff like this, and like pairing long casting times with interruption. It fits the flavor I want for magic better than most resource management games.

QuoteI liek Rules that are rational rather than rules that yield a desired game effect. Now if ther eare a host of options I might then pick the one that has a set effect but i want simialr effects to work the same way.
So just pick an option

Feels a little false dichotomy unless I'm misunderstanding. In-setting rationales and game-logic rationales aren't mutually exclusive, even if you can have one without the other.

__________________

I'll respond more when I have the time. Late night at work, early day at school.

Quote from: beejazz;588026I'm not proposing an alternative to that; I'm proposing a supplement to it.

Unless you're saying you don't design with who wins what fights when and how in mind. Assuming you do, and assuming you run into problems, this is an extremely broad strokes categorization of rules solutions.


I'm not arguing what needs nerfing, only how it can be done should the need arise.


i)Minimal limits, possibly limited effect.
ii) Limited effect, limited casting/duration (you can be separated from your cloak / the cloak can be removed)
iii) Limited effect


These procedures are for *after* you've decided you've hit a snag. What you do most of the time is your business and beyond the scope of what I'm saying.


Personally I love stuff like this, and like pairing long casting times with interruption. It fits the flavor I want for magic better than most resource management games.


Feels a little false dichotomy unless I'm misunderstanding. In-setting rationales and game-logic rationales aren't mutually exclusive, even if you can have one without the other.

__________________

I'll respond more when I have the time. Late night at work, early day at school.

I guess I am saying design the magic system. Create its rules engine then just plump it down next to the physics rule engine that you built for everything else.

The interactions are just the interactions and shouldn't be nerfed for meta game reasons unless its particularly dire.

So flying.

If a spell gives you flight or wings give you flight or whatever then you can fly.

I am not going to give the party flying boots because they are fighting a host of angels just to even stuff up. Nor am I going to introduce flying enemies just because the party got lucky and found a flying carpet.

Yes have way of governing flying manuverability and speed if you like but not nerf it just to even things up in play.

That might not be the most consistent position though so maybe I'll give it some more thought

Quote from: jibbajibba;588052I guess I am saying design the magic system. Create its rules engine then just plump it down next to the physics rule engine that you built for everything else.

For enemies this isn't always good. There's a reason most D&D monsters aren't fully Vancian, and/or don't get as many spells/day as a wizard. Mainly that the Wizard depletes his spells over time and the monsters typically only show up once (I know there are exceptions). Also sometimes there are many many monsters and full Vancian might make tracking a chore.

QuoteSo flying.

If a spell gives you flight or wings give you flight or whatever then you can fly.

I am not going to give the party flying boots because they are fighting a host of angels just to even stuff up. Nor am I going to introduce flying enemies just because the party got lucky and found a flying carpet.

Yes have way of governing flying manuverability and speed if you like but not nerf it just to even things up in play.

I'm not saying that both or neither sides must have flying. If you need a solution you use the one that makes sense. In this case, you make sure ranged weapons can work (or what have you).

QuoteThat might not be the most consistent position though so maybe I'll give it some more thought

Just remember that this
a) is about cataloging / categorizing our options, not advising which to use.
b) presumes there is a problem (which there may not be).
c) isn't so much about the particulars, which I chose based on recent arguments about bone devils and pit fiends more than based on abilities I actually have a problem with.

EDIT: Also, sometimes the whole spell system runs on these solutions.

Example: Spells/day with fixed durations basically is #4 (limit casting and duration). Saves and interruption could be read as #6. And because most spells have fixed durations/ranges/effects, all spells occupy some point on the #5 spectrum.

Quote from: beejazz;588026Unless you're saying you don't design with who wins what fights when and how in mind. Assuming you do, and assuming you run into problems, this is an extremely broad strokes categorization of rules solutions.

Perhaps this is why problems like the ones discussed here never seem to be problems in my games -- I don't design fights nor care who fights who when or how. I put "monsters" in places where it seems like they should be without any knowledge of what party (no knowledge of composition or level or desires) will encounter them when or for what reason. How they behave when encountered is determined by their intelligence and abilities, random reaction rolls, and what the party does.

If the party can't win in a standup, fair fight, then they should be trying to avoid having to fight like that -- or perhaps trying to avoid having a hostile encounter at all. I'm not going to nerf perfectly good abilities like those listed here because they make straight up combat "uinfair" for a side without access to them when the other side does have access. Some like teleport and divination have never worked in my games in the reliable way they do in WOTC D&D, however.

Now that I've had my say, I'll shut up as this discussion really does not concern my style of play. I just wanted to post this to show why some just don't have these types of problems in their games.

Quote from: RandallS;588068Perhaps this is why problems like the ones discussed here never seem to be problems in my games -- I don't design fights nor care who fights who when or how. I put "monsters" in places where it seems like they should be without any knowledge of what party (no knowledge of composition or level or desires) will encounter them when or for what reason. How they behave when encountered is determined by their intelligence and abilities, random reaction rolls, and what the party does.

When you talk about placing monsters I'm assuming you're talking about prep. This isn't about prep. This is about design. As a rule of thumb, if you're making a (D&D style) game from scratch, you want monsters/foes of variable difficulty. Right? Hell, when you make a dungeon, having some fights too hard and others too easy is part of the appeal; the skill lies in the PCs picking their battles. Also problems might not just be about winning/losing. They can be problems that prevent the battle-picking.

So hypothetical situation: I've watched Death Note and I think a bad guy who can kill instantaneously at infinite range as many times a day as he wants is cool.

How does the party not get killed? Until there's some limitation, there is very little clever play will do to keep them alive (besides never ever ever pissing off this guy). For a lot of people, this does not a fun game make. The show itself has limitations on the targeting perameters: Kira needs to know the name and appearance of the target. L uses an alias and is therefore immune. It makes some sense in-setting (he needs to write the name down to kill someone so obviously he needs a name) and answers the question: "Why doesn't Kira just kill L?" allowing the whole premise of the show to actually work.

QuoteIf the party can't win in a standup, fair fight, then they should be trying to avoid having to fight like that -- or perhaps trying to avoid having a hostile encounter at all. I'm not going to nerf perfectly good abilities like those listed here because they make straight up combat "uinfair" for a side without access to them when the other side does have access. Some like teleport and divination have never worked in my games in the reliable way they do in WOTC D&D, however.

1) Scrying and teleportation aren't fight winners; their problem (when there is one) is that they make fleeing (or even circumvention) unnecessarily difficult.
2) In regeneration the problem (when there is one) is that the fight can drag on too damn long. If you're making a regenerating creature from scratch for a game you made from scratch, you're telling me you wouldn't consider a high likelihood of a hundred round combat a problem?
3) So you gave no thought to the gameplay effects of teleportation and invisibility, but nerfed them anyway?

QuoteNow that I've had my say, I'll shut up as this discussion really does not concern my style of play. I just wanted to post this to show why some just don't have these types of problems in their games.

Fair enough, this isn't about whether they do, it's about how to deal with them when they do.

Quote from: MGuy;587859Personal Solutions:
Invisibility: All forms of invisibility merely allow a character to use their stealth when they otherwise wouldn't be able to (hide in plain sight essentially). The problem. This keeps invisibility from kicking stealth people in the pants (allowing people who didn't earn it to be stealthy) and allows it to be a good option without it being an outright necessity for stealth characters.

Flight: Make it dangerous. Falling hurts of course but it isn't as easy to trigger as most things. I treat flying a bit like climbing where getting hit can mess you up. Also make it not the go to option. Jumping, teleporting, ranged abilities, and climbing should all, in some way, be available so that players who don't have flight as an ability have other options.

Teleportation: Most characters are limited to short range teleportation and that is restricted by sight. Long range teleportation is limited to portals. So not only do you have to have been to the place before but you have to build a portal around it.What's more is portals are a bit more difficult to open. It costs some expenditure of resources or a "key" usually requiring a quest.

Regeneration: It takes a long time to regenerate in general (longer than a normal round of combat will give natural regen monsters/players. Regen doesn't prevent you from dying (Wolverine doesn't get to live 'cause of healing factor).

Divination: Divination isn't nearly as powerful, easy, or accurate as in DnD. Scrying at random on someone is impossible. At best Clairvoyance allows you to look at an area you know about,sight wards can be set in places you've been, but there are no person seeking spells that can just be used to find anyone anywhere at anytime. The lack of Long Distance TP prevents scry/die from being an option. In my game the actual Spell: Scry just allows you to see through someone else's POV and they have to be willing and in range for you to cast it on them. This makes spying still a thing you can do but takes a lot more work.

Walls:Walls that are just "created" are weaker than normal walls all the time, no exceptions. So bashing, teleporting past, phasing through, or maneuvering around them is always a possibility. Additionally created walls must always be maintained so losing line of effect or not spending actions to keep the wall means that the wall disappears. This allows spell disruption to also be an option in ridding oneself of random wall propping.

Good stuff. I use the hell out of the idea that the caster has to maintain the spell for its duration in my system, as it offers a wealth of pretty intuitive in-world limiters.

Teleportation and divination are weird cases though. It's good to have cheap hopping and short scouting, but in fiction the infinite-range varieties are pretty iconic (more for divination than teleportation). I know that stems partly from the media being used and the convenience of these items (people being wherever they need to be, and exposition galore) but certain expectations have been set up.

Quote from: beejazz;588180Good stuff. I use the hell out of the idea that the caster has to maintain the spell for its duration in my system, as it offers a wealth of pretty intuitive in-world limiters.

Teleportation and divination are weird cases though. It's good to have cheap hopping and short scouting, but in fiction the infinite-range varieties are pretty iconic (more for divination than teleportation). I know that stems partly from the media being used and the convenience of these items (people being wherever they need to be, and exposition galore) but certain expectations have been set up.

Most of the time in media only the villain has long range scrying and teleportation options. Most of the time when protagonists DO have both their ability to use it is somehow always hindered more so than the villain's.