P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

For Guidance, Questions, or Concerns Relating to Server Rules and Forum Rules

Moderators: Moderator, Quality Control, Developer, DM

User avatar
Tsidkenu
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Terra Nullis

P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Tsidkenu »

Administrator wrote:PnP/Lore spells
Between players: Spells that do not exist in the game do not exist. Cantrips that do not affect another player are fine, but all other spells do not exist. (this is part of play what is on your sheet)
I am requesting a review of this rule. I should like the wording and spirit of the rule altered to the following:
PnP/Lore spells
Between players: Knowledge about PnP spells not in game can exist between players, dependent on a character's relevant Lore: Arcana score and to be RPed appropriately and not excessively, but actual access to the spells themselves does not exist unless granted by the direct involvement of a DM (in which case it is no longer just between players).

Cantrips that do not affect another player are an exception to this access rule, but all other spells can only be known about (RPed appropriately) and not accessed.
The rule in its original form implies that my Mystran cannot RP her character sheet of Lore: Arcana to simulate an expansive understanding of magic and spells, something I have ignored and will continue to ignore irregardless of the consequences, despite not necessarily having actual access to those aforementioned magics. I would prefer that the rule got reformed completely to be more RP friendly while still maintaining its intended purpose.
JCVD1
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by JCVD1 »

Unless my PnP brain is fried, Knowledge of Magic is call Spellcraft.
Knowledge Arcana: Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts); Although robots are constructs, Knowledge (arcana) cannot be used to identify robots or their abilities and weaknesses.
While :
Spellcraft:
Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.

Check
You can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized on the table below.
I'm not certain I understand what you want, though. You wish to be able to RP that Aeli knows about all spells, even those not existing in the game?

My problem with it, is that whenever you feel entitled to bring spells IG that are not, you may cause confusion with people going to your character for guidance, OOCLY so. The spells are not existing in our current setting, unless DM state so.The players won't need to be turned down and pester DMs for quick answers about something that's already clearly stated.

Also, It would take a list of spells that EVERYONE has access to. (the RP ones). Ao knows there are hundred of RP spells not IG and would require DM ruling on each. Even if you keep it between players, there is a chance of it affecting the others or RP overall, not always "positively so".

We have enough unclear lore between some classes and races, I don't think we need to add to the confusion :P
User avatar
Hoihe
Posts: 4711
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Hoihe »

I'm with Tsidkenu. I'd also like to expand on it to say "PnP spells, that provide no adventage to the character nor disadventage to another, at least in ways not already possible with game mechanics, are allowed."

By that, I mean stuff like people changing out of full armour without RP between clothing in public. People are already able to do it thanks to game mechanics, why not allow people who want to RP the effort, but still want to do it without RPing out 8 minutes of changing armour to say *casts a spell that seemingly changes their clothes*.

I've seen people change boots and even armour before a PvP confrontation without RPing about it, like, right before setting hostile. It wouldn't change anything allowing RP of such spells.

Or a personal spell I'd love is minor custom spells like "Raise the anchor", a modification of mage's hand cantrip that's stronger and specialized in raising anchors!
For life to be worth living, afterlife must retain individuality, personal identity and  memories without fail  - https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-elves-reta ... afterlife/
A character belongs only to their player, and only them. And only the player may decide what happens.
Boddynock
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:30 am

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Boddynock »

I'm on board for this (or at the very least for some very deliberate clarification), and I would also like to add that never in my history of playing here has this rule been enforced as written. Not ever, not once. Most players RP it as a sort of abstract knowledge of the existence of certain spells, and doing things that way has never created an issues so far as I am aware.

This is particularly troublesome when you consider that they only don't exists between players, but you can make DM requests to access them for certain purposes. So let's say access was granted for some sort of true reincarnation (as I understand it that is what Hoihe did this last time) so Hoihe knows in character that the magic exists, but now when another PC (Let's say Liam, for funsies) finds out ICLy about this most recent switch, Hoihe can't claim knowledge of the magic that did it, because between us players it legitimately cannot exist per the rules. So we are left with Hoihe in some odd state of being that no one can properly respond to because to us, without direct DM intercession, what happened to the PC is an impossibility.

Hoihe and I have even talked about this issue in PMs and tells and such, but the gist of it is this: Allowing Hoihe to make changes to the character regarding race and gender, at present, is not possible, and anyone with access to truesight should still see a male human, because we are required to use only, and even only have knowledge of, the spells we have mechanically available.

But Hoihe did get permission, as I understand it, to make these changes. So Hoihe did nothing wrong, but still has to suffer this confusion by anyone else attempting to follow the rules. Which at worst require us to see a male human and call Hoihe a liar, and at best require us to see the new Hoihe as insane, claiming memories that could not possibly be her own. Neither of those meet the intent of this scenario, as I understand it to be.

End result: mass confusion and possibly disgruntled players.
Liam the Golden
Illdraen, Guerilla Skirmisher of Sshamath
Guy "Knife-Ears" Masterson
Boddynock Namfoodle, Illusionist Extraordinaire! (temporary leave of absence, again)

"Liam the Golden, so I have heard,
Yet truly none can polish a...
" - Ameris Santraeger, 2016
User avatar
Tsidkenu
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Terra Nullis

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Tsidkenu »

JCVD1 wrote:Unless my PnP brain is fried, Knowledge of Magic is call Spellcraft.
I'd say there's a fair degree of overlap here. I tend to treat Spellcraft as dealing with the practical aspect of magic, like, casting spells and identifying cast spells, as well as other special functions (most practical in nature, like reading spells scrolls, identifying magical phenomena, etc). But would an unlearned sorcerer's Spellcraft talents let them know that Mordenkainen's Disjunction was developed by Oerthian mage Mordenkainen and brought to Toril from that alternate Prime unless someone had educated them thus? Lore: Arcana would deal with said history of magic and spells.
JCVD1 wrote:You wish to be able to RP that Aeli knows about all spells, even those not existing in the game?
Tsidkenu wrote:an expansive understanding of magic and spells.
Not 'all'. I don't RP a know-it-all and never have. But what I do feel Aeili should know, I RP that in spite of the above rule.
JCVD1 wrote:My problem with it, is that whenever you feel entitled to bring spells IG that are not, you may cause confusion with people going to your character for guidance, OOCLY so. The spells are not existing in our current setting, unless DM state so.The players won't need to be turned down and pester DMs for quick answers about something that's already clearly stated.
So the DMs being unbothered by player requests is more important than RPing my character's knowledge skills, a practical application of Play your Sheet?
JCVD1 wrote:Also, It would take a list of spells that EVERYONE has access to. (the RP ones). Ao knows there are hundred of RP spells not IG and would require DM ruling on each. Even if you keep it between players, there is a chance of it affecting the others or RP overall, not always "positively so".
No, it wouldn't. It seems you don't believe that players have the intellectual responsibility to be able to manage and regulate their own RP in a manner that avoids the premise of your point here? I have more trust in the playerbase's ability to be reasonable about such things.
JCVD1
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by JCVD1 »

I believe you mix skills and their effect.

Knowledge: History = for historical facts
Knowledge Arcana = Ancient misteries.
Spellcraft= Magic knowledge

They don't ask for you to have Knowledge Arcana to create and understand Epic spells. Creating, understanding identifying magic is all under spellcraft.

You might now want to hear it, but you are playing your new sheet wrong. I know "lore" was pretty vague when you created Aeli. But things changed.

To adress about "mordenkanen Etc" names:
In the Magic compendium, the Spells with "names" were renamed because the spells have been discovered in other planes of existance. Melf's acid arrow is called "Acid Arrow'.

I'd rather have DMs run plots and run small events instead of having to satisfy everyone's personal little RP quirks they want to be implented.
User avatar
TheLier
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:07 am

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by TheLier »

I would like to add, that those spells which are IG, should not be allowed to be used without the said toon having them. At least do not punish does players who do take them.

And this is even more problematic in the case of sorcerers. They should have a very few spells to acess to, if the DM takes that away, by letting them use PnP spells, without sacrifcing a spell pick (note, right now wizards have to do the same thing for RP spells), they are given an edge over those who do pick RP spells.

Personally, I think it would be good to make a difference between a wizard and a sorcerer in this case, so both classes will feel different.
Boddynock
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:30 am

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Boddynock »

There is some overlap, that is why a syngery bonus of +2 Spellcraft exists in PNP ifyou have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge Arcana, that being said the intricacies of what skill does what is hardly the focus of this thread, as you can simply replace the text Tsidkenu supplied with something like "dependent on a character's applicable magical knowledge" which encompasses class levels as well as skills.

Anyway, my biggest beef, even after reading these replies, remains the utter lack of continuity this rule forces upon us as players.

Spells don't exist one minute, then you get DM permission to use them, and they do. But any lingering effects or accounts of these usages of such spells become hogwash once the DM leaves. DM let you use wish to change your hair to bright green? Well now that he's gone you used dye, and since he isn't here to make the "wish" spell exist, you can;t even tell people you used wish because it is against the rules. Even if you did, we aren't allowed to believe you because the wish spell doesn't exist...until a DM is around...and then it does...for a little while...

It's just bad, all around bad, and Tsidkenu is 100% right that it needs to be looked at. Either spells exist all the time ( and we just can't cast them for some reason), or never, anything else is just bad bad bad.

And might I point out again that I have never (ever) seen this rule enforced as written, which implies everyone already knows it is ridiculous.
Liam the Golden
Illdraen, Guerilla Skirmisher of Sshamath
Guy "Knife-Ears" Masterson
Boddynock Namfoodle, Illusionist Extraordinaire! (temporary leave of absence, again)

"Liam the Golden, so I have heard,
Yet truly none can polish a...
" - Ameris Santraeger, 2016
User avatar
Tsidkenu
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Terra Nullis

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Tsidkenu »

JCVD1 wrote:I'd rather have DMs run plots and run small events instead of having to satisfy everyone's personal little RP quirks they want to be implented.
And pray tell, how does my suggestion take time away from them, besides the DM team having to open a ticket in their private forum, throw a few arguments for-and-against around, and then eventually post in this thread yea or nay, something they already do for every other kind of request?

DMs currently do not police anyone's IC knowledge insofar as it does not overtly betray the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. Asking for permission to roleplay the knowledge of spells that exist in that setting is not unfair, nor unreasonable, nor will it detract the DMs from what they already do in regards to this matter with all other players' permitted IC knowledge: nothing.

I am not asking for permission to RP the casting or use of Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting spells between players. That part of the rule remains untouched and shall remain for DM events, as it rightly should. I am asking for permission to RP knowledge about such spells simply because I honestly cannot see any way in which the request breaks or defies the campaign setting. In fact I believe the contrary, that it improves immersion into the setting because my Mystran can actually talk all about magic and not having to worry about that pointless RP-defeating noose being hung around her neck.

JCVD1, I would sincerely prefer it you did not make empty blanket statements, sweeping character judgements and just plain bad arguments to make it look like this discussion is a waste of the DMs time to review it for the mutual benefit of all spellcasting RPers.
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Steve »

My question would be: how did the Character come to learn of this magic, these spells?

If it was through a NPC, then the DM(s) would have to oversee the action of learning, the DCs, etc.

If it was through personal study, then wouldn't those books need to be available to all PCs? And are those great books of Magic actually IC?

I've been told this by HDMs—and probably said it myself once or twice—that D&D sourcebooks and the Wiki are not meant to be used like IC references and knowledge. If any one gets to use Sourcebook information directly for IC purposes, it IS the DMs.

So while I find it interesting to expand a Character's knowledge beyond the mechanics of what exists IG, I do see it as needing DM oversight, because...once a Character knows about something, who is going to stop with only the knowledge, and not wish to pursue the path of actually casting that spell?!

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
User avatar
Tsidkenu
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 12:04 am
Location: Terra Nullis

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Tsidkenu »

Steve wrote:once a Character knows about something, who is going to stop with only the knowledge, and not wish to pursue the path of actually casting that spell?!
And how is that any different to the current player request system that is already in place? RP is generated, DMs get involved to grant events & advance personal plots. It's no different to what is available now, except being able to do the research part without it being 'illegal' as it currently is. As far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference between knowing that the spell Wish exists, and then tracking down a copy for personal use. The current rule prohibits both unless you involve a DM for both. I wish to only have DMs involved in the second part.

And no, research books do not need to be 'publically available to all PCs'. Wizards can be secretive about their research, and (in Aeili's particular case) Mystran temples typically stash away their magical lore archives away from prying eyes.

Word of mouth is also a useful, if innacurate, source of information from other spellcasters. Given we have many powerful spellcasting NPCs on the server already (Halbazzer Drin, Thalantyr, Ulraunt, Tethtoril, among others), I can't see why knowledge of magic needs to be either terribly inaccessible, or terribly accessible.
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Steve »

The difference is in the parts of my first post you didn't reference.

But as you point out, any gain of Spell Lore/Knowledge would require DM assistance, else it is Players accessing Sourcebooks for IG, IC use...something I've been told is not appreciated not desire by DMs.

So at this point...we kinda need the DMs to jump in with a reasoning and a Ruling!! :lol:

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
Boddynock
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:30 am

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Boddynock »

Steve wrote:
I've been told this by HDMs—and probably said it myself once or twice—that D&D sourcebooks and the Wiki are not meant to be used like IC references and knowledge. If any one gets to use Sourcebook information directly for IC purposes, it IS the DMs.
Well that's just wrong. No other way to say it. All that extra lore and fluff and the details about lands and nations and all that is exactly what one uses to fill out a character history and background. So yes, if your character has the appropriate knowledge skills and intellect (and past experiences), the source books are precisely the reference one uses for in game knowledge. What you mean to say, probably, is that people should not have their characters role play as if they have encyclopedic knowledge of lore provided in source books. Which is fine, except with a high enough INT and Knowledge skills that would be exactly what they have, encyclopedic knowledge. But don't imply that PCs can't use lore from source books in an IC manner, because that is literally where all the lore is from (hence the name source book).

Where else would you get those details, anyway? The back of a cereal box?
Liam the Golden
Illdraen, Guerilla Skirmisher of Sshamath
Guy "Knife-Ears" Masterson
Boddynock Namfoodle, Illusionist Extraordinaire! (temporary leave of absence, again)

"Liam the Golden, so I have heard,
Yet truly none can polish a...
" - Ameris Santraeger, 2016
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Steve »

The point being, Boddynock, that whether it's 12 INT or 30 INT, PCs do not know what Players know.

DMs are PRECISELY moderators between PCs and Sourcebook information. Which, as Tsidkenu pointed out, most likely requires some NPC source to be known.

Now of course, PC 1 may have learned from NPC 1 something from Lore and now can tell it to PC 2 and thus knowledge is transferred. But should that knowledge—and in this case non-existing spells because of lacking mechanics OR DM approval—be considered Fact and Truth...most likely thought of as Yes cause...we Players know it exists OOC because we are all D&D Sourcebook Lore Nerds! 8-)

Look, there is no one who'd love to be able to know about or use so much Sourcebook information, than myself. But time and time again—and rightfully so—DMs have asked where my Toon acquired that info—since it might not exist mechanically IG.

I think the request in the OP opens up a very large can of worms, especially the one where and when DMs have to deny knowledge or requests of knowledge.

At the end of the day, the prerogative to change the paradigm lies with the current DM Staff. I'm sure they can access the foresight to see how this will effect RP, and then, decide if that is a future they wish to uphold.

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
Boddynock
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:30 am

Re: P&P/RP Spell Rule Review Request

Unread post by Boddynock »

Steve wrote:The point being, Boddynock, that whether it's 12 INT or 30 INT, PCs do not know what Players know.
Correct, with an INT of 30 they likely know a great great deal more than all of us.

That doesn't change the fact that the way things are worded now, it doesn't matter if the DM gave a PC knowledge of a spell that isn't in game, because as soon as that DM leaves that spells ceases to exist. IF you attempt to share knowledge of it, the only rule-appropriate response from another PC is to act like you are insane, talking about spells that have never been.

They either exist all the time, or none of the time. Anything else is asking for trouble. And before you say it, the only reason it hasn't led to trouble thus far is because everyone already ignores this rule... And the lack of trouble that has caused tells me that the rule has no purpose.
Liam the Golden
Illdraen, Guerilla Skirmisher of Sshamath
Guy "Knife-Ears" Masterson
Boddynock Namfoodle, Illusionist Extraordinaire! (temporary leave of absence, again)

"Liam the Golden, so I have heard,
Yet truly none can polish a...
" - Ameris Santraeger, 2016
Post Reply

Return to “Rules”