Forked Thread: Can Illusionary Pit be used on a flying creature?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Forked from: How to kill a blue dragon?

Definitely not my intention to mock those who think it is OK - I do apologise to anyone who has taken it that way.

However, I am surprised at how far some people are prepared to take the 'say yes' principle. I'm a very 'say yes' kind of guy except when I think people are attempting to bend the rules to their advantage. In earlier editions it was widely considered 'munchkin' behaviour.

In 3e there are numerous places where people are told they can theme their spells as they see fit (e.g. making magic missiles appear like flaming skulls - which made it strange that one supplement introduced spell theming feats, but that is by the by).

To me, it seems that there is a difference between theming a power so it looks somewhat different and fit a personal style, to allowing a power to appear dramatically different and have an effect on creatures which logically does not appear to be within the remit of that power.

I'm seeing a couple of very different styles emerging in the way I see people report playing of 4e. Some people (like me) seem to play it in a more (for the sake of a word) traditional form. Others seem to play it in a more free-form manner. I don't think either is right or wrong per se. However, some people will prefer one form and other people will prefer the other (and some don't mind which they play).

Does that make my position more transparent?

I've decided to fork this to a new thread since it is an interesting topic. The above quote came from a thread talking about ways to deal with a Blue Dragon that was flying high above the party and someone suggested using Illusionary Pit(the wizard level 1 daily that causes the target to become prone and immobilized from Dragon Magazine) in order to cause the dragon to fall from the sky. Plane Sailing suggested that if any player attempted to use a spell which created an illusionary pit to cause a dragon who was flying to fall would be laughed out of his game.

I've had the pleasure of sitting down with a couple of the people from R&D for a couple hour long talk about adventure design as well as talked individually with some of them at D&D XP and GenCon. I get the definite impression that the way that they intended the rules to work is quite fast and loose. The flavor text is purely that, flavor text. For instance, the way the Illusionary Pit spell should read is:

Make enemy fall down and be immobilized
Use an illusion to make the target prone and immobilized. Usually this is in the form of a pit or hole opening up below them but it can be any illusion that would cause this condition.

But the designers separated the game into two sections: Game mechanics and flavor. They give powers flavor text as a way of allowing people to visualize what their power is doing. However, the goal doesn't seem to be to restrict powers based on their flavor text.

Mostly because this causes a game balance issue, possibly arbitrarily. Any wizard that took a different daily spell would be able to affect the dragon, but the one who thought it would cool to be an illusionist is screwed. Also, if they had decided it was cooler to play a ranger, they'd have no trouble at all. The question is, where does it stop? Are all undead immune to all powers that use illusion since they don't have minds? Is it impossible to knock an ooze prone thereby making all those powers useless against it(which the FAQ already rules it IS possible to make an ooze prone, the DM is simply encouraged to reflavor the power so the ooze is knocked off-balance or put into some other situation that gives it a negative until it spends a move action to "stand up")?

I think this is pretty much the entire meaning of "the rules are not the physics of the gameworld". I'm just curious what people hope to gain by restricting powers based on their flavor text. I certainly wouldn't be very happy at all if a DM suddenly told me "Sorry, your powers simply don't work against this monster", might as well leave the table and wait until the rest of the players finish beating it.

 

[Bagpuss]

Flavour text is just that. In this case rather than a pit, the dragon might see a weighted cargo net fall from the sky and pin them to the ground, or some other illusionary effect.

 

[Lord Ernie]

I think this is pretty much the entire meaning of "the rules are not the physics of the gameworld". I'm just curious what people hope to gain by restricting powers based on their flavor text. I certainly wouldn't be very happy at all if a DM suddenly told me "Sorry, your powers simply don't work against this monster", might as well leave the table and wait until the rest of the players finish beating it.

This. Seriously, this is why rogues can now sneak attack basically anything, 100% resistances are very rare, and mind-affecting spells work on undead. Having your entire character concept rendered useless by a monster type or special ability is simply not fun or interesting, and making the game both these things is the primary job of the DM, IMO.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've had the pleasure of sitting down with a couple of the people from R&D for a couple hour long talk about adventure design as well as talked individually with some of them at D&D XP and GenCon. I get the definite impression that the way that they intended the rules to work is quite fast and loose. The flavor text is purely that, flavor text. For instance, the way the Illusionary Pit spell should read is:

Make enemy fall down and be immobilized
Use an illusion to make the target prone and immobilized. Usually this is in the form of a pit or hole opening up below them but it can be any illusion that would cause this condition.

But the designers separated the game into two sections: Game mechanics and flavor. They give powers flavor text as a way of allowing people to visualize what their power is doing. However, the goal doesn't seem to be to restrict powers based on their flavor text.

I think that reducing descriptive text to the pejorative 'flavour text' doesn't do anyone any favours (it is like the old 'fluff vs crunch' discussions, which automatically denigrates 'fluff'). I like descriptive text for powers and spells.

I think that the problem partly stems from (I'm afraid) a lack of thinking things through by the designers and developers.

Specifically, the awful lack of thought to anything relating to the third dimension and flying creatures.

vis: the questions (and Customer Services responses!) about the height to which close bursts and blasts extend.

Illusory Pit would be a fine spell if land based creatures was all that mattered, but as soon as flying creatures come into the mix one has to ask about the wisdom of a 1st level spell that takes out a flying creature whether it hits or misses...?

Of course, the problematic spell in question here is from Dragon rather than the core books, so certainly had less critical thought and testing applied to it.

If the designers truly wanted the spells to be divorced from the name and description of the spell, then they should probably have given them purely prosaic names such as "Illusory Fall Down Spell". Keep it straightforward.

Mostly because this causes a game balance issue, possibly arbitrarily. Any wizard that took a different daily spell would be able to affect the dragon, but the one who thought it would cool to be an illusionist is screwed. Also, if they had decided it was cooler to play a ranger, they'd have no trouble at all. The question is, where does it stop? Are all undead immune to all powers that use illusion since they don't have minds? Is it impossible to knock an ooze prone thereby making all those powers useless against it(which the FAQ already rules it IS possible to make an ooze prone, the DM is simply encouraged to reflavor the power so the ooze is knocked off-balance or put into some other situation that gives it a negative until it spends a move action to "stand up")?

I think this is pretty much the entire meaning of "the rules are not the physics of the gameworld". I'm just curious what people hope to gain by restricting powers based on their flavor text. I certainly wouldn't be very happy at all if a DM suddenly told me "Sorry, your powers simply don't work against this monster", might as well leave the table and wait until the rest of the players finish beating it.

I don't buy this argument. What if the wizard had chosen "Acid Arrow" as his first level daily and found he was facing a black dragon (as per the DDXP game). Was he screwed because his big power was useless on this occasion against an enemy? Should Acid Arrow be able to affect black dragons by reflavouring it as eating away rock and causing rocks to fall on the dragon to hurt it (I don't think anyone would allow that). I'm happy with the extent to which keywords are used to indicate whether something is particularly vulnerable or resistant to certain effects. I (and my friends) are happy with applying common sense to our games - nobody would try to trip an ooze because it doesn't make sense. Nothing says that illusions require minds to be affected, only that they need senses, so illusions would work fine against anything which doesn't have specific resistance to illusions (although if the illusion is a special case one, then it sticks within its special case)

I disagree with the principle of entitlement that says all powers should be useful in all circumstances against all things. I think the game is more interesting and fun when there are meaningful choices to be made, and the availability of powers (*especially* when it comes to wizard dailies when they can choose each day what to prepare) is one of those aspects of meaningful choice.

Cheers

 

[Runestar]

I don't buy this argument. What if the wizard had chosen "Acid Arrow" as his first level daily and found he was facing a black dragon (as per the DDXP game). Was he screwed because his big power was useless on this occasion against an enemy?

I think we have to examine the circumstances of the power in question being made ineffective.

In the case of acid arrow, it deals acid damage. Thus, it is expected to have a reduced effect against any target with acid resistance. It is covered by the rules. I see no conflict here. It has the same effect with or without the flavour text.

Conversely, I don't think the illusionary pit spell has any reminder text in its rules entry limiting it solely to affecting land-bound foes, save for the flavour text which suggests that it might not work on air-borne foes. In this case, it is more of a grey area, because fluff is not covered in the rules, and should not affect the manner in which a spell works.

In the very least, I don't think illusionary pit was designed/balanced on the assumption that it would be useless against flying foes.

 

[Ibixat]

I think that reducing descriptive text to the pejorative 'flavour text' doesn't do anyone any favours (it is like the old 'fluff vs crunch' discussions, which automatically denigrates 'fluff'). I like descriptive text for powers and spells.

Why does this automatically denigrate fluff? Separating Crunch and Fluff just means that the computations for actions follow a set of rules and the fluff is used to give that computation presence in the game world. It almost seems like you can't stand the way 4e separates the two because of how people felt about them in prior editions.

Accept that in 4e the powers have rules that dictate how they work, and then a brief description there to give you an idea how those rules would work in a game. By limiting the effects to just the one example used in the power you are in effect severely limiting your game, if that's your thing then by all means run your games that way, but don't expect anyone else who has embraced 4e's methods to agree with your way of playing.

Mechanics (crunch, god I hate that term) exist to allow the interaction of the player with the game world, fluff (hate that one too) exists to tell the story of how that interaction happened, anyone who thinks the fluff is not as important as the crunch would probably be better served playing any number of miniature strategy/wargames with nothing but crunch, because why bother with a roleplaying game if you don't care about the story.

I have some further questions for you as well.

In your game how is an ooze dazed? Do you allow them to be knocked prone or at least "disrupted so the prone condition applies"? Can a stone golem be petrified in your game? It is given immunity to disease poison and sleep but not petrification, do you just grant that because it doesn't make sense to allow it? How about snakes, can they be knocked prone? Can you restrain elementals that are of fire and air or water origin, how does one restrain air without a plastic baggy?

These are all examples of things that might not make sense, but just handing out immunities because the flavor text and the desired effect on a creature doesn't make sense is unfair to your players. If they come up with a way of explaining the power's effect to work great, otherwise assume the job of storyteller and come up with an explanation of how it works for you.

Illusory pit vs flying dragon, well dragon see's a large pit open.. and see's his food falling into it, so quickly without thinking and hoping he doesn't miss lunch he goes into a reckless dive to catch the falling morsels, and just as he thinks he's about to snap one up, he notices, oh crap, there was no pit... crunch.... prone, on the ground.

 

[DracoSuave]

Or the dragon sees the chasm and is less concerned with the chasm but more the sudden sensation that he's falling into it. He thought he was flying... now he's falling? Time to overcompensate, and thusly the dragon glides down and lands awkwardly onto the ground.

 

[balard]

I also think that flavor and mechanics are different. And its a illusion we're talking about. There is no pit, but the mind of the ground-bound creatures make than "fall" anyway. The same could be done with a flying one. Think as the "pit" is just a way to make creatures loses balance and falls. Its all in the MIND Maybe the illusionist doesn't even have a full control of what exactly the creature will see...

 

[Engilbrand]

Flavor text helps out people who:
1. Don't want to make something up to describe what's happening.
2. Are new to the game and need to ease into describing what happens.

Personally, I think that it would be cool to reflavor a number of Wizard spells to make it seem like there are extra combatants. This spell does damage and knocks someone prone and immobilizes them. Why not describe it as the enemy seeing a big guy come out of nowhere, sweep their legs out from under them, and put them into some sort of hold? On the battlefield, everyone else would see the enemy freak out and fall to the ground in pain. If used on a flying creature, there's something that lands on its back and starts attacking. The flying creature thrashes around and needs to land to get it off.

For this edition, ONLY the mechanics matter. The flavor text exists to help, but it is not important once the player decides to become creative.

Why did they name it Illusory Pit if it doesn't make a pit? Because that's a better name than Make the Bad Guy Fall Down and Go Prone. It will probably be used against ground based enemies most often. Why not make it a pit.

In a fluff vs crunch debate, I don't see the fluff being denigrated. I love good fluff. I like a lot of the fluff that they use in the books and I use some of it as the basis for my descriptions. But I also like to change things. Fluff's great for what it is, but there's no reason to make it something that it isn't.

 

[jedrious]

I see using "Illusory Pit" on a flyer as creating an illusory winding tunnel around them that forces major overcorrections resulting in complete loss of aerial control