Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's nothing in the spell that says anything about needing to make skill checks in order for the effects to work, as logical as that might seem for some effects. This type of change to how a spell works, however logical it may seem, should never be inflicted on a player during a game without talking about it first because it's frustrating for a spell to be tinkered with. This includes fire spells catching a building on fire or electricity spells shorting out and hurting those casting them while in the water; if a spell has these secondary effects, it mentions them in the text. If nothing is mentioned, they shouldn't have those secondary effects. If you want them to have those effects, let the players know ASAP, not when they cast the spell.
I'm not saying it's BAD to have spells gain secondary effects, just that it's bad to surprise players. And keep in mind that adding those secondary effects can backfire on you. AKA: Once you establish that stone shape can cause a cave-in, the player might expect to be able to deliberately cause a cave-in with the spell by, say, spider climbing invisibly up onto a cave ceiling above a bunch of unknowing monsters, casting the spell to cause a cave-in (a CR 8 hazard) to drop on the monsters, and thus use a low level spell to create an effect normally reserved for higher level spells like transmute rock to mud or earthquake. Tinkering with spell effects can have unanticipated repercussions.
It's also an important GM lesson too; as PCs get higher level, they get more powers. And a lot of those powers are going to start rendering a lot of encounter types moot. The "blocked off passage" is one example, but speak with dead forces murder mysteries to change, fly makes obvious pit traps or rivers or other barriers easy to navigate, and teleport chops holes in long overland journey plots. Part of being a GM is designing and choosing adventures that work with these powers rather than against them; it's not good to take away a player's toys simply because using them makes the adventure evolve in an unanticipated way.
|
Well, there's nothing in the spell that says anything about needing to make skill checks in order for the effects to work, as logical as that might seem for some effects. This type of change to how a spell works, however logical it may seem, should never be inflicted on a player during a game without talking about it first because it's frustrating for a spell to be tinkered with. This includes fire spells catching a building on fire or electricity spells shorting out and hurting those casting them while in the water; if a spell has these secondary effects, it mentions them in the text. If nothing is mentioned, they shouldn't have those secondary effects. If you want them to have those effects, let the players know ASAP, not when they cast the spell.
I'm not saying it's BAD to have spells gain secondary effects, just that it's bad to surprise players. And keep in mind that adding those secondary effects can backfire on you. AKA: Once you establish that stone shape can cause a cave-in, the player might expect to be able to deliberately cause a cave-in with the spell by, say, spider climbing invisibly up onto a cave ceiling above a bunch of unknowing monsters, casting the spell to cause a cave-in (a CR 8 hazard) to drop on the monsters, and thus use a low level spell to create an effect normally reserved for higher level spells like transmute rock to mud or earthquake. Tinkering with spell effects can have unanticipated repercussions.
I think this depends on the mindset of your players.
In NWN2, I would definitely not expect my fireball spell to set the map on fire, even if I'm clearly inside a building made of wood.
However, my players are much more immersed in the narrative storyline than the game rules. If they start lobbing flaming sphere around inside a wooden structure, they would be surprised if the building didn't catch.
|
I think this depends on the mindset of your players.
This is more or less what james is saying. Many people expect a spell to do exactly what it says and nothing more but if your players are expecting X and they get X+Y they are going to be surprised. As long as you and your players have an understanding it works.
I find I wind up running con and organized play games a little differently than home games for that reason.
The way I see it is that this is a game. It is a temporary escape from the real world which is why nobody has any problem with something explained by magic so long as it is explained in a reasonable manner. I'm not saying that reality and physics should be thrown out the window but there is a place for the suspension of disbelief. Overanalyzing things tends to kill the 'magic' of games like this.
Now if your players like something closer to a simulation of life (i.e. realism) that's no problem. Just let them know beforehand that magically created elements act the same way that their natural counterparts do and then they can start to think about repercussions with that caveat in mind. I've ran into the same issue with the electricity in standing water. I only ruled it to be 1d6 to those witin 30 ft. but I still caught a lot of flak for the sudden surprise. From a player's perspective it seems an arbirary abuse of rule 0. Also, as Mr. Jacobs pointed out, these ad hoc secondary effects can open up a can of worms, making low level spells exploitable to a degree of power they were not meant to possess.
If I were a player in your game I wouldn't protest too much if you wanted to make the Stone Shape skill check as part of a house rule... but only if I knew about it beforehand.
|
As a GM I try not to arbitrarily throw in extra rules at my players. Stone Shape doesn't ask for any skill check, and it doesn't need one.
So your PCs bypassed one encounter with a clever use of a spell? Congratulate them and make a mental note that they have this trick in their arsenal. It's a neat trick, and sometimes PCs should get the opportunity to feel powerful.
I tend not to require skill checks unless the PCs attempt something fancy with the spell. For example, if a group tried to reshape a dangerous looking section of a mine tunnel (determined to be a potiental cave-in), I might call for a Knowledge (engineering) or Profession (miner) skill check to determine how well they succeed. The skill check might grant a save bonus against the hazard or allow the PCs to bypass it outright, depending on the result.
The same might apply if the PCs were using the spell to create a makeshift fortification. On a good skill check result I would suggest some useful details the player might not have though of, but the character obviously did.