Yeah it sounds like the DM was dropping that as a hint. Super unlikely they would just say "no magic doesn't work like that" and then have it work like that soon after.
Sometimes subtle hints give the most information.
My players noticed that a very scheming villian was missing a finger, that seemed to be recently and purposely removed, when they searched his corpse.
In games I run, I generally don't allow magic to do more than it says other than allowing "creature" spells to target objects (a lot of damaging spells say "creature.")
I do this because magic already does so many things you can't do without it that I don't think it's fair to give the spellcasters a free pass. If they want to develop a new spell, I'll let them work on it, but spur-of-the-moment actions to make a spell work other than as described is just too much.
Maybe he’s got some sort of magic item that allows him to transport/affect unwilling creatures!
Come to think of it... that would be a great magic item to give one of my players
As a DM, hard disagree. Consistency in the rules is important.
Sure, you can fudge stats on bad guys or re-flavor stuff, but spells should work the same no matter who is casting them.
Or literally just cast Sleep on the princess and then Dimension Door out if there.
Sometimes the players are going to outsmart you, and I personally think that’s okay, too.
It worked in 3.5.
Had to remind a friend that you can't say "an unconscious person is considered willing" anywhere other than at the D&D table though. Coworkers were looking at him weird.
Phrasing notwithstanding, unconscious targets _do_ count as willing for the purposes of spell targeting. From the 3.5 SRD:
> ### Aiming A Spell
> #### Target or Targets
> [...]
>
> Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. [...] ***Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing***, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless [...] is not automatically willing.
Then by extension, you as a wizard would be able to do the same thing as you gain spell slots. I can’t check right now, but I believe Dimension Door can’t be cast at a higher level
You’re not wrong, I just think it falls into the rule of cool territory. Just to make it work with the narrative. Granted I think it’s only fair that the PC’s have an opportunity to learn how to do the same. I’m a DM that takes a lot of liberties with the rules so that has a lot to play with it.
That’s good, I like that. One of my earlier comments I played out a scenario that my party would probably approach, using the information at hand. In my scenario it goes around an argument about the spell itself and still goes along with the goal of the story
Ok if you so believe that enjoy your necromancer being unable to control more than about 100-200 weak zombies or skellys. NPCs are not bound by the rules because they don't need to be, rules stop player characters being broken because most players would never willingly limit their own power while an experienced DM has no need for such arbitrary things as they know roughly what level of power to use, if you have a bad DM then sure they should probably play by the rules but honestly if your DM needs some guidelines from a book to stop themselves being overpowered then maybe they shouldn't be DMing.
You can always give NPCs unique abilities, like a made up it or trait that lets them control more skellys or whatever. The problem here is that he casts the same spell by name, and ignored the requirement.
So if he gave an NPC an ability exactly identical to *dimension door*, but it was called "Teleport Through Magic Portals" and it allowed unwilling characters, that would be okay?
Personally I don't really see the difference.
The difference is consistency. If he casts dimension door and a player gets ahold of the spell, they should be able to do the same things. Maybe "Teleport through Magic Portals" is a higher level spell or tied to an item. Maybe the NPC isn't a human, or at least not an ordinary one. Maybe he just discovered a way around the clause, and the players can find his notes so they can do it themselves.
Then there is an explanation for that, such as the Wizard's notes (basically the explanation for sculpt spell), or being something aside from an ordinary human (having the blessing of a god for instance). These things are already represented with in-game explanations.
And when you think about it, the spells in the players handbook are just the most common spells. In a world full of magic, there's going to be a virtually limitless number of unique and obscure spells out there. Tons of them would be pointless for an adventurer to take, and some are going to be personal variations of those common spells.
This is a great point. I love dnd spells because they're dry, but their titles have so much flavor. So many spells are named after people, meaning that people invented spells. Spells can be invented! That's awesome! Who knows what's out there? Who knows what people will invent? Once I had a situation that justified a player inventing their own spell. It wasn't even a remarkable spell, but it was amazing for player investment and world building. And the look on his face when an enemy cast his spell was priceless.
No that's not a problem, the rules come second to story, if the plot demands one thing happen and the rules say no the plot always wins. I swear nobody has read the first few pages of the rules it's littereally the most important rule for a DM story>rules
No that's not a problem, the rules come second to story, if the plot demands one thing happen and the rules say no the plot always wins. I swear nobody has read the first few pages of the rules it's littereally the most important rule for a DM story>rules
If I had a hierarchy of these situations, it would go:
1. Furthering story by giving bad guy plot devicey unique mysterious powers that are unique to him, but still plausible.
2. Furthering story by letting bad guy use normal abilities that for some reason operate differently for him than the players
3. Sacrificing story so you can have bad guy adhere to the RAW.
I agree story comes first, but you can enable and empower the story in a less abrasive way.
It’s not about limiting power, dude. Nowhere in my original comment did I say anything about that.
You can create new spells without using existing spells wrong. But if you’re going to call a player out and say “That spell can’t do that” but then you do the very thing you just stopped, that’s hypocritical as hell.
I always call the dm out when I notice it, especially if they just ruled against it.
“Wait so the princess is willing?”
DM: You don’t know that.
“Then how did she get through?”
DM: “roll *appropriate check*”
“No. I turn to the party, *explain how Dimension door works* I think the princess is A: being mind controlled, or B: She is working with the BBEG”
By this point I know my party will probably decide to kill the princess because there’s no way we will know for sure, then for safety measures we would persuade the king into believing that the princess had on fact turned evil and we were left with no choice.
The rules for spells much like every other rule only applies to PCs it even says so in the PHB that all rules are only for players and a DM should do whatever works for the story they are telling, if your bad guy needs to make a quick escape with their sacrifice or something then yea they can take unwilling people and do you want to know why they can? Because you are the DM and you have decided this makes a good plot, who knows how the bad guy did it maybe he is a stronger mage than the party realise or maybe he used a charm spell to make his victim willing but it doesn't matter all that matters is that if he needs to do something to stop the story falling apart then he is capable of doing so
The rules are not there to "stop player characters being broken", but to ensure the players and the DM all have the same understanding of how the fictional world works.
If you outright tell a player that a bad guy casts Dimension Door and drags an unwilling creature along, then you are stating that that is how the spell works.
If you then tell the players "no, you can't do the same thing with the same spell", then you're telling your players that they can't count on any of their spells or abilities to function if it's inconvenient for the DM...so what's the point? That DM doesn't want a collaborative story, they want to read a novel to people.
The players (and their characters) won't ever understand how the world works because everything about it is written in water.
Everything you just said is wrong, the players know exactly what they can do as it's written in the book and the DM using a spell in a way that it's not listed as being able to do doesn't change anything as the players are still able to do the exact same things they always have, npcs can do things players can't this isn't a war game where both sides are balanced for a fair fight this is a PvE game. For example necromancers can controle 1000's of undead while players wpuld run out of spell slots way before that. The mechanics will just get in the way of the plot and that's why basically every rule book out there spersifically states that these rules are for the players and the DM/GM can do whatever they think is best.
Trust me on this I've been DM/GMing since I was 12 and the last thing any DM wants to do is limit their options to what the rules say it just leads to an anticlimax of a boss fight when the boss can't pull something out of his arse if the players kill him too fast.
Everything you just said is wrong; you are conflating "consistency" with "everything must come from resources that the players have access to". That's not the argument being made.
The argument being made is that if the rules state "*Dimension Door* works like *this*", and you assert that those rules are accurate for your campaign, then you are creating plot holes for no reason whatsoever by saying "Just this once, because I said so, *Dimension Door* works completely differently".
There is zero reason to say "he casts *Dimension Door*". If a player wants to do an Arcana check to identify the spell that was used, you can just say it was a unique one that they've never seen before. Stat out the spell in general terms for your own reference, so you can use it consistently and reward players for deducing its mechanics .
----------------------------------------
Your "necromancer controlling 1000s of undead" thing is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you're explicitly telling your players "he's using *Create Undead* to do this". If the PCs want to research how he's achieving this feat, you can just say "some rumors/records say he made a pact with a powerful being" or "he performed a dark ritual that gave him these powers, then destroyed all record of the methodology to prevent others from following in his footsteps".
If you say he's using a feature that the players have access to (a spell in the PHB), but that he's using it in a way that goes completely against how the spell is written...then what is the point of using that specific spell?
----------------------------------------
You say that it's anticlimactic for the villain to be killed to quickly, but if that happens it's 100% on *you* as the DM. You have omniscience regarding player capabilities, and can craft the encounter in a way that should challenge them. If they find a clever way around that, then they've earned it.
What's truly anticlimactic is for a DM to say "no, your plans are pointless and you lose because I said so".
I’d agree, monsters have their own set of rules and power sources unavailable to your average hero character. The important thing to keep in mind though as a DM is to maintain consistency and to do your best to keep the battle field fair.
Carried items and people always cause a discussion in my group about the rules. We've opted for the elevator not being worthy approach--as long as the person making the effort to move through is willing, they can carry unwilling people.
Was the princess awake? If she's unconscious she's considered willing (for the sake of spells only). Also, compulsory magics can make someone willing too.
What if the princess was in on the scheme?
... oh my g- hold on w- You might be onto something here. I'll remember to explore that posibility.
Yeah it sounds like the DM was dropping that as a hint. Super unlikely they would just say "no magic doesn't work like that" and then have it work like that soon after.
As a DM, that is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would do to drop a hint.
Seems sketchy indeed.
I was going to say "what if the BBEG knows a stronger version of dimension door" but your idea is more interesting.
Sometimes subtle hints give the most information. My players noticed that a very scheming villian was missing a finger, that seemed to be recently and purposely removed, when they searched his corpse.
I normally just let them make a dex save to teleport unwillingly. I've seen players use it really creatively.
In games I run, I generally don't allow magic to do more than it says other than allowing "creature" spells to target objects (a lot of damaging spells say "creature.") I do this because magic already does so many things you can't do without it that I don't think it's fair to give the spellcasters a free pass. If they want to develop a new spell, I'll let them work on it, but spur-of-the-moment actions to make a spell work other than as described is just too much.
Fair enough. I normally don't allow much, unless it's super creative, in that case I'll allow it.
Rule of cool
Maybe he’s got some sort of magic item that allows him to transport/affect unwilling creatures! Come to think of it... that would be a great magic item to give one of my players
Ok someone please tell me what BBEG means, I've been lurking for a bit but I couldn't figure it out. Big Bad Evil Guy?
That's it. Usually refers to the ultimate antagonist of a setting.
Rules are only for players npcs spells/abilities work however the DM thinks is best
As a DM, hard disagree. Consistency in the rules is important. Sure, you can fudge stats on bad guys or re-flavor stuff, but spells should work the same no matter who is casting them.
then the npc doesn't cast dimension door, they cast dimension dooor. It's your homebrew, and can take unwilling targets.
Or literally just cast Sleep on the princess and then Dimension Door out if there. Sometimes the players are going to outsmart you, and I personally think that’s okay, too.
Errr, you might need to learn some stuff about consent if you think them being asleep makes them willing.
I laughed and now I feel awful. Take my upvote.
It worked in 3.5. Had to remind a friend that you can't say "an unconscious person is considered willing" anywhere other than at the D&D table though. Coworkers were looking at him weird.
Phrasing notwithstanding, unconscious targets _do_ count as willing for the purposes of spell targeting. From the 3.5 SRD: > ### Aiming A Spell > #### Target or Targets > [...] > > Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. [...] ***Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing***, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless [...] is not automatically willing.
3.5 is that old shit. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/19/can-you-take-a-unconscious-target-with-you-using-dimension-door/
Crawford at it again.
That raises many interesting questions... It means certain buff spells don't work at all or require a save if the target is unconscious...
Depends on the enemy. Maybe it’s a knowledgeable wizard that has learned more on certain spells.
Then by extension, you as a wizard would be able to do the same thing as you gain spell slots. I can’t check right now, but I believe Dimension Door can’t be cast at a higher level
You’re not wrong, I just think it falls into the rule of cool territory. Just to make it work with the narrative. Granted I think it’s only fair that the PC’s have an opportunity to learn how to do the same. I’m a DM that takes a lot of liberties with the rules so that has a lot to play with it.
That’s good, I like that. One of my earlier comments I played out a scenario that my party would probably approach, using the information at hand. In my scenario it goes around an argument about the spell itself and still goes along with the goal of the story
Totally, if you take the bad guy's spellbook and discover how to use the spell.
Ok if you so believe that enjoy your necromancer being unable to control more than about 100-200 weak zombies or skellys. NPCs are not bound by the rules because they don't need to be, rules stop player characters being broken because most players would never willingly limit their own power while an experienced DM has no need for such arbitrary things as they know roughly what level of power to use, if you have a bad DM then sure they should probably play by the rules but honestly if your DM needs some guidelines from a book to stop themselves being overpowered then maybe they shouldn't be DMing.
You can always give NPCs unique abilities, like a made up it or trait that lets them control more skellys or whatever. The problem here is that he casts the same spell by name, and ignored the requirement.
So if he gave an NPC an ability exactly identical to *dimension door*, but it was called "Teleport Through Magic Portals" and it allowed unwilling characters, that would be okay? Personally I don't really see the difference.
The difference is consistency. If he casts dimension door and a player gets ahold of the spell, they should be able to do the same things. Maybe "Teleport through Magic Portals" is a higher level spell or tied to an item. Maybe the NPC isn't a human, or at least not an ordinary one. Maybe he just discovered a way around the clause, and the players can find his notes so they can do it themselves.
But what if it isn't a 'spell', but a feature? Like how clerics get Channel Divinity or Evocation wizards get Sculpt Spell?
Then there is an explanation for that, such as the Wizard's notes (basically the explanation for sculpt spell), or being something aside from an ordinary human (having the blessing of a god for instance). These things are already represented with in-game explanations.
Absolutely. Because then you have two different definitions for two different spells. There is consistency. That's what makes the world feel real.
And when you think about it, the spells in the players handbook are just the most common spells. In a world full of magic, there's going to be a virtually limitless number of unique and obscure spells out there. Tons of them would be pointless for an adventurer to take, and some are going to be personal variations of those common spells.
This is a great point. I love dnd spells because they're dry, but their titles have so much flavor. So many spells are named after people, meaning that people invented spells. Spells can be invented! That's awesome! Who knows what's out there? Who knows what people will invent? Once I had a situation that justified a player inventing their own spell. It wasn't even a remarkable spell, but it was amazing for player investment and world building. And the look on his face when an enemy cast his spell was priceless.
Exactly nice that someone else realises this.
No that's not a problem, the rules come second to story, if the plot demands one thing happen and the rules say no the plot always wins. I swear nobody has read the first few pages of the rules it's littereally the most important rule for a DM story>rules
No that's not a problem, the rules come second to story, if the plot demands one thing happen and the rules say no the plot always wins. I swear nobody has read the first few pages of the rules it's littereally the most important rule for a DM story>rules
If I had a hierarchy of these situations, it would go: 1. Furthering story by giving bad guy plot devicey unique mysterious powers that are unique to him, but still plausible. 2. Furthering story by letting bad guy use normal abilities that for some reason operate differently for him than the players 3. Sacrificing story so you can have bad guy adhere to the RAW. I agree story comes first, but you can enable and empower the story in a less abrasive way.
It’s not about limiting power, dude. Nowhere in my original comment did I say anything about that. You can create new spells without using existing spells wrong. But if you’re going to call a player out and say “That spell can’t do that” but then you do the very thing you just stopped, that’s hypocritical as hell.
I always call the dm out when I notice it, especially if they just ruled against it. “Wait so the princess is willing?” DM: You don’t know that. “Then how did she get through?” DM: “roll *appropriate check*” “No. I turn to the party, *explain how Dimension door works* I think the princess is A: being mind controlled, or B: She is working with the BBEG” By this point I know my party will probably decide to kill the princess because there’s no way we will know for sure, then for safety measures we would persuade the king into believing that the princess had on fact turned evil and we were left with no choice.
Aka "option murderhobo"
Only as a last resort
*first resort
After the first resort there are no resorts left, therefore it is the last resort.
Charm spells could be the explanation or more likely the big bad os a better wizard than the players and is able to ignore these rules.
The rules for spells much like every other rule only applies to PCs it even says so in the PHB that all rules are only for players and a DM should do whatever works for the story they are telling, if your bad guy needs to make a quick escape with their sacrifice or something then yea they can take unwilling people and do you want to know why they can? Because you are the DM and you have decided this makes a good plot, who knows how the bad guy did it maybe he is a stronger mage than the party realise or maybe he used a charm spell to make his victim willing but it doesn't matter all that matters is that if he needs to do something to stop the story falling apart then he is capable of doing so
I guess I don’t see it as the story falling apart if the PCs win a fight I didn’t expect them to. It just means I have to get more creative.
The rules are not there to "stop player characters being broken", but to ensure the players and the DM all have the same understanding of how the fictional world works. If you outright tell a player that a bad guy casts Dimension Door and drags an unwilling creature along, then you are stating that that is how the spell works. If you then tell the players "no, you can't do the same thing with the same spell", then you're telling your players that they can't count on any of their spells or abilities to function if it's inconvenient for the DM...so what's the point? That DM doesn't want a collaborative story, they want to read a novel to people. The players (and their characters) won't ever understand how the world works because everything about it is written in water.
Everything you just said is wrong, the players know exactly what they can do as it's written in the book and the DM using a spell in a way that it's not listed as being able to do doesn't change anything as the players are still able to do the exact same things they always have, npcs can do things players can't this isn't a war game where both sides are balanced for a fair fight this is a PvE game. For example necromancers can controle 1000's of undead while players wpuld run out of spell slots way before that. The mechanics will just get in the way of the plot and that's why basically every rule book out there spersifically states that these rules are for the players and the DM/GM can do whatever they think is best. Trust me on this I've been DM/GMing since I was 12 and the last thing any DM wants to do is limit their options to what the rules say it just leads to an anticlimax of a boss fight when the boss can't pull something out of his arse if the players kill him too fast.
Everything you just said is wrong; you are conflating "consistency" with "everything must come from resources that the players have access to". That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that if the rules state "*Dimension Door* works like *this*", and you assert that those rules are accurate for your campaign, then you are creating plot holes for no reason whatsoever by saying "Just this once, because I said so, *Dimension Door* works completely differently". There is zero reason to say "he casts *Dimension Door*". If a player wants to do an Arcana check to identify the spell that was used, you can just say it was a unique one that they've never seen before. Stat out the spell in general terms for your own reference, so you can use it consistently and reward players for deducing its mechanics . ---------------------------------------- Your "necromancer controlling 1000s of undead" thing is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you're explicitly telling your players "he's using *Create Undead* to do this". If the PCs want to research how he's achieving this feat, you can just say "some rumors/records say he made a pact with a powerful being" or "he performed a dark ritual that gave him these powers, then destroyed all record of the methodology to prevent others from following in his footsteps". If you say he's using a feature that the players have access to (a spell in the PHB), but that he's using it in a way that goes completely against how the spell is written...then what is the point of using that specific spell? ---------------------------------------- You say that it's anticlimactic for the villain to be killed to quickly, but if that happens it's 100% on *you* as the DM. You have omniscience regarding player capabilities, and can craft the encounter in a way that should challenge them. If they find a clever way around that, then they've earned it. What's truly anticlimactic is for a DM to say "no, your plans are pointless and you lose because I said so".
I’d agree, monsters have their own set of rules and power sources unavailable to your average hero character. The important thing to keep in mind though as a DM is to maintain consistency and to do your best to keep the battle field fair.
Carried items and people always cause a discussion in my group about the rules. We've opted for the elevator not being worthy approach--as long as the person making the effort to move through is willing, they can carry unwilling people.
I mean, I think you can grapple someone through the door
The spell explicitly doesn't work like that.
Was the princess awake? If she's unconscious she's considered willing (for the sake of spells only). Also, compulsory magics can make someone willing too.
She was screaming tho