For another simple example of a basic point, consider--if a DM wanted his new players (new to D&D) to not know anything that their characters would not know, he could run character creation for new players like this:
He asks them what class they want, asks relevant questions to focus on a subclass, and then he tells them what their abilities are. He does not tell them what anyone else, or any other options, abilities are. When they get spells, he hands them a short list and says "these are your spells" or "these are the spells you get to pick from". He does not tell them what spells anyone else gets to pick from.
Then they go out into the world to adventure. This would be how actual people living in that actual world would do it. The dwarf deciding to become a cleric isn't told "here are all the cleric spells known by any cleric in the world". So, when he meets another cleric, he will have little to no idea what magic that other cleric may or may not have available. That is the essence of my point. These people in this world would, without extensive experience, not walk around believing that they know what other people are capable of. At least in pretty much every fantasy novel I've ever read, and all the campaigns I've played in, that's what the world is like.
To ask a stupid question, why couldn't the Cleric be the person who is framing them for murder? In theory, they could then go in, accept the zone of truth, and then freak out when the cleric announces that they "lied". Then other shenanigans can ensue.
You can wave your hands, chant a phrase, point at your friend, and not cast the spell. And you can wave your hands, chant a phrase, point at the judge, and cast the spell.
That's going to be the source of our disagreement. You believe this is possible. I don't.
For me, the act of spellcasting is the execution of its one, two, or three V, S, M components. You somehow believe that there's a fourth thing there, and honestly, I don't really care to know what or why. That's what allows your deceptions to escape notice.
And honestly, the point where the tone of the discussion changed is easily identifiable. It was when you started your position with a straw man, and one that served no particular purpose. You were never arguing from a position of credibility.
Have I ever had a party on trial for murder in a city of gnomes? No. I have not. Busted. :) But I've seen very similar situations. PCs upset because an NPC duped them into thinking he'd cast a spell he hadn't, for example.
You can wave your hands, chant a phrase, point at your friend, and not cast the spell. And you can wave your hands, chant a phrase, point at the judge, and cast the spell.
That's going to be the source of our disagreement. You believe this is possible. I don't.
For me, the act of spellcasting is the execution of its one, two, or three V, S, M components. You somehow believe that there's a fourth thing there, and honestly, I don't really care to know what or why. That's what allows your deceptions to escape notice.
And honestly, the point where the tone of the discussion changed is easily identifiable. It was when you started your position with a straw man, and one that served no particular purpose. You were never arguing from a position of credibility.
Have I ever had a party on trial for murder in a city of gnomes? No. I have not. Busted. :) But I've seen very similar situations. PCs upset because an NPC duped them into thinking he'd cast a spell he hadn't, for example.
1st off, to clear the air, what strawman? You indicated, right away, that "The idea that another spellcaster can decieve others into believing that zone of truth has been cast only holds up if no one besides the deceiver knows how the spell is supposed to work." That implies that other characters would know how my spell is 'supposed to work'. That means that other characters would have mechanical knowledge of the spell of another person--another person from another race, another religion, another part of the world. Which in turns means that these people are aware that there is 'a spell called zone of truth' that works in such and such a way, always, for everyone. And that is meta-knowledge. A spell caster learning that spell, imo, has absolutely no reason to believe that all other spell casters are learning a spell that functions in exactly the same way. Your comment suggested that you do run your world that way--another cleric standing by will be able to say "Oh, that's zone of truth, I know how that works", even if they are from different cultures entirely.
So that may not be what you meant by the quoted comment. But that's how I interpreted it. If it's not what you meant, that's fine. Calling it a 'strawman' is an overly aggressive way of approaching the debate. As is using words like 'ridiculous', and passive-aggressive statements like "Any other clarifications necessary? Do you need me to write more about testing?" All of that in response to a statement I made while including a smiley face ("No. I have not. Busted. :) ") The smiley face is still the universal symbol of "I'm not being serious here", isn't it? I was joking with you.
Okay, secondly, let's look at the disagreement, because I think you have boiled it down well. You don't think I, a cleric, could deceive someone into thinking I cast a spell on one person and not another. And your reason is "For me, the act of spellcasting is the execution of its one, two, or three V, S, M components." That's fine, I agree with that. So let's look at ZoT. It has Verbal and Somatic components. You have to say something, and make a bodily/hand motion. But the spell does not indicate what you have to say, or what motions you have to make. The specific components are not given. Thus, the specific V and S components for that spell are up to the DM. They aren't mandated by RAW. Second, it is not RAW as far as I know that those unlisted V and S components must always be the same for all casters. If that's a rule of D&D, please tell me where to find it, in all seriousness. if I'm the DM, and a dwarven cleric and an elven cleric both cast ZoT, there's no reason why their Verbal components would be in the same language. We're talking about clerics. My assumption (given no rule from the RAW) is that it's a quick prayer. Why would they pray in the same language? There is, to my knowledge, no RAW that states that the V or S components (when not specified) must be exactly the same for every caster. That the elves are saying "Let me teach you a spell, my child. It's in the human language, but...that's all we have." And there is no rule stating that there is a 'universal magic language' either. Not that I've seen.
So now, going completely by RAW and allowed DM discretion (i.e. not going against RAW), I have elves and dwarves with different V components for the same spell. Could easily be different S components as well (would a beholder have to make a hand motion to cast it?).
Now this: If I have to make a particular hand motion to cast a spell, there is nothing RAW that says I cannot make that hand motion before, or after, making other hand motions. Spell casting during combat, in fact, necessitates that I be able to make other hand motions immediately before or after casting a spell--like combat hand motions. However, being a careful system of magic that I the cleric have learned, it would also be the case that if I get the S component wrong, the spell doesn't work. So now it's a Deception roll--I move my hand slightly differently when I 'fake cast' the spell then when I really cast it. For the V component, I say something slightly different each time. ("It’s Wing-GAR-dium Levi-O-sa, make the “gar” nice and long.’" :) And if I tack on a bunch of extra meaningless handwaving or chanting after, or leading into the spell, it might help the deception. So, spell works one time, does not work the other. Nothing going against RAW there at all.
There's no 'fourth thing' to casting a spell. I'm simply deceiving an NPC.
Look, here's why I don't go with the way you're running the rules of the game. And again, I'm not in any way saying that your way isn't also an acceptable way to add to the rules of the game. I don't want to tell anyone else how to have fun playing this game. But by your interpretation, it seems to me that anyone who knows the spell Major Image, or any illusion spell, will never be able to be taken in by someone else casting that illusion spell, so long as they see the person cast it. Because they would say "Hey, that guy's casting an illusion spell!" To me, that takes significant teeth out of illusion spells. The bad guy is getting away, suddenly a wall appears blocking the corridor. Me? I allow an arcana roll for spellcasters to see if they can tell that it's an illusion. As I interpret you (and maybe I'm wrong here, to be clear): anyone who knows the exact spell will immediately know it for an illusion.
That hobbles prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, and a lot of other spells. And that interpretation is not part of the RAW. It's your discretion as a DM to rule that way.
So we have this:
RAW
Spells have components. V, S, M, or combos.
Sometimes those are specified by the spell. Other times they are not.
No rule states that, when unspecified, they are always the same for all casters.
No rule states that I cannot precede or follow those components with other speaking or hand waving.
The rules do indicate that you must get those components right, or the spell will not work.
My DM Discretion (not going against RAW at all)
Spells with unspecified components might have different components for different casters.
V and S components are often going to be very complicated. Getting them slightly wrong is the same as getting them very wrong.
Both of those combine to allow for deception in spell casting.
Your DM Discretion (as I'm reading you, and not going against RAW either)
All V and S components, even when not specified by the spell description, are always the same for all casters everywhere.
There would be no chance of another spellcaster who knows the spell being deceived in the ways I've been describing.
Both of those interpretations are in line with RAW. I just happen to think that mine makes more sense, lends itself to a more mysterious, 'magical' world, involves less meta-gaming, and therefore I prefer my way. Again, you are free to play it however you want to. I have not once said that you cannot, or that your way is somehow a misreading of the rules.But you seem to think that my interpretation is somehow against RAW. It's not.
Guys, this has probably reached it's conclusion. This forum is here for helpful discussion, not personal animosity. I'm not concerned with who started it, but I would suggest that if you really want to continue then you take it to a private chat of some sort. Both points have been well made. How about we agree to just walk away now. I can imagine that a moderator will be in shortly to lock this in any case, but try to be bigger than that.
Guys, this has probably reached it's conclusion. This forum is here for helpful discussion, not personal animosity. I'm not concerned with who started it, but I would suggest that if you really want to continue then you take it to a private chat of some sort. Both points have been well made. How about we agree to just walk away now. I can imagine that a moderator will be in shortly to lock this in any case, but try to be bigger than that.
Preaching to the choir here. I'm fine with the mods deleting any of that. Right up until the end I was holding out hope for a reasonable discussion.
Even if all the somatic components were the same, then there would have to be leeway on the verbal just to account for all the different races speaking different languages or there needs to be an additional language just for spell casters. But as you also point out even somatic can be awkward if a spell requires you to wiggle 5 fingers and you only have 4, or you have claws or tentacles then that spell is out the window for you!
Even if all the somatic components were the same, then there would have to be leeway on the verbal just to account for all the different races speaking different languages or there needs to be an additional language just for spell casters. But as you also point out even somatic can be awkward if a spell requires you to wiggle 5 fingers and you only have 4, or you have claws or tentacles then that spell is out the window for you!
Agreed. As a DM, I would even house rule that the specific material components listed in the book didn't have to be exactly those. For example, a lot of illusion spells have fleece as a material component. Would that mean that a culture without sheep, no matter how magically advanced they got, couldn't have access to illusion magic? "Finally, we have found the missing link to be able to create false visions...it is the hair of that strange animal!" :D My read on the books there, which technically would not be RAW, is that the listed components are the components used by the 'standard D&D society'. But the material components used to cast spells by a culture that developed in the Sudan would be wildly different than those used by a culture that developed in Louisiana.
Let us assume that our hypothetical judge has read the PHB entry on Zone of Truth and knows exactly how the spell works. Unless he is a Cleric and casts the spell himself he is going to have to trust the Cleric who cast the spell to correctly inform him of who saved and who did not. Clever questioning might be able to establish who can and who cannot lie under the influence of the spell. It is important to note that the spell does not compel the subject to tell the truth, it prevents the subject from telling a deliberate lie. The subject can still give false or incorrect information if it is believed to be true. The subject can also refuse to answer a question or give an evasive answer.
It is likely that in a D&D world where the Zone of Truth spell is a real thing that it would be used in court. The clerics casting the spell would be officers of the court and expected (and trusted) to carry out their duties faithfully, including actually casting Zone of Truth and honestly saying who was and was not affected. This wold be not much different to our court system. We assume that lawyers and those giving sworn testimony are telling the truth. We assume that members of the court are trying to discharge their duties in good faith.
People who live in a world where magic is real probably have at least some idea of what magic can and cannot do. Just as we know what a cell phone, a car, or a gun can reasonably be expected to do and what it can't. We know for example that bullets travel in straight lines, they do not curve around corners.
People who live in a world where magic is real probably have at least some idea of what magic can and cannot do. Just as we know what a cell phone, a car, or a gun can reasonably be expected to do and what it can't. We know for example that bullets travel in straight lines, they do not curve around corners.
For a lot of D&D worlds, that makes sense. A lot of fantasy worlds and the magic in them are often much more mysterious. I often go by fantasy fiction for guidelines, and I'm thinking of any number of novels. Dragonlance novels, David Gemmell, Shannarra, David Eddings (Belgariad for example), Lord of the Rings. Those are full of commoners who have very little idea what magic users can do. Now, those specific examples aren't 'high magic' worlds--there are no marketplaces where you can buy magic items in them :) So in a D&D world where the local street thug has a magic sword, you're probably on the right track to think that the folks in the court will have some idea. That was a point Hybridfive also made earlier, and it's a good one. And that, combined with court-appointed or authorized spell casters as you're describing, could easily make ZoT work in a courtroom. Completely agree. Forgotten Realms, for all the mystery they try to put in there, is still a place where the children of devil-human matings own bakeries :D Trying to make magic 'mysterious' seems difficult there. And your courtroom with state-authorized spell casters fits right in.
My point was just that, if the DM wants to create a plot where the entire goal of the PCs is to prove their innocence through investigation, it's easy enough to make ZoT not a get out of jail free card. Deception and the right laws, and you're off and running. :)
For another simple example of a basic point, consider--if a DM wanted his new players (new to D&D) to not know anything that their characters would not know, he could run character creation for new players like this:
He asks them what class they want, asks relevant questions to focus on a subclass, and then he tells them what their abilities are. He does not tell them what anyone else, or any other options, abilities are. When they get spells, he hands them a short list and says "these are your spells" or "these are the spells you get to pick from". He does not tell them what spells anyone else gets to pick from.
Then they go out into the world to adventure. This would be how actual people living in that actual world would do it. The dwarf deciding to become a cleric isn't told "here are all the cleric spells known by any cleric in the world". So, when he meets another cleric, he will have little to no idea what magic that other cleric may or may not have available. That is the essence of my point. These people in this world would, without extensive experience, not walk around believing that they know what other people are capable of. At least in pretty much every fantasy novel I've ever read, and all the campaigns I've played in, that's what the world is like.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
To ask a stupid question, why couldn't the Cleric be the person who is framing them for murder? In theory, they could then go in, accept the zone of truth, and then freak out when the cleric announces that they "lied". Then other shenanigans can ensue.
Fenchurch, Gnome Wizard, Red Skies in Mourning
That's going to be the source of our disagreement. You believe this is possible. I don't.
For me, the act of spellcasting is the execution of its one, two, or three V, S, M components. You somehow believe that there's a fourth thing there, and honestly, I don't really care to know what or why. That's what allows your deceptions to escape notice.
And honestly, the point where the tone of the discussion changed is easily identifiable. It was when you started your position with a straw man, and one that served no particular purpose. You were never arguing from a position of credibility.
1st off, to clear the air, what strawman? You indicated, right away, that "The idea that another spellcaster can decieve others into believing that zone of truth has been cast only holds up if no one besides the deceiver knows how the spell is supposed to work." That implies that other characters would know how my spell is 'supposed to work'. That means that other characters would have mechanical knowledge of the spell of another person--another person from another race, another religion, another part of the world. Which in turns means that these people are aware that there is 'a spell called zone of truth' that works in such and such a way, always, for everyone. And that is meta-knowledge. A spell caster learning that spell, imo, has absolutely no reason to believe that all other spell casters are learning a spell that functions in exactly the same way. Your comment suggested that you do run your world that way--another cleric standing by will be able to say "Oh, that's zone of truth, I know how that works", even if they are from different cultures entirely.
So that may not be what you meant by the quoted comment. But that's how I interpreted it. If it's not what you meant, that's fine. Calling it a 'strawman' is an overly aggressive way of approaching the debate. As is using words like 'ridiculous', and passive-aggressive statements like "Any other clarifications necessary? Do you need me to write more about testing?" All of that in response to a statement I made while including a smiley face ("No. I have not. Busted. :) ") The smiley face is still the universal symbol of "I'm not being serious here", isn't it? I was joking with you.
Okay, secondly, let's look at the disagreement, because I think you have boiled it down well. You don't think I, a cleric, could deceive someone into thinking I cast a spell on one person and not another. And your reason is "For me, the act of spellcasting is the execution of its one, two, or three V, S, M components." That's fine, I agree with that. So let's look at ZoT. It has Verbal and Somatic components. You have to say something, and make a bodily/hand motion. But the spell does not indicate what you have to say, or what motions you have to make. The specific components are not given. Thus, the specific V and S components for that spell are up to the DM. They aren't mandated by RAW. Second, it is not RAW as far as I know that those unlisted V and S components must always be the same for all casters. If that's a rule of D&D, please tell me where to find it, in all seriousness. if I'm the DM, and a dwarven cleric and an elven cleric both cast ZoT, there's no reason why their Verbal components would be in the same language. We're talking about clerics. My assumption (given no rule from the RAW) is that it's a quick prayer. Why would they pray in the same language? There is, to my knowledge, no RAW that states that the V or S components (when not specified) must be exactly the same for every caster. That the elves are saying "Let me teach you a spell, my child. It's in the human language, but...that's all we have." And there is no rule stating that there is a 'universal magic language' either. Not that I've seen.
So now, going completely by RAW and allowed DM discretion (i.e. not going against RAW), I have elves and dwarves with different V components for the same spell. Could easily be different S components as well (would a beholder have to make a hand motion to cast it?).
Now this: If I have to make a particular hand motion to cast a spell, there is nothing RAW that says I cannot make that hand motion before, or after, making other hand motions. Spell casting during combat, in fact, necessitates that I be able to make other hand motions immediately before or after casting a spell--like combat hand motions. However, being a careful system of magic that I the cleric have learned, it would also be the case that if I get the S component wrong, the spell doesn't work. So now it's a Deception roll--I move my hand slightly differently when I 'fake cast' the spell then when I really cast it. For the V component, I say something slightly different each time. ("It’s Wing-GAR-dium Levi-O-sa, make the “gar” nice and long.’" :) And if I tack on a bunch of extra meaningless handwaving or chanting after, or leading into the spell, it might help the deception. So, spell works one time, does not work the other. Nothing going against RAW there at all.
There's no 'fourth thing' to casting a spell. I'm simply deceiving an NPC.
Look, here's why I don't go with the way you're running the rules of the game. And again, I'm not in any way saying that your way isn't also an acceptable way to add to the rules of the game. I don't want to tell anyone else how to have fun playing this game. But by your interpretation, it seems to me that anyone who knows the spell Major Image, or any illusion spell, will never be able to be taken in by someone else casting that illusion spell, so long as they see the person cast it. Because they would say "Hey, that guy's casting an illusion spell!" To me, that takes significant teeth out of illusion spells. The bad guy is getting away, suddenly a wall appears blocking the corridor. Me? I allow an arcana roll for spellcasters to see if they can tell that it's an illusion. As I interpret you (and maybe I'm wrong here, to be clear): anyone who knows the exact spell will immediately know it for an illusion.
That hobbles prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, and a lot of other spells. And that interpretation is not part of the RAW. It's your discretion as a DM to rule that way.
So we have this:
RAW
My DM Discretion (not going against RAW at all)
Your DM Discretion (as I'm reading you, and not going against RAW either)
Both of those interpretations are in line with RAW. I just happen to think that mine makes more sense, lends itself to a more mysterious, 'magical' world, involves less meta-gaming, and therefore I prefer my way. Again, you are free to play it however you want to. I have not once said that you cannot, or that your way is somehow a misreading of the rules.But you seem to think that my interpretation is somehow against RAW. It's not.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Guys, this has probably reached it's conclusion. This forum is here for helpful discussion, not personal animosity. I'm not concerned with who started it, but I would suggest that if you really want to continue then you take it to a private chat of some sort. Both points have been well made. How about we agree to just walk away now. I can imagine that a moderator will be in shortly to lock this in any case, but try to be bigger than that.
Preaching to the choir here. I'm fine with the mods deleting any of that. Right up until the end I was holding out hope for a reasonable discussion.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Even if all the somatic components were the same, then there would have to be leeway on the verbal just to account for all the different races speaking different languages or there needs to be an additional language just for spell casters. But as you also point out even somatic can be awkward if a spell requires you to wiggle 5 fingers and you only have 4, or you have claws or tentacles then that spell is out the window for you!
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Agreed. As a DM, I would even house rule that the specific material components listed in the book didn't have to be exactly those. For example, a lot of illusion spells have fleece as a material component. Would that mean that a culture without sheep, no matter how magically advanced they got, couldn't have access to illusion magic? "Finally, we have found the missing link to be able to create false visions...it is the hair of that strange animal!" :D My read on the books there, which technically would not be RAW, is that the listed components are the components used by the 'standard D&D society'. But the material components used to cast spells by a culture that developed in the Sudan would be wildly different than those used by a culture that developed in Louisiana.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Let us assume that our hypothetical judge has read the PHB entry on Zone of Truth and knows exactly how the spell works. Unless he is a Cleric and casts the spell himself he is going to have to trust the Cleric who cast the spell to correctly inform him of who saved and who did not. Clever questioning might be able to establish who can and who cannot lie under the influence of the spell. It is important to note that the spell does not compel the subject to tell the truth, it prevents the subject from telling a deliberate lie. The subject can still give false or incorrect information if it is believed to be true. The subject can also refuse to answer a question or give an evasive answer.
It is likely that in a D&D world where the Zone of Truth spell is a real thing that it would be used in court. The clerics casting the spell would be officers of the court and expected (and trusted) to carry out their duties faithfully, including actually casting Zone of Truth and honestly saying who was and was not affected. This wold be not much different to our court system. We assume that lawyers and those giving sworn testimony are telling the truth. We assume that members of the court are trying to discharge their duties in good faith.
People who live in a world where magic is real probably have at least some idea of what magic can and cannot do. Just as we know what a cell phone, a car, or a gun can reasonably be expected to do and what it can't. We know for example that bullets travel in straight lines, they do not curve around corners.
For a lot of D&D worlds, that makes sense. A lot of fantasy worlds and the magic in them are often much more mysterious. I often go by fantasy fiction for guidelines, and I'm thinking of any number of novels. Dragonlance novels, David Gemmell, Shannarra, David Eddings (Belgariad for example), Lord of the Rings. Those are full of commoners who have very little idea what magic users can do. Now, those specific examples aren't 'high magic' worlds--there are no marketplaces where you can buy magic items in them :) So in a D&D world where the local street thug has a magic sword, you're probably on the right track to think that the folks in the court will have some idea. That was a point Hybridfive also made earlier, and it's a good one. And that, combined with court-appointed or authorized spell casters as you're describing, could easily make ZoT work in a courtroom. Completely agree. Forgotten Realms, for all the mystery they try to put in there, is still a place where the children of devil-human matings own bakeries :D Trying to make magic 'mysterious' seems difficult there. And your courtroom with state-authorized spell casters fits right in.
My point was just that, if the DM wants to create a plot where the entire goal of the PCs is to prove their innocence through investigation, it's easy enough to make ZoT not a get out of jail free card. Deception and the right laws, and you're off and running. :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)