D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Vaalingrade]

Undeath is 'bad' mostly because we've developed this taboo against seeking eternal life. Because coming to terms with and giving up in the face of mortality is 'good'.

And we came up with this bull as a species that has spent 50,000 years developing science to extend our lives on a planet where literally every living thing (besides Giant Pandas) has the primary goal of 'stave off death at least until you procreate'.

The same logic that demands any character seeking lichdom be an evil monster should logically have similar hard feelings toward ventilators, pacemakers, dialysis, eating food and breathing.

 

[Yaarel]

Undeath is 'bad' mostly because we've developed this taboo against seeking eternal life. Because coming to terms with and giving up in the face of mortality is 'good'.

And we came up with this bull as a species that has spent 50,000 years developing science to extend our lives on a planet where literally every living thing (besides Giant Pandas) has the primary goal of 'stave off death at least until you procreate'.

The same logic that demands any character seeking lichdom be an evil monster should logically have similar hard feelings toward ventilators, pacemakers, dialysis, eating food and breathing.

Actual eternal life is good and desirable.

The problem with undead is, it isnt life. It is a magically animated corpse. It is a half life or worse.

I agree those who view lichdom as better than death arent necessarily Evil. Yet in the default setting, those who seek lichdom might be Typically Evil who seek to avoid an Evil afterlife in the Astral Plane.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree those who view lichdom as better than death arent necessarily Evil. Yet in the default setting, those who seek lichdom might be Typically Evil who seek to avoid an Evil afterlife in the Astral Plane.

I was going to point out that being a lich requires annihilating souls on a regular basis, and it's pretty hard to do that and be non-evil.

Then it occurred to me that in the Great Wheel cosmology, the souls of evildoers endure horrific torment in the Lower Planes, in the process strengthening the fiends who rule those planes. So a lich that fed strictly on evil souls could argue that it was saving souls from eternal suffering (to which oblivion is surely preferable), and also depriving the fiendish powers of sustenance, making its depredations a positive good.

The deeper one delves into the underpinnings of the D&D multiverse, the weirder the moral implications become.

 

[Scott Christian]

Friends: Add, "When the spell ends, the creature knows you charmed it. Its reaction depends on how you treated it while it was Charmed."

Then, the DM can decide on the fly how the Charmed creature responds, depending on the narrative circumstances.

Why have that extra text though. The DM can already determine the person's reaction based on many different things - not just how it was treated while charmed.

 

[Yaarel]

Why have that extra text though. The DM can already determine the person's reaction based on many different things - not just how it was treated while charmed.

The Friends spell needs to specify the aftermath, because the 5e rules are surprisingly ambiguous about whether a creature under the effect of the spell knows they are.

 

[Scott Christian]

I understand it is ambiguous, but my question is - Don't you think it is ambiguous for a reason?

I mean, charming the short-tempered blacksmith who is in the middle of working versus charming the flirty actor who is practicing lines versus charming the no-nonsense guard who is drinking after work versus charming the thieves' guild gambler who is running a card tournament could, and should, all have different reactions no matter how they were treated. There are too many scenarios, which is why it is ambiguous. It should just be DM's judgement. After all, they know the NPC the best.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It needs to be unambiguous so the player can make an informed choice. Anything that can either work as intended or totally hose you depending on how the DM is feeling today can be serious threat to the game experience.

It's like if sometimes fireball just centered itself on you based on if the DM wanted it to or not.

 

[Yaarel]

I understand it is ambiguous, but my question is - Don't you think it is ambiguous for a reason?

I mean, charming the short-tempered blacksmith who is in the middle of working versus charming the flirty actor who is practicing lines versus charming the no-nonsense guard who is drinking after work versus charming the thieves' guild gambler who is running a card tournament could, and should, all have different reactions no matter how they were treated. There are too many scenarios, which is why it is ambiguous. It should just be DM's judgement. After all, they know the NPC the best.

If the Friends cantrip is crap, virtually no one will use it.

If the Friends cantrip is great, players will use it frequently.

The intention of the designers for the cantrip need to be spelled out clearly.

This isnt a situation where "DM fix it" is useful.

The DM needs a clear sense of how powerful the cantrip is supposed to be, assuming that the designers have already determined that the cantrip is solid or excellent without being broken or disruptive.

 

[Dausuul]

I understand it is ambiguous, but my question is - Don't you think it is ambiguous for a reason?

I mean, charming the short-tempered blacksmith who is in the middle of working versus charming the flirty actor who is practicing lines versus charming the no-nonsense guard who is drinking after work versus charming the thieves' guild gambler who is running a card tournament could, and should, all have different reactions no matter how they were treated.

None of that is a reason to leave "Does the target know its mind was affected by magic?" ambiguous. That's an essential detail for mind-affecting magic, without which the DM cannot reasonably assess how any given target would respond. It should IMO be stated clearly in every single enchantment spell.

I agree that the spell text should not mandate a hostile reaction as it does in the 2014 PHB -- I could easily imagine a wizards' association in which the routine consensual use of friends among members was regarded as a pleasant social lubricant -- but I do think the text should note how typical NPCs are likely to react: "When the spell wears off, the target knows its mind was affected and may become hostile as a result." This would help set expectations for players.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Cast Disguise Self, cast Friends, and get them to hate someone else?

Really, casting Friends should not create enemies.

Friends can give you a bonus to your next Charisma check equal to your Spellcasting modifier. No penalties.

If you want a cantrip that is a Minor Suggestion that can cause someone to think ill of you afterwards, that is essentially a mind trick. Call it Tasha's Mind Trick or Minor/Lesser Suggestion. Don't call it "Friends."