>> Ask Ashiel Anything <<

[Icehawk]

Hm... Doesn't Magic Vestments stack with armor though, being greater magic weapon for armor? Or did you change that spell to be more like Instant Armor/mage armor too? Or did you just mean mage armor?

Not sure how I feel about the natural armor changes. On one hand, I agree on the math of that. Many devs and others have discussed how natural armor can skew things weird for certain stuff. Speaking as a level 5 char who fought a trog fighter in full plate before and only got by through judicious use of Shatter, I definitely know what you are getting at. On the other hand, it does run into an argument I had with my dm ages ago when he made the same ruling on it vs my Lizardfolk in 3.5. His argument was it made sense cus if you're strong enough to pierce scale mail, what's my scales gonna do? My counter is that you lose force piercing through said armor, thus having an extra layer makes it even less likely for you to hurt me. Unless said force is so overwhelming (Thus hitting above their combined numbers) that it indeed does not matter, it should prevent harm. I know this is a realism vs abstract and balance issue, but it does tweak my brain a bit.

I assume this means the Druid will no longer be the king of AC anymore then? Makes some sense I suppose. Though they'll still be fairly impressive if just from size bonus to dex from air elemental. Poor Ranger though... Does this mean they'll get an equivalent spell for granting dodge bonuses now? Or does every class need said amulet now cus they can't get by with potions/casting of Barkskin?

About the shields, what's the functional difference between light shield and bracer? I have a free hand but can't make attacks, compared to I can hold anything but a weapon, but can make shield bashes. Doesn't that mean light shields are always better? Or did you mean you can't make shield bashes with a bracer?

[Ashiel]

Icehawk wrote:

Hm... Doesn't Magic Vestments stack with armor though, being greater magic weapon for armor? Or did you change that spell to be more like Instant Armor/mage armor too? Or did you just mean mage armor?

Nah, I mean how barkskin raises your existing natural armor, and magic vestment raises your existing armor. :)

Quote:

Not sure how I feel about the natural armor changes. On one hand, I agree on the math of that. Many devs and others have discussed how natural armor can skew things weird for certain stuff. Speaking as a level 5 char who fought a trog fighter in full plate before and only got by through judicious use of Shatter, I definitely know what you are getting at. On the other hand, it does run into an argument I had with my dm ages ago when he made the same ruling on it vs my Lizardfolk in 3.5. His argument was it made sense cus if you're strong enough to pierce scale mail, what's my scales gonna do? My counter is that you lose force piercing through said armor, thus having an extra layer makes it even less likely for you to hurt me. Unless said force is so overwhelming (Thus hitting above their combined numbers) that it indeed does not matter, it should prevent harm. I know this is a realism vs abstract and balance issue, but it does tweak my brain a bit.

Yeah, this was the reason I hadn't changed it previously, because I looked at it exactly the same way. It made sense well enough. However, in practice, jumps waaaay out there really fast. Tiny natural armor bonuses like kobolds and such aren't much of an issue but bigger ones like lizardfolk, troglodytes, or most any intelligent outsider start getting into the realm of "impossible to hit" really quick (especially druids in PF who can get ACs around 70-ish).

We needed some sort of compromise and rather than lower natural armor by a ton for most creatures and assume they were going to use armor-boosting items or buffs, we opted to make it so that armor is optional for creatures with natural armor; so things like lizardfolk are essentially wearing penalty-free medium armor (which fits very well into their society which is both aquatic and filled with druid sorts).

Quote:

I assume this means the Druid will no longer be the king of AC anymore then? Makes some sense I suppose. Though they'll still be fairly impressive if just from size bonus to dex from air elemental. Poor Ranger though... Does this mean they'll get an equivalent spell for granting dodge bonuses now? Or does every class need said amulet now cus they can't get by with potions/casting of Barkskin?

Druids and Rangers will be safe, though druids won't be able to hit the nigh unhittable ACs that they could before. They'll be competitive with armored tanks but they won't be leaps and bounds better than them either. As to giving classes other means of keeping equivalent armor classes: absolutely!

I mean, I couldn't just replace the magic item without making an associated spell for it (okay, I guess I could but I wouldn't because that's really sloppy), so I'll add an equivalent buff. Because the objective isn't to nerf player-character sorts but keep them more or less where they were, improve touch-ACs at higher levels (a little bit), and patch the issue of stacking big armor bonuses with big natural armor bonuses.

Quote:

About the shields, what's the functional difference between light shield and bracer? I have a free hand but can't make attacks, compared to I can hold anything but a weapon, but can make shield bashes. Doesn't that mean light shields are always better? Or did you mean you can't make shield bashes with a bracer?

You can't make shield bashes with a bracer. You can hold and wield a weapon in the hand wearing a bracer, but it provides the least defense. Light shields are a step up from bracers in that it's not super defensive but you can hold something in that hand and use the shield as a weapon if needed. Heavy shields are more defensive and you can use them as weapons but your hand is entirely accounted for.

Tower shields are essentially super heavy shields but we're still working on how we want to implement tower shields in full. At the moment they don't have any special rules so they're currently just heavy shield+ if you don't mind the check penalty but it's a placeholder until we determine exactly what we want to do with tower shields.

[PathlessBeth]

Are dodge bonuses still going to stack with themselves? If so, that opens up the potential for stacking lots of slotless dodge-bonus boosting items to inflate your AC. I'm not sure if that's what you want to do....

[Ashiel]

137ben wrote:

Are dodge bonuses still going to stack with themselves? If so, that opens up the potential for stacking lots of slotless dodge-bonus boosting items to inflate your AC. I'm not sure if that's what you want to do....

Falls into receiving the bonus from the same source. We'll be spelling out a few things about magic items a little more clearly to make it less confusing for people (because as much as I love the magic item creation rules they aren't super clear by any means).

Essentially the item would be treated as the same effect as the spell, so just as casting the same spell over and over wouldn't give you stacking dodge bonuses, wearing multiple copies of the item wouldn't stack with each other either (nor would it stack with the spell in question).

Kind of like how you can stack temporary hit points but not from the same source (you can use false life + death knell and they stack, but you can't use false life + false life).

[Ashiel]

Also, we're nasty powergamers which I think helps with the process. If we're shooting out an idea, we then immediately try to take it to its ultimate conclusion. If that conclusion is something we feel is bad for the game we'll try something else. Bad for the game also includes uncomfortable or undesirable roleplaying / world building implications. :P

[Klara Meison]

>Armors have been merged into having shared statistics based on their type. In Pathfinder, there are generally clear winners in all of the armor types that make them the go-to armor and their price differences are more or less pointless after the lowest of levels.

Are you going to do the same thing to weapons? Please do the same thing to weapons.

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

>Armors have been merged into having shared statistics based on their type. In Pathfinder, there are generally clear winners in all of the armor types that make them the go-to armor and their price differences are more or less pointless after the lowest of levels.

Are you going to do the same thing to weapons? Please do the same thing to weapons.

Yes. It was one of the first things that was decided when I was working on the system.

1. Essentially you have weapon groups (such as axes, blades, hammers, bows, crossbows, firearms, etc).

2. Weapons also have a technology rating (unarmed, primitive, archaic, modern, advanced). For example, a "club" is a primitive hammer, while a "mace" would be an archaic hammer. Some sort of warhammer-40k techno-hammer would be an advanced hammer. :P

3. The weapon's damage depends on its size and technology level. For example, a primitive longsword might be a stick with a bunch of shark teeth lashed to it that deals 1d6 damage, while an archaic sword (such as longswords in D&D) would deal 1d8 damage.

Each group of weapons have certain traits that you can pick to fine tune the weapon. For example, you can decide your weapon deals a bit more damage with each hit, or you might decide your weapon deals a lot of damage on a critical hit, or you might decide that your weapon is really good at tripping people, etc.

There is no simple, martial, or exotic weapon. Instead, how effective you are with a weapon will be determined by your level of proficiency in that weapon group (simple, military, master) which improves your crit-% and makes your weapon features more powerful (for example, the sundering quality on weapons allows you to ignore 2 points of hardness, military proficiency allows you to ignore 4 points, and master 6 points). Side Note: DR/adamantine doesn't exist anymore, some creatures like golems just have hardness like objects so sundering weapons are pretty shweet against those.

Most any weapon is viable now.

[PathlessBeth]

Ashiel wrote:

137ben wrote:

Are dodge bonuses still going to stack with themselves? If so, that opens up the potential for stacking lots of slotless dodge-bonus boosting items to inflate your AC. I'm not sure if that's what you want to do....

Falls into receiving the bonus from the same source. We'll be spelling out a few things about magic items a little more clearly to make it less confusing for people (because as much as I love the magic item creation rules they aren't super clear by any means).

Essentially the item would be treated as the same effect as the spell, so just as casting the same spell over and over wouldn't give you stacking dodge bonuses, wearing multiple copies of the item wouldn't stack with each other either (nor would it stack with the spell in question).

Kind of like how you can stack temporary hit points but not from the same source (you can use false life + death knell and they stack, but you can't use false life + false life).

At least in 3.5, Dodge bonuses are the weird exception in that they always stack, even from the same source. The DMG and ELH both go out of their way to say how important it is that neither spells nor items can grant dodge bonuses, since dodge bonuses can be stacked even from the same source (the ELH calls out that dodge bonuses in particular cannot be granted by epic magic items or epic spells, ever).

I'm not sure if that rule was changed in Pathfinder. That said, that rule never made all that much sense to me, so if you are getting rid of it then it is probably a good thing.

[Ashiel]

Well I knew there was the exception that dodge bonuses stack, but to my knowledge (which isn't infallible) it was a rule that they stacked despite being the same type (it was mentioned in the section explaining that bonuses of the same type don't stack, with the exception of dodge, racial, and circumstance bonuses), whereas the magic chapter noted that even if a bonus would normally stack with itself it doesn't if it's from the same source.

Which is another issue I'm trying (really hard) to cut down on. The issue that super relevant information is often scattered like seeds in the wind.

[PathlessBeth]

Hrm...
In the PHB, the intro to the magic chapter says

PHB, pg 174-175 wrote:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on

attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. For example, two bless spells
don’t give twice the benefit of one bless. Both bless spells, however,
continue to act simultaneously, and if one ends first, the other one
continues to operate for the remainder of its duration. Likewise,
two haste spells do not make a creature doubly fast.
More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if
they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells;
see Bonus Types, above). For example, the enhancement bonus to
Strength from a bull’s strength spell and the enhancement bonus to
Strength from a divine power spell don’t stack. You use whichever
bonus gives you the better Strength score. In the same way, a belt of
giant Strength gives you an enhancement bonus to Strength, which
does not stack with the bonus you get from a bull’s strength spell.
Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. For
example, bless provides a +1 morale bonus on saves against fear
effects, and protection from evil provides a +2 resistance bonus on
saves against spells cast by evil creatures. A character under the
influence of spells gets a +1 bonus against fear effects, a +2 bonus
against spells cast by evil beings, and a +3 bonus against fear spells
cast by evil creatures.
A bonus that isn’t named (just a “+2 bonus” rather than a “+2
resistance bonus”) stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two
or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same
target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. For
example, if a character takes a –4 penalty to Strength from a ray of
enfeeblement spell and then receives a second ray of enfeeblement spell
that applies a –6 penalty, he or she takes only the –6 penalty. Both
spells are still operating on the character, however. If one ray of enfeeblement spell is dispelled or its duration runs out, the other spell
remains in effect, assuming that its duration has not yet expired.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes
produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than
once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell
in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are
actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant
while the final spell in the series lasts.

It may look like there are a lot of line breaks in weird places in that quote. That's because I just copy/pasted it from WotC's PDF version of the PHB, which is two-column justified, and copying preserves line breaks in the original file.)

It doesn't say anything specifically about dodge bonuses, so it appears you are correct. Moreover, if dodge bonuses from the same spell did stack, it would be problematic since Haste grants a +1 dodge bonus, so unlimited castings of Haste (or a very large number of castings) could get you arbitrarily high AC.

For magic items, on the other hand, the DMG says that there are no magic items granting dodge bonuses. The ELH backs it up, saying

ELH wrote:

Even an epic magic item can never grant a dodge bonus, and the maximum inherent bonus that can be applied to an ability score is +5.

Funnily enough, the Rules Compendium doesn't have any limitations on what can or can't grant dodge bonuses.

I'm guessing they were worried about you getting a ton of cheap slotless items which all give +1 dodge bonuses, effectively allowing you to increase your AC for only linear gold cost, rather than the quadratic gold cost given by the magic item cost formula. If you make Amulet of Natural Armor (or whatever you refluff it as) grants a dodge bonus, that's probably going to be okay, but unless you alter the stacking rules, you'll still want to make sure that slotless items can't grant dodge bonuses (and maybe also restrict which slots can have dodge-bonus-granting items).

Switching to Pathfinder, the Core Rulebook does not seem to have altered the text from the 3.5 SRD (going by the PRD, anyhow). Haste still grants a dodge bonus in Pathfinder.
However, the Ultimate Magic Designing Spells guide states

Ultimate Magic wrote:

* Spells and magic items should never grant dodge bonuses because dodge bonuses always stack, and it would be a simple matter to stack various low-power items or spells with small dodge bonuses and get an incredibly high Armor Class more cheaply than by achieving that AC using the armor, deflection, enhancement, and natural armor bonuses in the game.

That chapter contains a lot of advice that is really detrimental to homebrew (it also contains some good advice mixed in, and some rather obvious advice. Par for Paizo....)

So the Ultimate Magic section of "advice" on designing spells contradicts the Core Rulebook magic rules. If the UM "advice" is taken as the actual rules, then haste can be repeatedly cast for arbitrarily high AC. On the other hand, if the CRB is assumed to take precedence over supplements, then the UM guide is just flat out wrong (and so not a very good guide for beginning homebrewers:( ).

[Ashiel]

Yeesh, well, there's a few spells that can grant dodge bonuses that are more efficient than haste. Blessing of fervor grants a +2 dodge bonus for the duration, so if they stacked it would be +10% evasion per cast. However the most efficient would probably be extreme flexibility which lasts 10 rounds / level and grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC in addition to some other things, which means you could expend 10 charges for a wand to give someone +10 dodge to AC.

If they stacked of course. :)

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

[Ashiel]

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

[PathlessBeth]

Come to think of it, I don't know what Paizo's rules on Core vs Supplement contradictions are. In 3.5, the errata page starts by defining a hirarchy of sources, with each type of rule being assigned a "primary source" which overrides all other sources for that type of rule. The MM is the primary source for monster special abilities and creature types, the PHB is the primary source for base classes, feats, skills, combat rules, magic rules, etc, and the DMG is the primary source for magic items, prestige classes, and epic rules. Supplements are primary sources for the specific classes, races, feats, items, and subsystems they contain, but not for general rules about classes, races, feats, items, or subsystems (those are all in core). In the case where two secondary sources contradict each other, the more recent one wins.
I don't know if Paizo has such a process for resolving rules contradictions. The staff themselves seem to decide it by gut feelings.

The word 'errata' actually means something different when WotC used it then when Paizo uses it. WotC actually used it correctly. In academic publications (scientific journals and textbooks), 'errata' refers to the correction of factual errors. The rules of a game normally can't be factually wrong about themselves by definition. The exception is when the rules contradict each other. In 3.5, if there is a contradiction in the rules, then the primary source mechanism is used to determine which one is 'correct'. So, for example, if the MM and PHB contradict each other on a monster rule, the MM wins and errata is issued for the PHB to correct the error. Conversely, if the MM and PHB contradict each other over a feat or spell, then the PHB wins and they issue errata correcting the MM.
By contrast, Paizo uses the word 'errata' differently than how it is used in non-gaming contexts. For Paizo, 'errata' just means anything they changed their minds about. A more accurate name for what Paizo calls 'errata' would be "rules updates," (which is what they called it in 4e). Another more accurate name would be "things we changed our minds about."

Note that in the above discussion about the heirarcy of 3.5 rules, I was ignoring the two oddball sources: the Rules Compendium and the FAQ.
Let's start with the good one. The Rules Compendium collects the top-level rules about magic, combat, feats, classes, spells, subsystems, etc. from the core rules and a bunch of supplements. It does not include any specific spells, feats, classes, etc, only the general rules for using them, because that would make the book unmanageably gargantuan. The title page lists all the sources it compiles rules from

Quote:

Resources: This book is made up of material that originally appeared in the following publications: Player’s Handbook by Jonathan

Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams; Dungeon Master’s Guide by Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet; Monster
Manual by Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and Monte Cook; Book of Exalted Deeds by James Wyatt, Christopher Perkins, and
Darrin Drader; Complete Adventurer by Jesse Decker; Complete Arcane by Richard Baker; Complete Warrior by Andy Collins,
David Noonan, and Ed Stark; Frostburn by Wolfgang Baur, James Jacobs, and George Strayton; Heroes of Horror by James Wyatt,
Ari Marmell, and C.A. Suleiman; Libris Mortis by Andy Collins and Bruce R. Cordell; Magic Item Compendium by Andy Collins,
Eytan Bernstein, Frank Brunner, Owen K.C. Stephens, and John Snead; Player’s Handbook II by David Noonan; Races of Destiny
by David Noonan, Eric Cagle, and Aaron Rosenberg; Races of Stone by David Noonan, Jesse Decker, and Michelle Lyons; Races of
the Wild by Skip Williams; Sandstorm by Bruce R. Cordell, Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, and J.D. Wiker; Stormwrack by Richard Baker,
Joseph J. Carriker, Jr., and Jennifer Clarke Wilkes; and Tome of Battle by Richard Baker, Matthew Sernett, and Frank Brunner.

In spite of its convenience and comprehensive rules coverage, the RC is in an awkward place as far as rules authority goes. In the introduction of the RC itself, it states that the book

RC, page 5 wrote:

updates and elucidates the rules, as well

as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and
easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is
meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how
to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer
that question.

However, the errata page on the WotC website was never altered to acknowledge the Rules Compendium as even existing, and nothing WotC ever published ever referenced the RC again, so a lot of fans claim it has no RAW authority. Further complicating matters is the fact that the RC only claims precedent over preexisting publications. The "premium reprints" of the core rulebooks (which contain a majority of the rules in the RC) were released in 2013, after the RC, and some players claim that they override the RC even if the original print run of the core rules don't.

While I personally prefer to use the RC in my campaigns due to its strong organization and clarity, citing it as RAW in an internet discussion will elicit a strong emotional reaction from some people who don't think it counts (or should count) as a rules source.

And then there's the so-called FAQ. If you're reading this thread, you're almost certainly familiar with the complaints lodged against Paizo's FAQ. The 3.5 FAQ is even worse than Paizo's. Unlike in the case of Paizo's FAQ, which is written and curated by Paizo's Design Team, the 3.5 FAQs are not written by the authors of the sourcebooks. (Dragon Magazine had the 'sage advice' column during 3.0 by Skip Williams, which provided a lot of insight into the intent of the core rules, but that ended when Skip left WotC). Oftentimes the rules being ruled on by an FAQ was written by an author who had left WotC years earlier and probably wasn't available for consulting by the non-author staffer writing the FAQ. Hence, the 3.5 FAQ is useless as a source of RAI (unlike Paizo's, where the FAQ at least gives you information about what some of the designers mean...or what the designers are sort of feeling like it should be at that particular moment).
WotC also never refers to the FAQ as an authoratative source, even in the FAQ itself (maybe they recognized that the low-level staffer they had writing the FAQ wasn't a lead designer and so shouldn't be given too much authority? Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit). Hence, it can't be used as a RAW source. And unlike the RC, which is a useful reference even if you treat it as a set of house rules, the FAQ is utterly useless as a "house rule compilation". The FAQs constantly contradict not only the actual books and errata, but each other. It's not even uncommon for a single FAQ answer to be internally inconsistent, let alone consistent with the rest of the FAQ.
The one saving grace about the 3.5 FAQ is that it isn't "controversial" the way the RC (or the Pathfinder FAQ) is. Pretty much everyone who still plays 3.5 regularly recognizes the FAQ's flaws, so it almost never gets cited in rules arguments and people don't claim it somehow overrides the actual books. The same can't be said for the RC (as I noted earlier, some people consider it the highest authority of rules, others say it has no rules authority, and others like me don't care and just use it anyways 'cause it's convenient), or Paizo's FAQ (c.f. every argument on the Paizo.com forum ever). The upshot is that 3.5's FAQ doesn't cause any active harm, since it just gets ignored.

...............hold on a minute, why am I rambling about rules contradictions and WotC/Paizo's FAQ and errata policies? I lost track somewhere in this post as to what I was actually talking about. Oh, right, because there is a contradiction between the PFRPG CRB and UM. WotC has a clear method for resolving such contradictions and used their errata to reinforce that method. Paizo may or may not have a clear policy for resolving contradictions, I don't know since I don't pay as close attention to their rules. Anyhow, good night, I need to get some sleep.

[PathlessBeth]

Dang, I was DOUBLE-NINJA'D while I was typing that post! Anyhow,

Ashiel wrote:

Yeesh, well, there's a few spells that can grant dodge bonuses that are more efficient than haste. Blessing of fervor grants a +2 dodge bonus for the duration, so if they stacked it would be +10% evasion per cast. However the most efficient would probably be extreme flexibility which lasts 10 rounds / level and grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC in addition to some other things, which means you could expend 10 charges for a wand to give someone +10 dodge to AC.

If they stacked of course. :)

Ah, of course there are non-core spells with dodge bonuses. I didn't mention those because I was collecting info about dodge bonuses by CTRL+F-ing my way through the PHB, DMG, RC, and CRB. The only spells in 3.5 core which even use the word 'dodge' are Haste and Wall of Thorns (the latter doesn't grant a dodge bonus). I'm not surprised that there are better dodge-bonus-granting spells in other Paizo sources. There probably are in 3.5 as well, but I only own the SpC in print so I can't easily find them:)

[Another Ashiel Cultist]

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

[Klara Meison]

Another Ashiel Cultist wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

How many of you are there?

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

Another Ashiel Cultist wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

How many of you are there?

There's always room for one more. :}

[Klara Meison]

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Another Ashiel Cultist wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

How many of you are there?

There's always room for one more. :}

Unfortunately Brigh grants a +10 save bonus against conversion effects, so not today.

By the way, any advice for a new GM related to encounter design?

[PathlessBeth]

Klara Meison wrote:

How many of you are there?

Google-fu finds at least three:

Ashiel Cultist
Ashiel Cultist #496
Another Ashiel Cultist

[Kryzbyn]

I just have a t-shirt.

I am liking everything that I'm reading here, Ash & Aratok. Good stuff!

[PathlessBeth]

I made a thread in the rules forum about the CRB vs UM dodge bonus contradiction. Dunno if anything will come of it.

[Icehawk]

Ashiel wrote:

Icehawk wrote:

Hm... Doesn't Magic Vestments stack with armor though, being greater magic weapon for armor? Or did you change that spell to be more like Instant Armor/mage armor too? Or did you just mean mage armor?

Nah, I mean how barkskin raises your existing natural armor, and magic vestment raises your existing armor. :)

Quote:

Not sure how I feel about the natural armor changes. On one hand, I agree on the math of that. Many devs and others have discussed how natural armor can skew things weird for certain stuff. Speaking as a level 5 char who fought a trog fighter in full plate before and only got by through judicious use of Shatter, I definitely know what you are getting at. On the other hand, it does run into an argument I had with my dm ages ago when he made the same ruling on it vs my Lizardfolk in 3.5. His argument was it made sense cus if you're strong enough to pierce scale mail, what's my scales gonna do? My counter is that you lose force piercing through said armor, thus having an extra layer makes it even less likely for you to hurt me. Unless said force is so overwhelming (Thus hitting above their combined numbers) that it indeed does not matter, it should prevent harm. I know this is a realism vs abstract and balance issue, but it does tweak my brain a bit.

Yeah, this was the reason I hadn't changed it previously, because I looked at it exactly the same way. It made sense well enough. However, in practice, jumps waaaay out there really fast. Tiny natural armor bonuses like kobolds and such aren't much of an issue but bigger ones like lizardfolk, troglodytes, or most any intelligent outsider start getting into the realm of "impossible to hit" really quick (especially druids in PF who can get ACs around 70-ish).

We needed some sort of compromise and rather than lower natural armor by a ton for most creatures and assume they were going to use armor-boosting items or buffs, we opted to make it so that armor is optional for creatures with natural armor; so things like...

Ah okay. The shield thing wasn't clear the way you said it before. bracer-types give you a completely free hand but can't be used to make attacks, light shields are the middle ground allowing you to shield bash and hold objects but not weapons makes it sound like they both don't let you attack but light shields let you shield bash, so effectively light shields are bracers that still let you attack. I get now you meant bracers don't let you shield bash, but the phrasing at the time is all.

Hm. I suppose it's more elegant than just not letting natural armor bonuses above 0 being raised in any way, given some monsters like outsiders have pretty absurd AC's. A lizardfolk basically get's free level 12 bark skin early so until then they would be pretty hard to deal with. Then again, there's the old infinite potion spell with the alchemist to keep reusing potions that are higher cl than you... I just bought a 1000 gp potion of barkskin with cl 20 and kept reusing that over and over at level 4 :p. Though given the writing of the spell, that potion musta been mostly backwash, ew.

But yeah I totally know what you mean on the subject though. Although, does this mean you can now get your skin enchanted? Cus otherwise it's still way more worth it to get a set of armor to get fortification or whatnot on it. I dunno, magical scale tattoos or whatnot or something, putting on armor suppresses or something cus they have to be uncovered to work?

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Another Ashiel Cultist wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

How many of you are there?

There's always room for one more. :}

Unfortunately Brigh grants a +10 save bonus against conversion effects, so not today.

By the way, any advice for a new GM related to encounter design?

Well, I wrote some stuff on my (infrequently updated) blog about building encounters, and I'm always available for asking specific questions if anything on my blog doesn't answer things.

Encounter Design Pt. 1.

Let me know what you think and any questions. :)

[Ashiel]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I just have a t-shirt.

I am liking everything that I'm reading here, Ash & Aratok. Good stuff!

Thanks! There's a lot of stuff to do to try to meet my goal of having an alpha out sometime this year, but I'm working on it. XD

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Say I had a pair of swords, one made out of cold iron and the other out of alchemical silver, and wanted to name them Lily and Iris, which should I call which?

[Ashiel]

Icehawk wrote:

Ah okay. The shield thing wasn't clear the way you said it before. bracer-types give you a completely free hand but can't be used to make attacks, light shields are the middle ground allowing you to shield bash and hold objects but not weapons makes it sound like they both don't let you attack but light shields let you shield bash, so effectively light shields are bracers that still let you attack. I get now you meant bracers don't let you shield bash, but the phrasing at the time is all.

Yeah, I could have been clearer. :P

This is a lesson as to why it's important to make sure to be extra diligent when writing mechanics. Words and their meanings matter so very much. :)

Quote:

Hm. I suppose it's more elegant than just not letting natural armor bonuses above 0 being raised in any way, given some monsters like outsiders have pretty absurd AC's. A lizardfolk basically get's free level 12 bark skin early so until then they would be pretty hard to deal with. Then again, there's the old infinite potion spell with the alchemist to keep reusing potions that are higher cl than you... I just bought a 1000 gp potion of barkskin with cl 20 and kept reusing that over and over at level 4 :p. Though given the writing of the spell, that potion musta been mostly backwash, ew.

Yeah I've got a friend who uses alchemists a lot that uses that very same trick. We joked that he should really get prestidigitation or purify food and drink to cast on it occasionally to avoid it getting too gross (we were just joking though). :P

An Alchemist Aside: On the subject of alchemists, since he's a really huge fan of alchemists I threw together some design bits for an alchemist class for d20 legends. Basically they have a certain number of concoctions that they can create in a day, and concoctions include mutagens, bombs, or bio-bottles. Mutagens let you pick a couple of buff effects, bombs do what you'd expect, and bio-bottles grow mutant plant minions under your mental control (functioning similar to a summon monster or summon nature's ally spell based on the highest level spell you can cast).

Quote:

But yeah I totally know what you mean on the subject though. Although, does this mean you can now get your skin enchanted? Cus otherwise it's still way more worth it to get a set of armor to get fortification or whatnot on it. I dunno, magical scale tattoos or whatnot or something, putting on armor suppresses or something cus they have to be uncovered to work?

We'll definitely include options for characters sporting natural armor values, even if it's in the form of something akin to an amulet of mighty fists or bracers of armor, allowing you to pickup things like fortification and other armor qualities.

We've also been discussing the prospect of removing the magic armor "body slots" and replace it with an "aura slot" system instead, where it doesn't much matter where the magic item is placed but the number of magic items. Mostly because the slot system is intended to be a limiter on how much magic shwag you can use at one time but it can make randomly finding new goodies kind of a pain (especially when choosing between staples and things that are just cool, like an amulet that raises AC or an amulet that lets you turn into a wolf). Also, a lot of inexperienced GMs (and events like PFS) are really anal about making alternate-slot versions of existing items (such as a belt of natural armor).

Seems to use it would be a lot easier to just say that your aura can only support so many different magical items working on you at one time before additional items stop working. This would mean the slots don't matter themselves so if you've ever wanted to wear magic rings like this you could. :P

It also means you could make certain stylistic or aesthetic choices for characters as well, such as wearing an amulet wrapped around your wrist like a rosary or something and it still work without getting some sort of special permissions.

[Ashiel]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Say I had a pair of swords, one made out of cold iron and the other out of alchemical silver, and wanted to name them Lily and Iris, which should I call which?

If if you spin it on the color schemes, I'd probably call the alchemical silver sword "Lily" (because lilies are often a soft white color which is closer to shiny silver) and the cold iron sword "Iris" (because irises are often a dark purple color which would be closer to the appearance of a dark iron than a lily), but both take a bit of a stretch to tie them to the flowers.

So my official answer would be "whichever you want". :P

[Kryzbyn]

Ashiel wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I just have a t-shirt.

I am liking everything that I'm reading here, Ash & Aratok. Good stuff!

Thanks! There's a lot of stuff to do to try to meet my goal of having an alpha out sometime this year, but I'm working on it. XD

I'll quit bugging you about the warlock then ;)

[Ashiel]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I just have a t-shirt.

I am liking everything that I'm reading here, Ash & Aratok. Good stuff!

Thanks! There's a lot of stuff to do to try to meet my goal of having an alpha out sometime this year, but I'm working on it. XD

I'll quit bugging you about the warlock then ;)

Maybe I'll make a wowlock for d20 legends. :}

[Klara Meison]

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Another Ashiel Cultist wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I'll definitely agree that dodge bonuses need to be few and far between, or at least carefully weighed to determine cost vs benefit of them, since they do indeed stack across multiple sources.

I'd probably include a note in any new spell effect that said something along the lines of "this dodge bonus does not stack with any other magical effects that grant a dodge bonus, such as the haste spell or whatever the name of the spell we intend to add will be". :)

Ashiel wrote:

Though we might make it a luck bonus instead. Those are few and far between and a spell or thing that makes you more lucky would be appropriate.

But lo, I hath nothing more to add to thine Posts, excepting to say that thou doth spake truly, for so it ith written.

And NOW methinks it is ACTUALLY time for mine eyes to close in slumber, for it ith late.

How many of you are there?

There's always room for one more. :}

Unfortunately Brigh grants a +10 save bonus against conversion effects, so not today.

By the way, any advice for a new GM related to encounter design?

Well, I wrote some stuff on my (infrequently updated) blog about building encounters, and I'm always available for asking specific questions if anything on my blog doesn't answer things.

Encounter Design Pt. 1.

Let me know what you think and any questions. :)

Thanks. Liked the guide. Looking forward to "how to avoid getting overwhelmed by the sheer options available to each NPC and PC" part.

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Well, I wrote some stuff on my (infrequently updated) blog about building encounters, and I'm always available for asking specific questions if anything on my blog doesn't answer things.

Encounter Design Pt. 1.

Let me know what you think and any questions. :)

Thanks. Liked the guide. Looking forward to "how to avoid getting overwhelmed by the sheer options available to each NPC and PC" part.

Part 2. :)

EDIT: {Trimmed the quotes}

A really short crash-course for it would be...

• Find a nice way of handling initiatives for lots of NPCs (such as rolling beforehand, rolling for groups, or using 10 + initiative mods for filler NPCs).
  
• Decide what the role of each creature will be. Even if they have lots of abilities (which makes them flexible), avoid trying to think round to round for each NPC. Give them a goal or task and pursue it until doing so isn't needed or they are clearly needed for something else.
  
• When dealing with encounters with lots of options, have a general strategy in mind for what the NPCs are going to try to make happen ahead of time. This is true for even encounters with lone creatures (such as dragons).

[Ashiel]

Figured I'd share a practice drawing I was doing before work tonight; because sharing is caring. :)

Kiss practice.

[What's in the box?]

Nice kiss :)

[Icehawk]

Pretty good. Obviously it's a rough, and it shows, but the anatomy seems to be on point, and proportions seem right. And you did what I can never do and make a face not look like a horrific mockery of anatomy.

[Klara Meison]

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Well, I wrote some stuff on my (infrequently updated) blog about building encounters, and I'm always available for asking specific questions if anything on my blog doesn't answer things.

Encounter Design Pt. 1.

Let me know what you think and any questions. :)

Thanks. Liked the guide. Looking forward to "how to avoid getting overwhelmed by the sheer options available to each NPC and PC" part.

Part 2. :)

EDIT: {Trimmed the quotes}

A really short crash-course for it would be...

• Find a nice way of handling initiatives for lots of NPCs (such as rolling beforehand, rolling for groups, or using 10 + initiative mods for filler NPCs).
  
• Decide what the role of each creature will be. Even if they have lots of abilities (which makes them flexible), avoid trying to think round to round for each NPC. Give them a goal or task and pursue it until doing so isn't needed or they are clearly needed for something else.
  
• When dealing with encounters with lots of options, have a general strategy in mind for what the NPCs are going to try to make happen ahead of time. This is true for even encounters with lone creatures (such as dragons).

Two questions about Part 4. First of all, how about BBEG+traps fights? Like an epic eldritch knight and some magical mcguffin that heals him and might resurrect him if he is killed? It seems to fit the theme you were describing.

And what are your thoughts on just giving BBEG more actions? Like, say, 2 standard and 2 move actions per turn, or 1 full, 1 standard and 1 move?

Or doing anything else that doesn't fit in the current rules system and that players can't use, in general.

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Well, I wrote some stuff on my (infrequently updated) blog about building encounters, and I'm always available for asking specific questions if anything on my blog doesn't answer things.

Encounter Design Pt. 1.

Let me know what you think and any questions. :)

Thanks. Liked the guide. Looking forward to "how to avoid getting overwhelmed by the sheer options available to each NPC and PC" part.

Part 2. :)

EDIT: {Trimmed the quotes}

A really short crash-course for it would be...

• Find a nice way of handling initiatives for lots of NPCs (such as rolling beforehand, rolling for groups, or using 10 + initiative mods for filler NPCs).
  
• Decide what the role of each creature will be. Even if they have lots of abilities (which makes them flexible), avoid trying to think round to round for each NPC. Give them a goal or task and pursue it until doing so isn't needed or they are clearly needed for something else.
  
• When dealing with encounters with lots of options, have a general strategy in mind for what the NPCs are going to try to make happen ahead of time. This is true for even encounters with lone creatures (such as dragons).

Two questions about Part 4. First of all, how about BBEG+traps fights? Like an epic eldritch knight and some magical mcguffin that heals him and might resurrect him if he is killed? It seems to fit the theme you were describing.

Absolutely. I'd have to dig it up, but I posted a thing about a red dragon a while back that had things like resetting traps in his lair that did things like drop fire AoEs or summon elementals. You can get creative with it. Same deal with environmental things (making use of water, lava, loose dirt, ice, fog, etc).

Quote:

And what are your thoughts on just giving BBEG more actions? Like, say, 2 standard and 2 move actions per turn, or 1 full, 1 standard and 1 move?

I'm honestly not too fond of it, for two reasons:

1. Rather than making a BBEG last longer (and thus allow more participation in a battle) it usually just causes them to be more lethal (since it increases their "burst" so heavily).

I do think having more abilities that "spread the love" are a good idea though. I discussed this a while back in this thread while describing some early concepts for attacks for our system, part of which involved things like dragons attacking a lot of people at once (which doesn't increase your burst-damage against one foe but allows you to apply pressure more broadly).

2. I have kind of a personal policy to not make NPC-only things if I can help it. I don't like doing things like including treasure only the NPCs can use, and in the same vein I don't really like things like feats, spells, and similar things that PCs don't have access to assuming they meet the prerequisites.

That said, it might not be so bad if there was some limiters on how it could be used (similar to how timestop puts limits on your actions, such as not allowing you to affect other creatures and things), though I think a blank check in additional actions could lead to a lot of dead-PCs.

Or doing anything else that doesn't fit in the current rules system and that players can't use, in general.

[Ashiel]

What's in the box? wrote:

Nice kiss :)

Thanks. :)

[Ashiel]

Icehawk wrote:

Pretty good. Obviously it's a rough, and it shows, but the anatomy seems to be on point, and proportions seem right. And you did what I can never do and make a face not look like a horrific mockery of anatomy.

Well, if it's a controlled mockery of anatomy that might be called "Style". :D

As an aside, I'd recommend checking out some of the tutorials by Sycra. You can find his youtube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Sycra. He's got a lot of really good tutorials that focus on anatomy and lots of other things too. :)

[Icehawk]

Ashiel wrote:

Icehawk wrote:

Pretty good. Obviously it's a rough, and it shows, but the anatomy seems to be on point, and proportions seem right. And you did what I can never do and make a face not look like a horrific mockery of anatomy.

Well, if it's a controlled mockery of anatomy that might be called "Style". :D

As an aside, I'd recommend checking out some of the tutorials by Sycra. You can find his youtube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Sycra. He's got a lot of really good tutorials that focus on anatomy and lots of other things too. :)

I suppose if post-modernism has taught me anything, it;s that style has no inherent meaning since you can fill the gap with buzzwords :p.

I'll definitely check that out though. I actually have some other works that are built more for strict old time animation (Thanks Don Bluth). Guess have to see what appeals to me.

I mean, one can have caricature, I just want my caricature to be intended heh.

[Ashiel]

Icehawk wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Icehawk wrote:

Pretty good. Obviously it's a rough, and it shows, but the anatomy seems to be on point, and proportions seem right. And you did what I can never do and make a face not look like a horrific mockery of anatomy.

Well, if it's a controlled mockery of anatomy that might be called "Style". :D

As an aside, I'd recommend checking out some of the tutorials by Sycra. You can find his youtube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Sycra. He's got a lot of really good tutorials that focus on anatomy and lots of other things too. :)

I suppose if post-modernism has taught me anything, it;s that style has no inherent meaning since you can fill the gap with buzzwords :p.

I'll definitely check that out though. I actually have some other works that are built more for strict old time animation (Thanks Don Bluth). Guess have to see what appeals to me.

I mean, one can have caricature, I just want my caricature to be intended heh.

I like Sycra's definition of style, which is an intentional exaggeration of features. It's why he stresses learning how to properly draw things like anatomy and then, when you're good at that, begin embellishing as you desire. He's got a great video where he discusses exaggerating certain features and how that produces styles like "anime style" and what-not.

That's what I meant when I said "controlled mockery". :P

Also, it occurs to me that I really don't understand certain concepts and terms like "post-modernism". It leaves me with head-crickets pretty much every time. (?_?)

[Klara Meison]

That does seem like a useful definition.

[Icehawk]

Post-Modernism is a bit of a complicated story, but you can basically thank the french for it. We'll be focusing on it as an art form as post modernism is a very broad topic that infects many things and you can thank it for a lot of nonsense, but this is about art. The basic concept of post modernism is that there is no singular way of doing things. It started at architecture, but it expanded outwards to encompass... Well everything.

In it's initial state this is fairly benign. The basic idea being that there's many methods to reach artistic medium is hardly egregious in an of itself. It led to several fascinating experiments in perspective and whatnot. Unfortunately, it became a tool of elitism and the lazy. See it became boiled down to a simple concept. There's a running quote on postmodernism "There is no truth, only interpretations." Now take that, and apply it to art. You can probably see where this is going. Now you can throw up literally anything, and claim it's art and it has to be "interpreted". And if you can't interpret it, you obviously aren't refined enough.

All the outrageous stories about art you hear these days, about things like just literal feces smeared on a canvas, this is what the concepts of post modernism in art have ultimately led to. It removed the possibility of something not being art, so now everything is art. Shock value and what essentially amounts to fortune telling has replaced much of what made art... Art. Now, that said, I'll reiterate there are good postmodern art pieces. Some people have gone above and beyond what they have to to make something fascinating. It unfortunately just is not the norm now, almost two centuries later.

[Ashiel]

Best explanation ever. :)

I doodled this, this morning, after work. I'm not really happy with it but I figured I'd share it anyway. About to head to bead so I'll probably either finish it or restart it later.

Angry face.

Trying to get better at drawing people pissed, 'cause I want to do a portrait of one of the iconic characters from my setting (a chaotic evil aasimar warmage that's overprotective of another iconic character, a neutral good tiefling).

[Icehawk]

Not bad, though I wasn't quite getting anger from that. If I wasn't told it was meant to be angry ahead of time, I don't think that's what would have been conveyed to me. Hm. Though I suppose there's many shades of anger.

Perhaps tilt the edges of the lips a little lower? Or possibly alter the angle of the eyebrows. I think the way her head seems tilted forward may be making them less emphasized than intended? I'm not sure really, I was never good at faces.

[Ashiel]

Icehawk wrote:

Not bad, though I wasn't quite getting anger from that. If I wasn't told it was meant to be angry ahead of time, I don't think that's what would have been conveyed to me. Hm. Though I suppose there's many shades of anger.

Perhaps tilt the edges of the lips a little lower? Or possibly alter the angle of the eyebrows. I think the way her head seems tilted forward may be making them less emphasized than intended? I'm not sure really, I was never good at faces.

Yeah, faces can be tough. I'm still not great at them by any means. I think I could learn a lot from paying attention to artists like Stjepan Sejic (Death Vigil; Sunstone) and Rupert Everton (I Roved Out In Search of Truth & Love); warning, Sunstone could be categorized as porn, and pretty much everything by Rupert Evertone is grade A+ porn and is assuredly NSFW.

In either case, they do absolutely amazing faces. Here are some SFW examples.
Cinder.
Remarkable.
Unamused #1.
Cinder Annoyed.
Unamused #2.
Roll Diplomacy.

EDIT: Here's a page from Stjepan Sejic's Death Vigil that shows off 5 faces at once! :D

Smile for the camera!

[Klara Meison]

Did you ever try to run a game with time travel? If you did, how did it go? If you didn't, any ideas on how a Villain would work in a groundhog day style setup?

[Ashiel]

Klara Meison wrote:

Did you ever try to run a game with time travel? If you did, how did it go? If you didn't, any ideas on how a Villain would work in a groundhog day style setup?

Now that you mention it, it occurs to me that I don't believe I ever have. I'll have to make a note to experiment with that sometime. :P

As to a groundhog day style villain, assuming everyone recognized that the day was resetting, that's anyone's guess. I imagine that realizing that that their schemes aren't going to come to fruition means that they'd probably be doing villainous things for the "lulz" which might be ideal for certain concepts (like someone who's a bit nuts).

A mischievous djinn who's amusing themselves by messing with time in a small location might be an ideal antagonist for something like that. If you could come up with an appropriate wish that the GM would allow, such as making a tiny local region keep repeating the same day or something. If there were no obvious benefit for it (time resetting means you would never make any progress on anything, unlike a timeless space where you've essentially got infinite time).

[Tels]

An antagonist might do this to displace the PC's while his boss moves forward with his plans. Even if the antagonist dies, time will just reset until the spell/effect is broken in some way. Even better if the antagonist has some method of sending his memories to his boss so that he can have an in-depth guide to the tactics of the party.

[Tacticslion]

Klara Meison wrote:

Did you ever try to run a game with time travel? If you did, how did it go? If you didn't, any ideas on how a Villain would work in a groundhog day style setup?

I have!

The time travel was limited, specific, non-repeatable and non-recursive (so no Groundhog Day-style shenanigans, I'm afraid). It worked very well.

My method was a Time Dragon (from the old Dragon Magazine!) with access to Epic Spellcasting and made Impossibly Huge(tm)* so it could collect all of them and take them on a one-way time-travel trip on behalf of/with the help of the goddess of magic herself.

This was, in fact, the culmination of a series of personal "impossible quests" each character had undergone over the last ten years in order to act on behalf of their gods, and to prove their ability, legitimacy, grow in power, and learn certain critical pieces of information that would help them with their ultimate goal (see ** for details). Since each of them had effectively been placed so far away from "reality" as they were up to now***, it wasn't really any "thing" to them to ignore their "previous" selves to continue that, and get to work on the reason for undertaking these epic quests in the first place (create a god-killing god to assassinate another goddess).

Hope that helps!

* Literally not possible. Explicitly in-character and out. Its funny what plot hooks or interesting avenues of potential investigation the Players will ignore in a game. In my case, it was an eye as large as the atmosphere open up above them (which could not fit and would have dire consequences of it tried), and an enormous claw (that is not proportional to said eye) shoved into the ground with an earthquake-laden "Climb into the claw." (an order they were understandably hesitant to follow until it started to get irritable at their delays). They all fit inside the 'palm' of the creature with room to spare, and were just all, "Yeap. This makes sense. Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnot gonna question this. Nope." and all climbed aboard and never investigated.** I no longer even remember why it was doing all that stuff. Ah, players!

** Of course, this was the same group that, after they finished making a god-killing god, passed out, and couldn't find said god-killing god, went, "Yeah. That probably worked with no unfortunate side effects whatsoever." and all merrily enjoyed character retirement, never to look for said entity again, nor into the fact that it never assassinated its target; so make of that what you will.

*** Example Time! One character was journeying from the world to the moon via ethereal walk. Yep: it was slow. Another was walking through a swamp, creating a zone of dead shadowweave there by fracturing and fragmenting it via overuse (while also hunting weave-devouring oozes). A third was spent in an "impossible library" leading the "code" to "write in" a new god from "raw materials" or some such. Another spent the time almost exclusively in a dance (save for temporary respites) that enabled her to gather some of said "raw materials" (a focused lot of power). Another spent most of his time learning history: having an intimate understanding of his people's political situation while developing an extremely specific epic feat, so that he could find a way to gather one million them all in one spot (in the past) and use their collective summon Earth Elemental to summon an antimagic desert as said elemental: yes, the whole dessert. And so on.

EDIT: tag fixing and '*'-agreement.

[Sissyl]

For extra credit, apply "there is no truth, only interpretations" to "there is no truth, only interpretations". Yeah. Post-modernism has some pretty solid and basic problems.