Yes really! You would be correct if the Ready Action was 'I'll attack if the wizard does anything other than standing very still...' OR 'If his heel lifts from the ground to move backwards I'll attack'
But the OP's fighter has stated he is waiting to see what the opponent does - either flee or cast - and is therefore responding to his actions.
Your statements appear to be based on what you imagine/assume he would be doing, not on what the fighter has actually stated he is doing. It could be construed that you are actually adding further conditions to his 'Ready Action' to cover all possibilities.
Someone above mentions the AoO, which would give the fighter the first opportunity anyway.
Regarding the OP I'm inclined to consider it a 'Delay' rather than 'Readying an Action'.
Because the fighter is waiting to see what happens before he decides what/how he is going to act, he loses the initiative advantage of 'readying' (going before his opponent) and therefore takes his action after he sees what he does. In waiting for his opponent to act first he loses the initiative and thus Delays.
I tend to prefer treating these situations as 'Wait Until' instead of 'If [Condition(s)] Then [Action]'. With Delay or Ready there is some element of 'Waiting' going on. The Ready is more specific (and active) than the (responsive) Delay.
For the sake of neutrality (or is it sit on the fence, or perhaps for safety) I'm not going to align myself with any particular viewpoint or opinion for the moment.
But does anyone else notice the following elephant in the room?
To 'Rage' is to draw on some inner strength, to rise in ferocity and intimidatory intent against an opponent - in a way that tests their concentration and patience.
To attack in a non-lethal manner requires an intent of 'holding back', refraining from carrying out a harsher, more damaging, even lethal injury.
The two intentions are in opposition. Surely there would be a mental conflict (serious frustration?) for the character trying to fulfill such differing intentions. They certainly do not flow from the same inner source.
The question is... should the rage overcome the need to be lenient in damage delivery, or should the 'softly-softly' approach supersede the internal beast?
Allowing both simultaneously could well be illogical and require some justification.
From where I sit, the issue is not about 'how to play a Paladin' or 'what would the God want' but more of a 'my superior position is not getting the respect it deserves'. Unfortunately it is a disgraceful way for an older/long-time player to behave. And does nothing to reflect the benefits of the experience and quality of those that have played RPG's since the early days.
Having a young whipper-snapper come along and demonstrate good quality role-playing maybe getting up his nose. One may even surmise that not only that, she is female 'to boot'and has the audacity to stand up to his 'trite trope tantrums'. Good for her.
He's lost sight of how important it is for players to respect each other and needs to wake up to the reality, clean up his act and realize that the 21st Century is already 15 years in... before he's consigned to the 'doddering old codger' pile and treated accordingly.
[Edit: Pleased to hear that you've got it sorted, that the air's cleared and things are moving forward pleasantly.]
Uh. that doesn't sound like an encounter generator.
It might not 'sound' like it, but you can easily/quickly create any tables for the encounters you want using your own probabilities/dice rolls. You can make them as specific as you wish - whatever you need for your campaign/scenario.
As it's shareware you can try/test it out for yourself. No limit, no charge. And no, I don't have anything to do with the software.
Victor's suggestion is by far the easiest and simplest method. The quick listing.
If you were to use TableSmith, the programming may be something straightforward like this:
:Start
1,[Encounter]
:Encounter
1, One Lone Wolf
2, {1d3} Fire Beetles
3, One Giant Spider
4, {1d3} Monstrous Roaches
5, {1d4} Kobolds [Treasure]
<...hears voice in head...halts solo game...reaches for Chill Pill...continues with plan to create, conquer and control his own world... haha haaa, cackle...>
26. Shrine to [Popular God]. This small stone edifice is decorated and adorned with the symbols and colors of the god. Various offerings/gifts are placed on its steps and stone surface. A lower level priest is nearby attending to pilgrims and worshipers who visit and pay homage and give prayer. She is keen to promote the god and what they can do for the visitor. There is a small chance (1% ?) that the god may be favorable to a visitor/worshiper and benefit them in some way. The opposite (malus/curse) could occur if the deity is of an evil nature.
When someone makes an accusation of some mental aberration or instability in the way you play your game, you know they have some kind of hidden agenda. Their judgement is suspect - questionable.
I find it difficult to imagine a GM sitting at the table alone with all his/her rulebooks and manuals, but fearing to read, experiment and test things out in case s/he were accused of being 'crazy'.
Perhaps the accuser seeks to belittle the GM - maybe to give themselves an edge at the table; a sense of being more powerful. Maybe they can shame the GM so that they won't be as knowledgeable about the rules. It could even be jealousy that the GM is actually doing very well at mastering the game - better even than the accuser perhaps...
Whatever the motive, it could be considered madness to be disrespectful of your GM and his/her efforts, which are likely to be substantial, just to keep you entertained.
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
The CRB puts forward a group of words to further define situations that could be considered 'helpless'. In addition it clarifies what the state of helplessness is in the game. That is, the inability of the character to do anything about his/her condition.
As those words are grouped together within the sentence they take meaning and intention from each other as to similarity of circumstance and/or condition.
The issue is not about the meaning of 'bound' but about the meaning of helplessness.
If a character is not suffering the state of helplessness as defined then a Coup De Grace is not possible. Irrespective of the multiple and various definitions and circumstances of 'bound'.
Family (uncle) follows diabolical ways, even at your expense (evil, selfish, follows the rules to achieve his goal)
Forced into the pact by family - not own choice (rule of law imposed)
Society system would expect you to continue with this pact (Societal/Thrune law)
You are afraid/concerned you will be influenced towards evil (tendency to reject evil ways - alignment shift away from evil)
You are afraid you may be damned (does not welcome this - shift away from evil)
Seeks revenge on House Thrune for 'lost glory' (you haven't go what you wanted and seek to punish those you blame - selfish/desire to hurt = evil tendency)
You appear to want to punish them rather than leave it to the rule of law (take the law into your own hands = chaotic/independent tendencies)
Happy to use the 'diabolical teachings' to achieve these aims (reliance on the lawful/evil systems already in place)
Assessment
Your character is brought up in, and still tends to abide by the LE tendencies and approach to the world. Nevertheless, there is a stirring within his being, rising up within him to reject the choices of his elders and betters. To be independent. To be judge and executioner in his own right.
He is currently borderline LE. His own thinking may be pulling him towards a more Chaotic/Independent approach rather than following the ways and methods available to him in the society around him. He's likely becoming out of step and acting 'beyond his station' in the scheme of things. He may be challenging/questioning his own position as a Pact Wizard. His choice is to either keep his status and powers, or to rebel and create his own rules about how things should be done.
The initiative roll is really the 'moment' that the character acts (or not/or delays as the case may be) within the current battle scenario. Everyone moving at fractionally different moments within the six-second combat round.
The Barbarian Rage does indicate that there is a 'speeding up' of the character due to the 'red mist effect'. Thus making him/her more dexterous. Though not necessarily faster in terms of acting before anyone else.
Their initial roll of 10 shows that they were not as 'immediate' as everyone else in terms of reacting to the situation.
If the situation arose calling for a re-roll of initiative, then the increased Dex bonus could be added.
Having read a number of threads/sites on alignment here and elsewhere over the years, and been involved with the concept as a DM/GM for... ooh! lets say decades... I decided to compile my thoughts on alignment in a table. Sounds simple and straightforward - but it just grew and grew - and I still add to it as ideas crop up.
This thread encouraged me to share my musings and ponderings. If you like it, use it for your game. If not, that's OK too. When has alignment discussion not brought about controversy?
Some points are drawn from within these very forums, because of their insight and quality of definition. And I thank those contributors collectively.
• This chart is not a statement of truth. Nor does it reflect with accuracy how the real world acts and operates. It is a game aid to understanding alignment in fantasy gaming.
• Two continuums: Law/Chaos and Good/Evil (said to be Ethical and Moral) attempting to interact, maybe tolerate, perhaps even trying to integrate with each other.
• But this is impossible, as each mutually rejects and excludes its opposites and refutes the others. Each, with various motives, seeks to eradicate and destroy the other.
• Though I would query that 'ethical' is still dealing with good and evil, rather than Law and Chaos. There doesn't seem to be a continuum between Law and Chaos except as defined in the books of Moorcock and perhaps other writers/thinkers I'm unaware of.
• Neutral 'thinks' it is in balance between the extremes, but this is merely self-justification for not getting involved, unless it suits its purpose to do so. Or it claims it is 'at one with nature' and so acts in whatever way it likes with the justification and belief of obtaining a natural balance (aligning with the plant/animal world's approach to natural selection).
• The titles are the radical extremes of the spectrum. Even Neutral is radical, because it believes it is NOT the other alignments - seeking not to be a cause, not to be influenced, seeking not to control or be controlled, not to be morally judged.
• Most fantasy societies and their individuals tend to fall between those radical points. The points are the extreme tendencies. Characters are often closer to neutral than they believe themselves to be. To be one of the 'outer' alignments implies a commitment to a cause. Whereas Neutral implies you can do what feels 'natural' (whatever that means to them) without the pressure of having to align oneself exclusively. Some even align themselves to 'nature' as this frees them from having to align to humanoid interests. It therefore also has a pagan tendency.
• The opposite of Chaos or discord is Harmony, not Law. Order might be nearer, but it's more to do with structure and organisation than a harmonious approach to existence.
• They ALL believe they are 'right' and 'free'. That their motives are in 'their best interests' - whatever they may be; 'the best interests of humanity', 'the survival of the fittest', 'the strong were made to rule', 'there are leaders and there are followers' .
• The generally accepted idea of the meaning of Chaos is discord and disruption. This cannot fit at all with the morally 'good' aspect. Therefore to be Chaotic and Good is contradictory. Their purposes are in opposition. The destructive cannot exist side by side with the non-destructive. Thus, Chaos needs to be interpreted differently to be meaningful in the game.
• The Alignment System could be considered as being designed from a Lawful and structured perspective.
• If written from a 'Chaos' perspective, Chaos would likely be called 'Individual' and Lawful would be 'Limited' or 'Awful'.
• The chart can be used as a guide (lawful) to the GM's freedom (chaos) to identify his/her players claimed alignment.
• Some say actions are not thoughts, as if the two are separate entities.
• However the thought occurs first and the action follows. Cause and effect. The thought is the intention, and the action is the demonstration of it. Sometimes the action is withheld, but the motivation is still present. So the idea that 'I am not evil if I didn't murder him' is incorrect, especially if they were contemplating it.
• Even in law (legal), motive is required to explain the action. The action just confirms or demonstrates the thought.
Beware of players claiming to be two or more alignments, where they say they are 'both'. Their character is just mad. It is like black claiming to exist alongside white. Like darkness claiming its right to exist within light. Each will of necessity exclude the other.
To such players, apply a mental disease such as schizophrenia and have them hospitalized or 'dealt with' according to the laws of the land (lawful), or the next council meeting (chaotic).
If you're into alignments, maybe you can find a use for it in your campaign.
Perhaps Intimidate is less what the holder of the skill 'gives off/emanates' and more the degree to which the recipient responds to their presence.
It is the skill holder eliciting a certain response from others - irrespective of the weapon they are carrying, their appearance, their strength, the level of growl in their voice , their reputation (or whatever).
Of course, the latter items may indicate bonuses are in order. There is also the implication that an opposed roll could be called for... maybe in place of the DC check - but using the same modifications.
Doing without XP for one-shot/same night adventures, or one AP book over say a couple of weeks, sounds reasonable to me. And I agree the whole recording of XP would be pointless in these circumstances.
Where you have a sandbox/ongoing campaign world, then I think monitoring XP is more appropriate. Perhaps its the 'immersion' thing. Some folks like the detail, others would rather skip it. And that's what appeals to me about RPGs - you can tailor them to your own/groups needs and expectations.
I don't feel XP is any more antiquated than using multi-sided dice, or character sheets, or reading a hard-copy of a rulebook. I don't consider it to have been a problem either. It's players attitudes to it that seem to cause the ructions. A bit like when their favorite character dies.
Downtime seems to be a great idea to tackle some of the issues raised in this thread for absentee players. As long as you don't mind the record keeping :-)
If you don't attend school as often as you could and get less marks in your exams, that's a consequence. If you're forced to write lines on a blackboard as a penalty for truancy, that's a punishment.
If you go to the ball game rather than going out with your girl, the consequences are that you don't get to spend as much time with her. If she decides to dump you over it, that's more like a punishment.
And writing lines is the consequence of swearing at the teacher. The girlfriend may not be punishing you, merely walking away from a bad relationship. It may 'feel' like punishment. You could say that going to the ball game instead of meeting the girlfriend is punishing her. I guess it depends on your intention.
Quote:
...Being made to play a weaker character than everyone else is a punishment, and one that doesn't really seem necessary - unless worrying about their character falling behind is the only thing that will motivate them to turn up.
Missing a few XP is rarely/hardly 'weaker' - unless the player has been missing weeks/months of games. Then it's questionable whether they want to play at all.
Quote:
(And I don't see the sense in awarding half XP if the character is there but the player isn't - surely the character still gains as much experience no matter who's playing them?)
It's an alternative various folks have used when a player has requested their character continue to help keep the game going. I don't see the sense in rewarding a player for not being present at the table, while someone else does the work, and makes the decisions for him. And if his character dies, you can be certain he'll complain loudly and cry unfair.
If he's going to get the same experience, present or not, then you might as well drop XP and just level up at specific scenario points.
...I don't see how it isn't punishment to single out the person who had to work, or had to take care of their kid, or got sick, or had an exam the next day. All of these examples don't seem like choices to me. I doubt most people in consistent RPG groups choose not to attend, because at least for me and my groups we move other things out of the way so we can game...
Thanks for your thoughtful response. How can it be a punishment for a circumstance the GM is unlikely aware of, or is not part of the game scenario? The respondent may 'feel' its a punishment, but it never was - merely system mechanics.
I was under the impression that applying a game mechanic is never supposed to be a ritual that lacks understanding for certain circumstances. But to throw a whole system aside under the claim of 'singling people out' is in my view unrealistic.
I'm not giving out XP in my game, just leveling up at certain points. We have one player that can only come to half the games. If he had only half the XP it would be a giant PIA and not fun for him because he would really like to be there for all of the games. Instead, if the player is present at certain achievements, they might get a hero point. Or the players present may get bonus skill or hit points.
Edit: this is a game, not work. Playing and having fun is the reward. And it's not fun to be doubly punished. Not being able to make a game is bad enough. Then to come back having a weaker PC than the others on top of that is just rubbing it in.
Having half the XP is unlikely to make any difference to that players HD in the game - unless everyone else has leveled up. And there must be many ways a GM can conjure up situations to enable him/her to regain XP relatively quickly.
Alternatively, as you say, just don't use XP. And that's possible without anyone having to claim it's a 'retribution monster'.
Have to agree on this. Personally, I lost all taste for denying advancement to my players when they miss a game after being in a campaign where one of the players wound up being a level behind the rest because he missed two games on account of his mother dying, and needing to go to her funeral.
Surely special circumstances, such as you outline, always merit a thoughtful and compassionate approach. Good gaming practice, yes? But it doesn't require a complete removal of the XP system. Unless that's your personal preference.
The XP system is a 'rewards' system - not negatively judgemental. No one loses anything. They just don't gain it in certain circumstances.
'I have to work, so I have to miss the game or get fired' is not much of a choice. Real life gets in the way, and that's bad enough by itself. No point adding insult to injury.
Or, to rephrase ... I'm sorry being fair to my friends offends you.
There is no 'insult to injury' - it's merely the consequences of your actions/choice.
The non-awarding of XP is hardly someone railing against an absent player. It's game mechanics - not punishment.
Why should I be offended by what you do or say? I just don't get/buy the idea of punishment in this topic. It's my opinion in an advice thread.
Therefore to clarify and remain on topic, my advice is to not be intimidated by someone claiming that not giving them XP is a punishment. If you want to issue experience points for just that - experience - then go ahead, adjust it as you see fit.
I must give a nod to 'HowFortuitous' above and his very well thought out and fair system.
I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.
If you're late for the bus - you miss the bus.
If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
If you take a 'sicky' from work - you get less money in your pay packet.
There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments. It is the 'Opportunity Cost' for your actions/decision. It is the sacrifice that is made because of your freedom of choice.
Surely the clue is in the title - 'EXPERIENCE points' - if you're not there, you ain't getting the experience of the game that the others are getting. Which is what the award supposedly represents. There's no punishment. Its a choice.
However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you. Or even dropping XP altogether, if it's not relevant to the type of game your group plays. It's a matter for what works for you and your players.
To just tag onto Chemlak's statement; in law, generally speaking these would be referred to as... (with variations depending on country of origin):
Contract for Services:
You hire the person to carry out their service, usually for a specific job which takes a specific length of time. They employ themselves, listen to your requirements, follow their own instruction. You hire them for the service they provide. They provide their own tools and equipment. You pay for resources used. (Eg: Mercenaries, Carpenter to repair door)
Contract of Employment:
You employ the person to be available to carry out various jobs, skills and services. They are in your service. A hired person. You provide the uniform, the tools and equipment, the resources for the job. And probably the cost of transport to/from their work. They belong to you for a specified period and are obliged to follow your instructions. You are responsible for them. (Eg: Stonemason hired for 6 months to build your castle wall, Guards for 12 months to man the gatehouse).
Usually the Contract for Services tends to be 'per job', whereas the Contract of Employment is for a longer period - months/years.
So running an organisation would probably entail Employment Contracts, with occasional Services Contracts when specific jobs need doing. If you are forming a team, they would likely be Employees.
If your players are running their business together, they are a Partnership. If on their own, they are classed as Sole Traders - each responsible for their own profit centre.
Can the attacker use a trip action as his attack of opp to try and keep the target down?
The request is an invalid one, because it is only possible if the target is actually standing.
It appears to be a case of the player stating their 'hoped for' outcome as if it were an action choice.
It is more an intention for the future if the target attempts to stand. (Ready Action = Wait until he attempts to stand, then trip him) or (Delay = Wait until he is actually standing)
An AoO is just that, taking advantage of the opportunity that has arisen. Therefore, only weapons in hand (or other 'valid' options) at the time of the trigger may be used.
Technically, the character is 'readying and action'. In game world, they are to me waiting until a certain moment occurs. WAIT/UNTIL rather than IF/ELSE. It is the character hanging about wondering if a certain event will occur or not.
He or she is effectively using up their time 'waiting'. There are only 6 seconds. Enough to squeeze in one action - if the expected circumstances occur. An IF/ELSE would tend to permit continual changes of mind to changing circumstances. Such a character could be described as 'not ready' and indecisive in a combat situation.
For some folks, Take 10/20 seems to work against the whole idea of having skills with ranks in the first place. Understandable.
Perhaps those that do not like Take 10/20 and for whom it has issues, one option could be to easily reduce the DC appropriately for those situations/circumstances that are obviously 'easy'.
Exactly, as you have just outlined. Compared to the unfavorable circumstance - whatever that may be. The judgement is highly likely going to be the GM's, probably with discussion with his/her group. I don't make the rules, I interpret them, like every GM in this thread and beyond. As expected, there are variances according to what people prefer.
Quote:
"Potential and not yet manifested dangers are not dangers..."
Quite. Though in pathfinder, and in relation to taking 10 or not, we are often discussing whether something is a combat encounter or not. We're not usually discussing picking daisies and the probability of there being a bee. The GM will know the likelihood of a potential danger becoming manifest in the not too distant future, and so will apply his 'game overview' to the situation.
Quote:
What is "routine" for someone with a +5 skill modifier is not the same as what is "routine" for someone with a +19 skill modifier.
A very valid point. 'Routine' being different depending on the perspective. Which is why I mentioned that the decision/judgement was, to me, apparently in the GM's hands. However, one could query the idea that skill modifiers are the determinant of 'routineness'.
Quote:
What is threatening or distracting isn't defined.
There's a lot that isn't (strictly?) defined within the take 10/20 rules, and given the huge variation in usage as expressed in this thread, it's likely a difficult if not impossible task.
Different skills seem to lend themselves more easily to a take 10 than others. Your 'Bluff' example is one of those, unless the person they are bluffing has a greatsword at your neck. Climb gets me, because there's going to be that chance of falling and consequent damage - unless their skill level is pretty high.
Whatever we say, it all seems to point to the GM (and his group) being the arbiter of what's appropriate given the circumstances.
Quote:
"...I hate when people say things like "its the GM's game." No, it isn't. It is the group's game.
Ah! Hatred. A wonderfully evil tendency... (oops! that's for another discussion).
I'm sorry if you thought I meant it was a GM exclusive game I was referring to. Not my intention. Of course the players (most of them willingly) would be involved in discussions. Though the GM is often the final arbiter in my experience.
Distractions: if I don't know something is out there, how am I distracted?
An interesting point. The key factor is whether its the GM or the player who is assessing the distraction/threat. Also if the GM disallows a Take 10 he may give away the fact that there is a threat.
The 'realism' approach may let you take 10 anyway and suffer any consequences. The 'rulebook' approach may consider it a combat encounter and thus all take 10's are off the menu. [Whisper: It seems very much like a chaotic or lawful choice.]
Cevah wrote:
Threats (such as combat): I don't know of the threat, because I am not in combat (initiative).
If you have already rolled for initiative, it would appear that the combat round has begun.
Cevah wrote:
You may fear the result of failing, but that is not enough to prevent Taking-10.
Absolutely. And as usual, subject to the RAW requirements. And as long as the character understands there may be consequences - such as still falling.
I don't consider there to be 'camps' or 'sides'. Only opinions and preferences. But irrespective of these, the one constant is in RAW. The key criteria for Taking 10 seem to be (+ my comments/opinions):
• "...a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions…"
○ Conditions for take 10 skill use need to be favorable
○ Thus unfavorable conditions appear to exclude take 10. GM determined.
• "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted…"
○ Any danger or distraction whether potential/real/not yet manifested or otherwise
○ Such a judgement is going to be made by the GM or subject to GM approval
○ Players may be unaware of 'immediate danger' so cannot make an informed judgement
• "For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful."
○ Mostly 'routine tasks' get auto-success.
○ Implication that take 10 is focused mainly on routine tasks.
○ Non-routine tasks are not usually automatically successful.
○ GM determines routine/non-routine
• "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
○ Any threatening situation (GM determined) negates take 10.
○ Any distraction negates.
○ Combat negates.
In other words, anything else seems to be:
A house rule
A GM or player preference
A desire to keep the game moving
A reduction in dice rolling
A desire for 'fun'
A play on semantics
A protection of one's cherished viewpoint
Hearty support for what works for you
A beloved character who you don't want to see fail, ever - even if 5% chance.
A tip-toe past a sleeping dragon is not a combat encounter
Awakening next to a shape-changed dragon is not a combat encounter
Anything else you can think of to fit here
Taking 10 is apparently less straightforward than at first sight. As always it's the GM's game.
There is only one round, and all PCs/NPCs operate within it - in initiative order. Like the characters in a cartoon film. One may be animated from the first frame, whereas the bad guy may not be active until 4 frames later. They are all in the same film/movie.
A round for your character only starts at your characters initiative, and ends when your next initiative starts (the next round). Everybody is acting/moving within the 6 second period. They don't each have a 6 second turn.
I work on the general notion that $1 spent gets me 1 hours worth of entertainment.
So to purchase say $150 worth of HeroLab software/data would give me 1 years worth of value if I was gaming/GMing for just 3 hours every week.
I can see me using it for considerably more time than that and benefit from its 'quality' and attention to detail in most aspects of my chosen game system.
Windows itself is constantly being updated because of 'bugs'. I'm sure this is standard practice with any software, else version numbers would not exist.
For some, perhaps the issue is with parting with income rather than an innate problem with the price of the software.
Nope, I uploaded it as is from the original, or at least the version I downloaded. I have yet to have a chance to use it, so I did not mark anything out.
I've also noticed that some of the hex descriptions are lined out - usually the earlier ones in the listing.
Nonetheless, an excellent piece of writing to add flavor and interest to the hex crawl. Very helpful. (Made me wonder if a random table could be created to develop this idea - per TableSmith or IPP)
