Look at p. 237 in the DMG, near the bottom of the page, under the heading "Multiple Ability Checks".
Steve Geddes wrote:
Specifically, only for a single check that isn't repeated. If they're rolling multiple times, the chance of the weaker character beating the stronger one drops pretty fast.
Also, when there's no penalty for failure, per the rules, you can just take ten times as long and automatically succeed (assuming that it's possible for you to succeed at all, that is).
And yes, 3 to 20 is the ability score range for plausible adventuring characters. The rules don't cover characters with physical or mental handicaps sufficient to rule out being a successful adventurer.
Steve Geddes wrote:
However, my sole point was that the fact that 16.5% of the time, the worst in the world would beat the best in the world in a head-to-head contest is not what anyone would guess based on real-world intuitions ported over into the game.
Only on a single iteration direct contest. If you're considering Intelligence, that's not the chance of inventing relativity, it's the chance of being the first to answer a Jeopardy question.
And what's meant by "worst in the world" is the worst that is still good enough to be a successful professional adventurer.
If you read the descriptions in the MM, the kinds of undead that a necromancer can create all turn into murderbots if the creator loses control for any reason. That doesn't necessarily make creating undead an unambiguously evil act in every circumstance whatsoever, but in most cases it does indicate a severe lack of concern for the well being of others. Do it very often, and your alignment is going to be heading toward evil.
Finger of Death gives you a permanent zombie slave every time you use it to kill a humanoid. It's a 7th level spell, so you can start creating your army as soon as you reach 13th level. At 20th level, you can create 4 zombies a day, with no limit except your lifespan (and the number of humanoids you're willing to murder).
Keep in mind, however, that zombies are not the brightest of minions (or the best smelling ones, either). Caveat emptor.
Steve Geddes wrote:
IF the tarrasque moves to within ten feet the fighter can attempt an OA, which probably won't hit: with a 16 Strength and a +1 weapon, the fighter needs to roll a 19 or better. But there's no good reason for the tarrasque to get that close. It has a reach of 15 feet with its two claw attacks and 20 feet with its tail.
If the fighter wins initiative she has two chances to hit with polearm master, although she still needs a 19. Getting a third would require the tarrasque to do something on its turn that triggers an OA, which is unlikely.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
LOL Nope. Even if the fighter has a magic weapon (which is necessary to even do damage at all), that combination of feats is useless against the tarrasque.
If the tarrasque wins initiative, the fighter dies without landing a single blow. If the fighter wins initiative, the tarrasque's AC of 25 means the fighter still most likely dies without landing a single blow. Either way, it's a one round fight.
I meant only if you're going to have a roll related to DC. I agree that I wouldn't do it that way.
Basing knowledge on rarity is the best, but that's something that can only be a DM judgment call, because it's going to be completely dependent on the setting.
If you're going to create a roll, it might make more sense to have the DC something like 25 - CR. That way, everybody knows about dragons, but most people have never heard of an intellect devourer.
Things like goblins and orcs, that are constantly a danger, are the exception, of course.
The problem I see is that a lot of players hand-wave things like lifestyle expenses and dislike the SIMS aspect of the game. Why does my character want retainers or a Keep? Most likely he's not going to be there long enough to do much and if he is, what does he do when he's there. "Today my character is going to lavish away in his keep, eat 3 meals, use the privy at least twice, talk to some of the peasantry, and call it a day...." That sounds like a rousing time of D&D....
What is your character's personality? Their ideal, bond, and flaw? Use those to help figure out what they do with their money. It's not the DM's job to decide what your character wants out of life.
Maybe, instead of building a stronghold, they just want to party it all away, or commission a statue, or donate it to the local orphanage, or make a campaign contribution to the mayor, or create a network of spies, or give it to a temple, or hire a bard to spread tales of their greatness, or just about anything else you can imagine.
So, I'm in the process of reading and trying to learn the ruleset for this game (it's harder for me now than it used to be, but that's not important here). My question is this; what's the point of using the Enhance effect for something like Strength when just increasing it w/out it will do just fine?
Enhanced Trait is a power effect, so you can use it for power stunts, or you can get it from a power stunt if you've got a plausible explanation (a magic spell, for example). And unless you buy it with the Permanent flaw, you can turn it on and off.
It's also what you should probably use if part of your Strength is due to a removable device, or if you could lose it due to a complication.
I'm looking at the DC Adventures game Hero's Handbook (2010 version of their game) and am looking for rules that cover something like knock back. If they exist I cannot find them. Are there no rules for allowing Superman (for example) to punch someone across several city blocks or into a brick wall?
Rules for knockback are in the Gamemasters Guide, pp. 192-193. Basically you subtract the target's toughness from the damage to get the knockback distance. If there's an object in the way, both the character and the object take damage from the impact, and if that damages the object enough to put a hole in it, the character keeps going for the remainder of the distance.
The biggest problem I see here is a metagame issue: what are the other players doing while your sorcerer is building a cult?
If the others are on board with doing this, I'd let it work, and start thinking up reasonable (but solvable) problems for your cult to face.
If everyone else at the table would rather head down into a dungeon and kill some orcs, I'd shut this down.
Oh I see, so it's divided then. But, if its used to adjust the difficulty, but not the XP. Wouldn't that mean you just made as challenging as a CR 6 but only rewarded CR 4? (random numbers).
Yes. The rationale is that the devs. want to reward playing smart and trying to divide and conquer, rather than bunching all the encounters up and taking them on all at once.
Yes. That is still one of my favorite game systems. (They lowered Superman's strength to 25 in the 2nd edition, btw, to reflect the aftermath of the Crisis on Infinite Earths in the comics.)
DC Adventures does something similar, using the exact same rules as 3rd edition Mutants & Masterminds, so Superman can actually lift around 200,000 tons in the game. Not the Silver Age planet moving Superman, but probably stronger than the character was during much of the Golden Age.
I don't use game time for that; I roll for random encounters beforehand.
Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)
Picking encounters can also result in silliness or lack of variety, especially when the GM is starting to run out of good ideas. Rolling on a chart can be a great spur to creativity.
Anytime I'm not 100% certain what encounter I want, I'll roll it. If the result seems meh, I'll roll again until either I get something I like or inspiration strikes. Very frequently, by the time I've looked up the stats for whatever I rolled and taken a moment to think about it, I'll have come up with an idea of how it fits into the adventure.
I guess you haven't encountered the fleets of beholder ships fighting their eternal civil wars throughout wildspace yet. There was even a published 2e adventure that involved trying to stop what was essentially a beholder Death Star.
There's also a beholder tending bar in a tavern on the Rock of Bral.
My problem with Swashbucklers is that they fail at Swashbuckling. They simply can't live up to their class description. Instead, they ended up being yet another stationary BSF. They aren't considerably more agile than, say, a Ranger or Slayer with Weapon Finesse.
That's a problem with the base combat mechanic. If you want high mobility in combat, you have to allow characters to move without losing much of their ability to attack.
What's the reason for making this useable only once per day? Is there some advantage to doing it that way that compensates for the damage it does to suspension of disbelief?
D&D is fairly unique in that psionics, ki, magic, rage, and alchemy are all different power sources, some of which interact, some of which do not.
That's been changed for 5e. Ki and those rage powers that are blatantly superhuman have all been redefined as magic. (Psionics doesn't exist in the system yet.)
Within my own field of anthropology, "sex" refers to the biology, both in terms of genetics and the physical configuration of the body. "Gender" refers to social roles defined by a particular culture. All known human cultures have at least masculine ("man") and feminine ("woman") genders. Many cultures define other categories as well, and often the names for these are not easily translated into English.
So wait, how many people here actually like magitek / blending magic and science together?
I enjoy it sometimes, but I also like fantasy where the two are completely incompatible: I enjoyed both Full Metal Alchemist and The Books of Magic. It all depends on how well written something is.
Even if magic follows consistent rules, that doesn't necessarily mean that it follows the same rules that science discovers. One very common idea in fiction is that the laws of magic are symbolic; they invoke the meanings of things in a way that objective natural laws simply can't explain. So while a scientist might, for example, come up with a theory involving magnetism or some such to explain how a dowser can find water with a forked stick, no such theory can explain how it can also find a piece of paper with the word "water" written on it. Or why dowsing over a map or aerial photo works just as well as walking across the ground.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Are those damage estimates adjusted for hit probability?
N. Jolly wrote:
I'd recommend being careful and going slowly. It would be very easy for something like this to be received as preachy or judgmental, even though that's not at all your aim. (A lot depends on the individual personalities and attitudes of your players, of course.)
It's the difference between the indicative and the imperative. A scientific law (if correct) describes how the universe behaves for all observers. A magical technique causes the universe to behave in the way that one particular magician desires.
Path Magic in GURPS Thaumatology works like that. It's based (loosely) on an amalgam of real world ritual magic practices.
Arcanic Drake wrote:
But on the other hand:
"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." - Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic.
BBEG encounters shouldn't always be any one particular thing. Some can be short but deadly, others long, running battles of attrition. If you've got a good aligned party, you can even have the BBEG surrender so they can try to play mind games with the PCs before they either escape or get rescued by their minions (think Loki in The Avengers).
If you have players who won't freak out, maybe once in a while you can have the BBEG set up an ambush that's way too high a CR for the party, but designed to capture rather than kill. If it succeeds (and it probably will), they'll be taken inside the Fortress of Doom where they'll have a chance to take the BBEG by surprise and turn the tables - as soon as they escape from the clever deathtrap they're thrown into. If you do this, don't forget to have the BBEG reveal his entire evil plan to the "helpless" PCs. This kind of villain loves to monologue.
Rogues are AWESOME!
- It's not hard to get a sneak attack every round, then use Cunning Action to dash away before the target can retaliate.
- Add twice your proficiency bonus to your favorite skills with Expertise, then at level 11 you can't roll below a 10 with those skills, with the capstone auto-succeed at level 20.
- Use your reaction for reduce damage you take by half.
- Thief's Reflexes gives you two turns on the first round of combat.
- Assassinate gives you an auto-critical if you have surprise.
- Invisible Mage Hand.
- Stealing spells right out of the mind of a spellcaster.
It just get better and... wait. Are you guys talking about Pathfinder rogues? Yeah, I guess that is different. Never mind.
I agree with this. The words "psi" and "psionic" rub me wrong for any setting earlier than the 1940s, but the concept works fine.
Psionics is magic, though, just using a late 20th century word instead of an ancient one.
Eberron is a stupid setting that violates everything we know about societal development. It is not alone in this, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Most game designers aren't even amateurs when it comes to history and it shows.
Can you be more specific about what we "know about societal development" that Eberron violates? I know next to nothing about the setting except that it treats magic like modern technology in some ways.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
I could also accept that grenades are better at damaging any kind of target, but harder to carry and much more expensive than bullets.
The OP asked about the art. I'd say the art for both games is quite well done, with a few exceptions (the halfling pictures in 5e being awful), although the art style is quite different. Stylistically, 5e is reminiscent of some of the best art of 2e, which I greatly prefer to the "dungeon punk" look of Pathfinder.
You are completely incorrect about how tough it is to see or hit a target at that range. It is much easier than you think. With just a few hours of training most people in good enough health for military service can make an incapacitating shot 80%+ of the time at 400 meters, using the somewhat underpowered M-16 series rifle. With a top quality hunting rifle they'd do considerably better.
However, more than likely, the battery is a part of the unit and not separatable - you can't pull a dead battery and load a new one, you'd have to replace the entire PPU, and that is impractical - it probably costs your entire allotment of GP per 1st level just to buy one.
So we're assuming that all the tech was made by Apple?
When I was in the U.S. military we had to be able to reliably hit a human-sized target at 400 meters just to be considered minimally qualified. That wasn't using a scope; just the regular sights built into the rifle.
To expand, any limitation you put on magic is about as realistic as any other limitation. None of us have ever seen it in the real world, so any way that a writer wants it to work is fine.
We have seen and used computers, though. So a future, high-tech computer that doesn't have the basic functions of the laptop I'm typing this on creates a huge problem for suspension of disbelief. It would be like having a rifle in the game with an accurate range of only 40 yards. How can I believe something like that is the product of future advanced technology when even the poorest quality mass-produced rifles available right now are so much better?
But I only have to write the code once. Once it's written I can execute it over and over again, as often as I like. I can copy it onto other machines, that can all execute that program at the same time. And anybody else can download the code and execute it as often as they like too, even if they don't have the slightest idea how to write it themselves. (Just like I wouldn't be able to create a web browser, much less an operating system, yet I can still participate in this group.)
How do they explain the limited uses per day (spell slots) going up per level? If it's technology, can't the characters just buy as many recharges as they can afford - and probably dirt cheap, too, given the ability to mass produce things?
Abraham spalding wrote:
I don't see the need to argue anything, and certainly not in a thread that's several years old. I was just quoting what the rules say about the wages of certain skilled and unskilled professions.
Abraham spalding wrote:
CRB pp. 159 & 163
3sp per day is "the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, cooks, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings. This value represents a minimum wage; many such hirelings require significantly higher pay."
1sp per day is "the typical daily wage for laborers, maids, and other menial workers."
While it's certainly possible to conceive of magic working that way, it's equally possible that, of all people, spellcasters are the least able to do anything resembling scientific investigation. Perhaps doing magic requires learning to think impossibly: like find the coordinates of the spot where parallel lines intersect and divide that by zero, then raise the result to the power of blue. If that's how magic works, then perhaps magicians and scientists are literally incapable of understanding each other's specialty.