Search Posts
My PC's damage is d6+2*d10, so I want to roll a d10 once and multiply the result by 2. {dice=Damage}d6+2*d10{/dice} just rolls a d10 twice, NOT what I want. {dice=Damage}d6+d10*2{/dice} just rolls a d102, NOT what I want. The "dice" command seems to ignore the "*" completely. I tried "x" with the same results. Any advice? Thanks! 
Start making out-of-game posts here.
Go ahead and make a first post. Please describe how you came to be on the ship. If you want to tell the other PC's your backstory, feel free.
In case you’ve been living in a cave for the last decade, Firefly is about shipping goods and people across a very large and complex “solar system” (in a nutshell). The only weapons usually available to PCs are pistols and rifles, and the tech levels on the planets you’ll mostly deal with are often much less than what we have right now IRL, hence “space western”. But in this game you’ll do more than just ship goods… I know in the past my games have been somewhat lackluster (due to health problems), but I have been doing a lot of web browsing, and have a ton of scenarios and plot twists for Firefly adventures (as well as an overarching goal that will become apparent over time)! Please read this document, at least from pages 2-8, for setting background information, character types, new Skills, Edges, and Hindrances, available equipment, and information your PC would know, before creating a character. You can read pages 8-10 for the game procedures and details about the ship if you want, but I will tell you what to do in-game when needed. Please let me know if you find any typos, inconsistencies, or over- or under-powered game mechanics. At least one PC must be at least adequate (d6/d8) in one or more of the following Skills :
For these skills, it would be a good idea (but not necessary) for another PC to have at least a d4/d6 in them, in case the primary PC is out of commission. Since these skills are so important, those who post early can pick whatever skills they want (you don’t have to post an entire PC, you can just say “my PC will have <this> skill”); latecomers will have to have PC’s with those skills not taken yet. About Captains : if a player takes the Captain Edge, this does not mean they must make all the major decisions, everyone can talk out any decisions. If more than one player wants to be Captain, the first one to post the request gets it.
Also, every PC’s description should include :
Opening the thread.
Opening the thread.
This is a by-invitation-only game.
I’m interested in running a game in SW’s Slipstream universe, *after* the events in the Slipstream module have happened. Queen Anathraxa has been killed by another group of heroes, but that has left a power hole in the Slipstream universe. Some of the more aggressive and hi-tech races are trying to carve out their little kingdoms in the universe, while Anathraxa’s Handmaidens are trying their best to run business-as-usual without their queen. This would be mostly a “sandbox” game, I would give you several job offers to choose from, and occasional hints at possible quests to do on your own - as a group, you can choose which of these you’d like to pursue next. You will need the Slipstream Player’s Guide, but that’s only $5 as a downloadable PDF. Slipstream is somewhat “pulpy” sci-fi, which means non-hard-science, and pretty lo-tech “hi-tech” gear, as you’ll see in the following description. For those of you not familiar with Slipstream :
Slipstream background:
Slipstream is a “pocket universe” reached by passing thru a black hole. While you may have arrived that way, you most likely were born here. When worlds pass thru a black hole, pieces of them end up in Slipstream, but retain an atmosphere and gravity that are all Earth-normal. The space between fragments is also not a vacuum, but is thin breathable air, and an all-pervasive glow provides enough light to see by, even tho there is no sun. Rocketships are based on atomic fuel, but consume so little of it when travelling between fragments that they rarely run out of fuel, and gravity on ships is Earth-normal. As you can see, things have been set up so that “real-world” science does not apply, so as to not get bogged down in details (such as fuel, space suits, and gravity). However, I could be persuaded to describe the Slipstream “universe” as a globular cluster of several thousand stars all in close proximity to each other, but far from their parent galaxy. Spaceships travel at a speed that gets you between the stars in the cluster in just a few days using little fuel, but travelling to anywhere else would take hundreds of years with the current technology. Do you have a preference? Gear is also very limited, with hi-tech ranged weapons consisting of “ray guns”, rocket pistols, sonic weapons, stunners, and tangle guns, while “hi-tech” melee weapons include laser swords, vibro blades, and pain sticks. The armor available is so limited that I’m going to add some more options (more on that when/if there's enough interest). Computers are lo-tech compared to today, probably operating at the equivalent of computers in 1970 – large, bulky, and only able to do simple calculations. *NOTHING* is “automated” - piloting is done by looking out of the window of the spaceship! (NOTE : the previous would probably change if we switch to the globular cluster version.) And there’s no AI, virtual reality, holograms, cloaking, ECM, cybernetics, hacking, etc. There are only 10 kinds of spaceships, with only 4 types of weapons for ship-to-ship combat. As written, ships don’t even have any shields, but I’m considering changing that. There are 9 different races to choose from, and a create-a-race set of tables very similar to those in SWD. NOTE : For those of you already familiar with Slipstream, *ALL* AB types are available. If this sounds too restrictive, I’d be willing to consider including some material from Daring Tales of the Space Lanes as well. But that would cost an additional PDF. Here’s how space combat is going to work : I’m going to use the SWEX Chase rules, which I will publish for everyone to reference when/if the game starts. However, everyone on the spaceship will have skills that apply to space combat, and so everyone will be engaged during space combat, not just the pilot. Each character will have at least two skills in : Piloting (with 6 possible actions to chose from per turn), Gunner (1 possible action), Sensors (4 possible actions), and Engineering (2 or 3 possible actions). Each round, everyone will have a chance to apply one of their skills to the situation. I will publish the details of the skills, and how to create a character with them, when/if there's enough interest. So, is anyone interested?
Opening up the Campaign thread. Feel free to dot in, but please don't start making in-character posts (introductions, conversations, etc.) until I've had a chance to post some introductory/preliminary material.
So - a few things... Please create a new PC if you haven't already, and dot in. Please include your backstory, and costume description. Please make sure that you've included any needed changes I pointed out in your Powers! In your "summary line", please include your Parry, Toughness, and your "Ranged Attack TN" (RATN, 4 by default, but modified by Deflection and Uncanny Reflexes superpowers, and the Dodge Edges). If any of these change because you have a "normal" form and a "super" form, please include both, separated by a slash, human first (Toughness 4/9). Also your current number of Bennies and Wounds, and your Charisma modifer (default 0). Also, I have an alternate identity of "GM_ZenFox42". One of my games is fine with ZenFox42, but the other prefers the GM version. Votes? Also also, I'd like this to be a relatively "fast" (by PbP standards) game, with everyone committing to checking Gameplay *at least* every other day when out of combat, and *within 24 hours* of Initiative draws during combat. If RL gets in the way for a day or two or a week, no problem. I *will* be checking every day, and post when needed. Anyone not ok with that?
I’d like to try running a Savage Worlds Necessary Evil (NE) campaign. Executive summary : the PC’s are super-villians, and are Earth’s last defense against a race of aliens that came to visit, wiped out all the Earth’s super-heroes, and are now taking over the Earth. If you’re interested, you’ll need the SW Deluxe (SWD) core rules, and a copy of the Superpowers Companion, 2nd edition (SPC2). You do *not* need to buy the NE Player’s Guide (altho it’s only $4.99) - I’ll provide you with all the necessary background info. You’ll start out as Novice humans (if you want to be an alien, see below), with 20 PP for superpowers (for free, no Edge needed). However, it’s *really* easy to build one-dimensional supers that are over-powered, so I’m imposing some restrictions on your builds :
I know these sound like a lot, but I’m looking for well-rounded, multi-faceted supers, not a PC with one extreme special ability. In addition, you’ll gain 10 PP per Rank (for free), and many of the above restrictions will be relaxed or go away. Being an alien : you’ll have to have a credible backstory as to why you’re on Earth (and probably stranded). If you’re basically humanoid but with slightly different features (blue skin, forehead ridges, a slit for a nose, antennae, etc.), that costs you nothing. But if your form is *completely* different than two-arms-and-two-legs, see the Alien Form major Hindrance in SPC2. If you’re interested, please create a PC and present them! It’s best to start with the SWD’s core creation rules, then add your superpowers. I’ll keep Recruitment open for about a week. Character Creation Notes: Blood & Guts, Born a Hero, Fanatics, Heroes Never Die, and Joker’s Wild are all standard Setting Rules (SWD) in supers campaigns – be sure to read them *before* creating your PC! The Unarmed Defender rule is ignored for this genre of game. Check *all* the Modifiers for the Powers you’re considering! I’d suggest, but not require, that you stick with one “Power Type” (SPC2) and/or one “Trapping” (SWD, chapter 5) for all your powers. Don’t forget to describe the specific Trapping for each of your Powers! You start with $1000 instead of the SWD’s $500. Items purchased after you create your character are at *10 cost for being Black Market (outlawed by the V’sori), and require a Streetwise roll to obtain. The items listed in the SWD and SPC2 are similar enough to those offered by NE, but if you want to shell out the $4.99 for the Player’s Guide and buy from there, feel free! All SWD Medieval and Modern Hand Weapons are available, as are the Molecular Knife and Molecular Sword (which only has AP 2, but both are considered Heavy Weapons). All SWD Medieval and Modern Armors are available. All SWD Medieval, Modern, and Futuristic Ranged Weapons are available. There are also some unique Ranged weapons listed in SPC2, as well as some Hand Weapon Modifications (which could be very helpful!). Extra available armor :
The Vow(Fight the V’sori) and Wanted(by the V’sori) Hindrances are not allowed. Villain Concepts
Why did your character become a villain? Why did your character become a villain? Was he a petty crook who found the means to be something more? An evil genius bent on world domination? A feared and hated mutant who wanted to lash back at the world that turned its back on him? Or is she one of the rare few superheroes who survived the V’sori attack? Evil, not Psychotic! While villains may be murderous and megalomaniacal, they don’t tend to be mindless killers without purpose. The super-villain you make up should at least have the potential for working with other super-villains. While playing a completely anti-social psychotic does have its charms, it does not usually make for good team game-play.
And, don’t forget to describe your costume!
You're on a no-frills boat (but not quite a "tramper") taking you from the Human continent of Trellak to the "new world" of Keltica. You're headed for the biggest Human colony WeMadeIt (yep, that's what the few survivors of the first colonly ship called it, and it stuck!). You've heard there's vast uncharted territories, fearsome creatures that don't exist anywhere else on the planet, and great fame and fortune to be had for the lucky few that survive if they venture outside the colony towns. During the month-long journey, you've met all the other passengers, and have found a few that aren't too terribly annoying, and have the same general goals as yourself, without being too specific - explore the continent and see what you can find. Each of you has decided to hang with the others for as long as it works out, so go ahead and introduce yourselves to each other. You can present as much information (true or false) about yourself as you like. These discussions would have taken place over the course of several weeks, as you get to know each other.
I’m thinking of DM’ing a PbP game using Savage Worlds (Deluxe edition, or "SWD"). In the interests of full disclosure, while I’ve been playing and DM’ing FRP games for more than a couple of decades, I’m new to both PbP and SW. I’ve also never DM’ed a PbP game before, so the initial set-up may take me a little longer than usual. But, I can guarantee at least one long post a day, for 5 out of 7 days a week. And depending on the day of the week, I can check several times a day and give short replies. I would ask that you be able to commit to posting at least once every other day, once a day if at all possible. If you’ve never used SW before, I wouldn’t let that stop you. It has all the basic concepts of any FRP system (roll some dice to get a total over some target value to succeed at the task), and while some of its details can take a little getting used to, the basic concepts are not that hard. Both Loveless and I had never used it before, and picked it up pretty quickly. I have several short documents I’ve created while learning it myself that may help, and those of us who do know it can help those who don’t. See THIS PDF for a very concise 16-page summary of how SW works. One of the things I really like about SW is that you can custom-design your own PC by picking whatever Attributes (PF’s “Abilities”), Skills, and Edges (PF’s “Feats”) you want. Do not worry about party “roles” – pick whatever you want your character to *be*, first. You can reasonably have an armored, sword-wielding magic-user who’s good at picking locks! However, if you’re totally new to SW I can give you a few simple “gotta have” recommendations for any PC. You can be any race you want, from any system or story you like. If you’re not human, at least one Edge AND Hindrance must go towards “defining” your race in some reasonable way (humans may get an extra Edge to compensate, I haven't decided yet). See SWD for some examples of what I mean, and please run your concept by me first (a description of the race, its Edge and Hindrance). The SWD standard Arcane Powers (Magic, Miracles, and Psionics only) are available. Powers from the Fantasy Companion and Shaintar are allowed as well, if you have access to those. I have a couple of house rules which should make Powers more useful, and intend to add Power-based house rules as we go (always to your advantage). If you're not familiar with SW, their spell list may seem very short, but it provides the functionality of many dozens of PF's spells. I have several SW house rules already, which you should be aware of before you create your PC, especially if you know SW well. I’m thinking of a world where each “major” race (Dwarf, Elf, Hobbit, Human) evolved on its own continent, and about 100 years prior to the game, ocean-going ships became reliable and not only did all the races discover each other, but they discovered an “uninhabited” continent (well, there *are* Goblins and Orcs on it, but they don’t *really* count now, do they), and everyone’s been colonizing different parts of it (think North and South America in the 1500-1600’s being colonized by the English, French, and Spanish). The technology level is that of right around the U.S. Civil war – steam engines, steam locomotives, and single-shot guns. It takes a few rounds to reload any gun, so bows and crossbows are still more deadly in the long run (and I'm adding an Edge to reduce reload times). This means science is firmly established, ocean navigation is not hit-or-miss anymore, and there are telescopes, microscopes, hot-air balloons, steam (paddle-wheel) boats for rivers, printing presses and mass-distribution of newspapers. There's no practical electricity of any kind (telegraph, light bulbs, phonograph, etc.). So on the coasts of this new continent, civilization is fairly well established, but probably not with ALL the modern conveniences of the "home" continents ("London" would have THE latest and greatest stuff and the highest quality-of-living [think Sherlock Holmes], but while early "New York" would be the height of civilization on this continent, it's still far behind "London"). A few railways connect the big cities on the coasts, and go a little ways inward, but the vast part of the center of the continent is "uncivilized". Besides Orcs, there's all kinds of beasties and humanoids that evolved only on this continent that the PC's wouldn't be familiar with. The PC’s would meet on a (steam-powered, screw-propeller) ship taking you to the “new world”, for whatever reason you decide for your PC. The party forms as you find like-minded people (or at least, ones that annoy you the least) during the month-long voyage. For whatever reasons you decide, you each intend on exploring the uncharted territories of the “new world” (as opposed to staying in the coastal colony cities). The game would start with you getting off the boat and preparing for your journey.
RAW says :
<I know the answer to the following is "game balance" or "so that archers and casters can act every round", but...> I just cannot wrap my mind around the concept that the amount of time it takes to grab an object depends on the kind of object that it is. Grabbing something within "easy reach" is a Free action if it's ammo or spell components, but a Move action if it's anything else? Really? Or are we saying that ammo and spell components are somehow within "easier reach"? Sorry, I don't buy that. Spell components in a pouch are more accessible than a potion bottle in a pouch?
Any thoughts?
RAW says :
<I know the answer to the following is "game balance" or "so that archers and casters can act every round", but...> I just cannot wrap my mind around the concept that the amount of time it takes to grab an object depends on the kind of object that it is. Grabbing something within "easy reach" is a Free action if it's ammo or spell components, but a Move action if it's anything else? Really? Or are we saying that ammo and spell components are somehow within "easier reach"? Sorry, I don't buy that. Spell components in a pouch are more accessible than a potion bottle in a pouch?
Any thoughts?
As a long-time RPG'er (both player and DM) but relatively new to PF, I find myself completely overwhelmed by the OVER 1500 spells (!) listed in the PF spell "database"/spreadsheet. I'd like to get that down to a more manageable number, focusing on
So below is a list of spells that I think fit these criteria. This is down to a "mere" 243 Sorcerer/Wizard spells, as opposed to PF's 907(!). I'm going to do the same thing for Cleric/Oracle spells later on. So I have two questions for everyone : 1. Is there any spell NOT on the list below that you think is *essential*? Not a spell that saved your party ONCE, or whose concept you think is really really cool, but a spell that has consistently come up in play and been very helpful (for the players or the DM's bad guys). Please suggest non-core spells only if you think they're really really useful. If you just give a list of the names of spells you want added, I will tally the number of times that spell has been mentioned by others, and if enough people like it, I'll add it to the list. So please, list the spells you'd like to see added even if they've already been listed by someone else! But if you give a reason/explanation/example as to why you think the spell you're suggesting should be in the list, that by itself may convince me to add it. 2. Is there any spell in the list below that you think is just wasting space? Something so useless in practice that you'd never, ever, include that spell in your list of known or memorized spells again, or bother using against your players as a DM. Same thing applies here - you can just list the spell name (please repeat!) or give a reason. I will re-print the final list once everyone's voted. Thanks! Zero Level
First Level
Second Level
Third Level
Fourth Level
Fifth Level
Sixth Level
Seventh Level
Eighth Level
Ninth Level
I've tried Google-ing this, to no avail : I'm looking for a list of what spells some of the psionic powers are the same (or nearly the same) as. For example, to start with :
But I don't know either system well enough yet to just go down either list and say "oh yeah, that power is the same as this spell" off the top of my head. I know not every power has a spell equivalent, I'm just looking for the ones that do. Can anyone help out? Any equivalent powers/spells you happen to know of? Please note I'm not looking for *identical* spells/powers in terms of who can be affected, duration of the effect, range, etc. Just the actual effect itself. And even the effects don't have to be exactly the same, just very similar (for example, Energy Retort is similar to Defensive Shock, even tho the former is more powerful in its effect). I'll collect the results and re-post them when all the dust settles. Thanks!
I've tried Google-ing this, to no avail : I'm looking for a list of what spells some of the psionic powers are the same (or nearly the same) as. For example, to start with :
But I don't know either system well enough yet to just go down either list and say "oh yeah, that power is the same as this spell" off the top of my head. I know not every power has a spell equivalent, I'm just looking for the ones that do. Can anyone help out? Please note I'm not looking for *identical* spells/powers in terms of who can be affected, duration of the effect, range, etc. Just the actual effect itself. And even the effects don't have to be exactly the same, just very similar (for example, Energy Retort is similar to Defensive Shock, even tho the former is more powerful in its effect). I'll collect the results and re-post them when all the dust settles. Thanks!
(Forum moderators, please note : I am not advocating any of these systems, I am presenting an analysis of them, including the existing Psionics system – so I did not post this under “homebrew”, and I don’t think it belongs there, FWIW…) I’ll be up-front about this : I hate the Vancian system of spellcasting! I prefer Psionics over Arcane or Divine spellcasters, and if I’m going to play one of the latter, it’ll be a Sorcerer or Oracle that doesn’t have to pick the spells they can cast each day. So I’ve been playing with and investigating point-based spellcasting systems for years. Here’s what I’ve discovered… The basics of any point-based system is that each spell costs a certain number of “points” to cast, and the caster has a “mana pool” of daily points to use. Each time you cast a spell, you subtract the point cost of the spell from your pool, and you can’t cast anymore when your pool reaches 0. Typically your pool completely refreshes after a full night’s sleep. My goal is to come up with a point-based system that uses all the standard spells “as-is”, including their level rating, in order to be as compatible with the existing system as possible. Psionics
SL =1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To keep things simple (and as extreme as possible), I’m going to deal with 20th-level casters. At 20th level, an average psion with INT=10 has a mana pool of 343 (“power points”). The problems of such a system are well known : instead of being limited to 4 9th-level spells as a Wizard would be, the psion is free to cast as many 9th-level spells (“powers”) as they want. How bad does it get? Well, an average psion could cast 343/17 = 21(!) 9th-level spells per day (granted, to the exclusion of many other potentially useful lower-level spells). In addition, they have a virtually unlimited supply of 1st level spells : 343 1st-level spells per day (again, to the exclusion of everything else). How about the often very useful (and sometimes game-breaking) mid-level spells? Picking 5th level spells as a representative, a 20th-level psion could cast 343/9 = 38 spells per day. I’m going to use these three samples as a measure-of-quality to compare some different point-based systems :
However, one of the nice things about this system is that the difference between spell costs is constant between caster and spell levels, so 2 points basically represents 1 spell level. That means that metamagic feats, which make a spell “cost” more levels than it is, are easily implemented – a feat that costs N extra spell levels costs 2*N extra points. “Total Spell Levels”
For example, at 20th level a Wizard can cast 4 of every spell level, so their mana pool is :
And the cost of each spell is just its level. This suffers from all the same problems as the Psionic system :
Well, at least they can’t cast as many 1st-level spells, but 180 is still outrageously high. However, metamagic feats are easy to implement, since you just add the number of levels the feat boosts the spell by to the spell’s level, and subtract that total from your pool. Variable-cost #1
Spell level
(forum formatting really messes with tables – try copy-and-pasting the table into NotePad) And the mana pool progression needed to match the number of spells per day that a Wizard can cast is
Notice that 1st-level spells start out being very costly to cast, but decrease as the caster’s level increases, until it gets to the point where they literally cost the caster nothing to cast. This may seem odd, but by removing the cost of low-level spells from the pool, the pool is actually smaller at very high caster levels, thus preventing them from casting as many high-level spells per day. And really, if a Psion could cast 343 1st-level spells per day, or a Wizard in the Total Spell Levels system could cast 180 per day, what difference does if make if a Wizard in this system could cast an “infinite” number per day? So this system is ranked as :
It does allow the least number of 9th-level spells of all the systems, but also a LOT more mid-level spells, because at 20th level, the mid-level spells only cost a few points to cast. And because the difference in cost between different-level spells varies by caster level, this system makes it very difficult to implement metamagic feats. How would you figure out how many points to charge for a feat that increases the spell level by 1? Please note this is not the same system that the thread referenced above presents! That system has such an extremely small mana pool that a caster can barely cast one spell of every level, and then expects the caster to use up “mental fatigue” in order to cast more spells. Variable-cost #2
Spell Level
The difference here is that for a 20th-level caster, casting a 1st-level spell costs 1/3 as much as casting a 9th-level spell instead of 1/9 as much. The mana pool progression looks like : CL = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
As expected, because we have to include the now higher costs of low-level spells, the mana pool is bigger than it is for the first variable-cost system. So this system is ranked as :
It does achieve the desired effect of reducing the number of 1st-level spells (but not to any realistic level), but still doesn’t significantly reduce the number of 9th-level spells that could be cast. And again, because the difference in cost between different-level spells varies by caster level, this system makes it very difficult to implement metamagic feats. Same-cost
Then the spell pool would just be equal to the total number of spells the caster could cast per day, or 4*9 = 36 for a 20th-level Wizard. It turns out that this actually works the best of all for limiting the number of low-level spells, but it’s the worst of all for the high-level spells :
And metamagic feats, while do-able, effectively become very costly in this system. Summary So comparing the different systems side-by-side we have : Psionics
Conclusions
So it seems like to keep things really tightly balanced, defining exactly how many of what level spell a caster can cast each day is required. But, if you don’t have any power-gamers in your group, it may not be needed. But if anyone knows of any other significantly different point-based systems, or this discussion inspires anyone to think of some other way to keep things balanced, I’d really like to know! Or, if you’ve played or DM’d a very high-level Psion, how bad did it get, being able to cast many more high-powered spells each day?
The goal of this thread is to try to come up with some kind of standardized guidelines or rules for dealing with illusions. Yeah, I know that’s a big ugly can o’ worms, but bear with me…illusions should be a fun way for the players to be creative, but most DM’s dislike them because of the headaches they cause, in large part because the DM doesn’t know how to figure out when to allow his NPC’s to disbelieve them in a way that doesn’t overpower the game and short-circuit his plans, or underpower the illusions and disappoint the players. With a standardized set of guidelines, maybe they can become a fun and balanced part of the game. All of the following is just a suggested starting point, I’d like everyone’s feedback and make this a “community” effort. Once the dust settles, I’ll summarize the majority opinion. I’m more concerned with Figments right now, so if you’re more knowledgeable about Glamers, Shadows, etc., please speak up if they would act significantly different under the guidelines suggested here. The relevant portions of the RAW are :
This leaves us with 3 important questions :
This first post is unavoidably long because of all the definitions, justifications, and examples, so now that you’ve seen the questions you can skip to the end of this post for the summary if you wish. First off, I cannot praise enough Skip Williams’ discussions on illusions at
BEING TOLD IT’S AN ILLUSION
Why should the statement/suggestion that what you’re looking at is an illusion have more “weight” when coming from someone who has disbelieved than from someone who hasn’t? Aren’t they really just planting the idea, and allowing you to reconsider? Neither person is offering any “proof”, so why should it make a difference? On the other hand, if you’re told by the person who created the illusion (and who probably did it right in front of you) that it’s not real, why don’t you automatically disbelieve? Even Skip says at one point, “If the caster points out the illusions [to others],…the DM might want to waive the saving throws and assume disbelief to save time”. So in the following, I’m going to abandon the “retry at +4” option completely. If someone tells you that it’s an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you automatically disbelieve. This is just what makes sense to me – if the vast majority of opinion prefers to keep those things the way they are, I’ll concede the point (especially if you can give me reasons why). CAREFUL STUDY
Something I’ve never seen discussed is whether it provokes an AoO – it does require your focused attention, so that’s a good argument “for”. But in the heat of a battle, provoking an AoO can be a major disincentive to trying to disbelieve if you think there’s illusions around. What’s your opinion on whether careful study should provoke an AoO? It’s pretty clear that merely looking at or hearing an illusion does not constitute careful study. And PC’s can’t declare that they’re always studying everything carefully, so neither can the NPC’s. The main problem with careful study is that there’s no standard way to define when a character (PC or NPC) should have a REASON to do it. So I would like to propose the concept (taken from law-enforcement, BTW) of “reasonable suspicion” : if by only observing, you can state anything that seems to be wrong, any specific reason why what you see couldn't be real, then you can study it carefully. Note that “observing” can include any of your long-distance senses (excluding touch), not just sight. But since magic can do a lot of things (including creating things out of thin air and making things intangible), and most people probably don't know everything it can or can't do, the reason must be very specific, and reasonably within the character’s knowledge and experience. Some examples of reasonable suspicion : *Person : "I've been in this room many times before, now it's smaller than it should be" (because an illusory wall is hiding the PC’s) or "…and there was never a bookshelf there before"
It’s possible that the observer might need a Knowledge check of some sort to justify the reason :
To keep things fair, DM’s must be careful to not allow their NPC’s saving throws unless there’s justifiable reasonable suspicion. As Skip points out, most creatures would pass right by illusions that are already in place without giving them a second thought, unless they were on alert for intruders, chasing the PC’s, or searching the room anyway, etc. (excluding the situations given above as examples). But even most animals or low-INT humanoids (like Orcs) might not consider having a floor of pointed sticks or a wall of stone suddenly appear from nowhere while they’re chasing the PC’s as being unusual – after all, that’s what magic does. Such creatures would deal with what’s in front of them, and would often not even get a saving throw (barring the specific circumstances of the situation that might provide reasonable suspicion). On the other hand, careful study might also just happen naturally, as Skip points out using the illusion of a guard walking around in a room. A PC might decide to watch the guard’s movements to determine the best way of sneaking past him – well, now he’s carefully studying the image. Or, a PC might want to check the insignia on the guard’s uniform to determine his rank or whatever – again, the PC must carefully study the image to do that. So DM’s must be careful to notice when careful study “unintentionally” happens. INTERACTION
But interaction works both ways – if the illusion of a monster or NPC attempts to attack you (whether or not it hits, but if it’s a Figment and it would hit, see “Proof” below), touch you, talk to you, or target you with a spell, it is interacting with you, and so you get a saving throw. But now what if a caster creates an illusion of a large monster in order to Intimidate you without attacking you? So how about this : if the illusion tries to influence your behavior in any way, it is also “interacting” with you. It is said (and correctly so) that just looking at an illusion should not be reason enough to get a saving throw to disbelieve it, because just looking is not the same as careful study. But consider an illusion of a chair vs. an illusion of a pile of GP. The illusion of the chair does not “tempt” you to go over and sit on it – so no save just from looking at it. But even tho it’s just sitting there, not doing anything, the illusion of the pile of gold will tempt most intelligent creatures to go over to it. So I would argue that the “trying to influence you” rule kicks in here, and the creature gets a saving throw before they change what they’re doing (chasing you, guarding their post, etc.). It might be tempting to add that using Skills against illusions always constitutes interaction, but Skip gives a counter-example here. Sneaking past that illusory guard from before does not really interact with it, since it doesn’t know what’s going on around it – the PC would roll, and the DM would roll, and the PC would just automatically win! The PC didn’t really do anything that would affect the illusion. On the other hand, if the player rolled a 1 on his Stealth, and the guard didn't react to him, that might provide reasonable suspicion. PROOF
*Your arrow or sword goes thru the image of a creature you’re attacking (note that if the image was that of a wraith or shadow, you’d get a saving throw for interacting, but you’d expect a normal weapon to pass thru it, so you would not automatically disbelieve)
Something not addressed in the RAW (or even any forums that I’ve been able to find) is : what happens if you witness such an interaction? If the “retry at +4” rule was still around, that might be a good option, but I’m going to suggest instead that that constitutes a reason to carefully study the image and then roll as usual. That actually fits in quite well with the definition of reasonable suspicion – you observe it not acting correctly. It’s VERY IMPORTANT to note that “not acting like it should” only allows you careful observation if you’re observing the illusion, while it allows you immediate disbelief if you are interacting with the illusion. A common situation that comes up in forum threads is : what if a spellcaster sees you casting the illusion, and makes a successful Spellcraft check? In such a case their disbelief is also automatic, since they have proof you were casting an illusion spell. Finally, what if a spellcaster or knowledgeable person sees you casting a spell (but does not identify it), and knows for a fact that there’s no such spell that can produce the effect that appears? For example, you create a hallway full of pointed wooden spikes coming up from the floor, and with a successful Knowledge/Arcana check the observer knows there’s no such spell. Again, in this case disbelief is automatic. But note that seeing the spell being cast is important – the same person rounding a corner and seeing a hallway full of such spikes would not know how they got there, and so would not (yet) have any reason to even make a save. SO TO SUMMARIZE : You can justify careful study (as a Standard action) when :
You and the illusion “interact” when :
Note that any time any of the above conditions occur, the observer gets another saving throw Proof is :
From these, we can derive 4 conditions that cover a wide variety of common situations :
That’s it! What do you think?
So, your PC is a Wizard with WAY more spells in his spellbook than he can cast in a day. Or your Sorcerer just doesn't have that many spells she knows, period. What scrolls would you consider "essential" to keep on hand in case of emergencies? By that I mean a spell that is the ONLY way to get out of a particular scrape, or the best way to counter a spell being used against you (like Gust of Wind to counter the Fog spells).
Here's just a short list of suggestions to start things off :
Low-level, high-level, Arcane, Divine - please let me know what you consider to be the most essential scroll spells you'd want to always have on hand. Even if it's already been said, list every spell you think is important. When the dust settles, I'll summarize the results by popularity. Thanks!
The "dead at -CON" rule works GREAT for low-level characters, because low-CR monsters don't do more than 10 points (or so) of damage per blow, so the PC basically CAN'T die (unless the DM gangs monsters up on him). But at higher levels, the monster's damage becomes so high that a PC with still 1/4 of their HP could be taken to below -CON in just one blow, nevermind criticals or being hit by several things per round. The proposed system below is based on 4e, but modified a little bit. I'm looking for something that 1)can give the other PC's several rounds to get to the dying PC, 2)can't outright kill the PC "accidentally" (as per the example above), but 3)can still kill the PC if they roll badly, or if my monster REALLY wants to kill them. It would also be nice to have a way to leave the PC's unconscious (to capture them, etc.) without danger of dying, which I *think* this will do ok. Unless one PC drops (goes unconscious) early the battle, then rolls badly for the DST's until his comrades drop. Feedback? Clarifying questions? Comments? Obvious problems (like Bleed-any ideas?)?
========================================================================
DeathCon = 1 : you are Dying but conscious (this allows the PC to make a choice – continue fighting, or seek healing)
You continue to make allowed saving throws to end various effects thru DeathCon=3. Dying and Stabilizing
Healing and Damage
Miscellaneous
So I'm about to start playing a 7th level Wizard in a campaign where most of the PC's have started from 1st level. There's "Communal" versions of a lot of spells out there, and I'm wondering whether people who've used them have found them practical or not. Here's my pro-and-con thinking : They're one spell level higher, but if I think I'll need to cast it on more than one party member, I don't have to use up extra per-day slots with multiple copies of the regular spell. And since I'm starting at 7th level, I could "start out" having the Communal versions available to cast right now. In other words, I don't *have* to grab the regular version of the spell at level X to have it available until I can grab the Communal version at level X+2. I'm thinking that quite often only a single person in the melee might need to be protected at a time (uh-oh, that PC is up against X, they could use some protection from that), but that's highly up to the DM and the circumstances. I'm afraid I must re-open the "how does Communal Touch work" can-o-worms, because if I can only cast Communal spells on my comrades when they're standing around me before the battle, that would practically kill Communal spells for me. We don't often know beforehand when a melee is about to erupt.
So if my comrades are spread out over a battlefield when I decide I need to cast a protection spell on them, I can't see that the Communal version is any good at that point. On the THIRD hand, however : the metamagic Reach Spell feat turns Touch spells into Close-range spells. So couldn't I use Reach Spell on a Communal Touch spell, and then go (point) "touch", (point) "touch", (point) "touch" to all my comrades in the same round that I cast it?
Again, this is less of an "RAI" question than a "how has your experience using them been" question. But I'll take theoretical answers as well. :) Thanks!
After spending many hours reading the forum descriptions and debates about Stealth, and even starting a few threads with specific questions, I would like to present what I have come up with so far. This is meant to help me keep everything straight in my head when one of my players uses Stealth. The following is a combination of RAW, RAI, and statements made by PF developers in other threads. I simplified the exact rules and definitions in some places to Keep It Short and Simple (my version of the KISS rule). This is meant to be a reminder of HOW things work, not just a complete listing of all the rules! So yes, I know there's more kinds of Cover than Regular (which is my own term) and Total, that's not the point. Please let me know if there's anything that obviously contradicts RAW, nothing here is intended to be a house-rule. If you'd like to know where a statement comes from, I'd be glad to explain. If you disagree with a RAI, please feel free to mention how you do things, I'm always open to new ideas. And if it makes sense to me, I'll gladly change! And if you like the summary, hey, letting me know that would be nice, too. Due to forum formatting limitations, '*' are main bullets under the heading, and '-' are sub-bullets (I used several to get some indentation). Hope the formatting makes sense, especially if you don't have a wide screen. Let the piranha-like nit-picking begin! :) ====================================================================== C/C = Cover or Concealment (of any kind). Cover is something big enough to hide behind (wall, pillar, desk, etc.). Concealment is something that obscures vision (darkness, underbrush, fog, etc.). C/C can be “Regular” or “Total”. You cannot be seen with Total C/C! Lighting and C/C
Rule #1 : Stealth is not invisibility! Everyone with line-of-sight to you has a chance to notice you any time you're not in Total C/C. All such observers get a Stealth/Perception check ("S/P check") to notice you. However, if you succeed, they are not at all aware of your presence, and even if they happen to attack the square you’re in, you still get a 50% miss chance on all attacks except area and targeted spells (which thus acts very much like invisibility). To be able to enter Stealth
Once in C/C AND using Stealth
Ok, understanding Stealth is difficult. I’ve been reading different forums, and thinking about it a lot to get it all straight in my head, because my players are about to start using Stealth a lot. In pondering all the different aspects of Stealth, and how it interacts with light levels and different vision types, I’ve come across 6 different questions that I can’t answer by myself. Here I pose the questions, and use the RAW to come to *a* conclusion, but I want to make it clear that I am not always arguing that that’s the way I think it should be. So if you have a different opinion, please explain why, using RAW to justify it as much as possible. Also please refer to the question number that you're addressing. Question #1 : if you’re walking Stealthily down a hall and someone unexpectedly comes around a corner, do they automatically see you, or do they get a Stealth/Perception check (“S/P check”)?
Question #2 : shouldn’t EVERYONE within line of sight of you get a S/P check as you Stealth up to a victim to get your Sneak Attack damage?
Question #3 : is it really *totally impossible* to use Stealth in Bright or Normal light, except when using invisibility or cover?
Question #4 : what is the procedure for attacking a creature currently using Stealth?
Question #5 : what’s the big deal with Hide in Plain Sight (HIPS)?
Question #6 : does anyone else see a problem with Camouflage?
As a long-time RPG'er (I was quite familiar with the 2e spell list in the dim and distant past), but new to 3.5/Pathfinder, I just don't have the time to read EVERY single spell, so... What would you consider to be the "short list" of most useful spells my bad guys should have handy in melee? I'm not interested in rounding out the bad guy - I know he'll have Alarm, Identify, etc. I need to know what spells he's bringing to battle! Everything from 1st to 9th... If you agree with someone else's spell(s), please say so - the more "votes" a spell gets, the higher on my list it goes! If anyone is familiar with psionics, I'd appreciate useful bad guy powers as well. When the dust settles, I'll post the collected list! Thanks!
Vital Strike (in whatever form) is a feat which is claimed to be better for getting thru DR, since instead of (say) 2 attacks each of which has DR subtracted, Vital Strike lets you take ONE attack, but roll just your die damage 2 times, then add your bonuses. Thus DR is only subtracted once. Some people love it, some people hate it. So I decided to do a little math... You're attacking N times, with a weapon that does XdY+Z damage per blow
The average value you get from rolling XdY many times is (XY+X)/2. So N attacks of XdY+Z, minus DR for each attack does, on average
1 attack of N(XdY)+Z, minus DR does, on average
Both attacks do NXY/2 + NX/2 damage, we can ignore them. So the modifiers to that basic damage are
But here’s the thing : as long as the creature's DR is greater than the damage bonus, (Z – D) is a penalty, so the penalty is smaller with Vital Strike. Example : d6+2 vs. DR=5, 2 attacks
Conversely, if your bonus is greater than the creature's DR, you actually do LESS damage with Vital Strike! Weird, huh? Example : d6+10 vs. DR=5, 2 attacks
So the key is that you only pull out Vital Strike when your regular attacks aren't getting thru the creature's DR... How much more damage do you do with Vital Strike?
In the first example above, N=2, D=5, Z=2 so the extra damage should be 1*(5-2) = 3, which it is.
Having seen a previous thread on these forums discussing this, I thought I'd offer a summary of the rules. I think Pathfinder's great, but my biggest complaint is that they scatter related rules all over the place. The rules that went in to making this table are found in Vision&Light, Concealment, Cover, Stealth, and Low-Light Vision. I can quote the RAW sources (and sometimes combinations of sources) that went into making up the table, if needed. Also, as far as I can tell I can't insert a table into a post, can't use tabs, and can't even use multiple spaces to line up columns. So I've put "|" lines in-between the columns, you'll have to copy and paste and re-format the table yourself. I even tried a full-blown HTML table format, no luck. Anyone know of ANY way to create or insert a table? I have many other rules-summary tables I'd like to post in the future. I don't know ALL the spells, feats, and class abilities yet, so if anyone wants to add anything that also grants concealment, please feel free! ================================================================== You can use Stealth when you have Cover or Concealment (C/C) Lighting | Ordinary vision | Low-light vision | Darkvision
You can also use Stealth when using Invisibility or Hide in Plain Sight, even under Bright lighting conditions Cover : something is in-between the observer and observed (walls, objects, creatures) Concealment : undergrowth, smoke, fog, blizzard, etc.
I don't see any explicit mention in the SRD that a creature with multiple natural attacks has to take a full round action to use them all (and hence is limited to only a 5-foot step when using them all). The only thing I found that says anything in conjunction with the two is : "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action" And in the definition of a full-round attack : "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason..." - no mention of natural attacks at all (I can't imagine that a natural attack would be a "special reason"). Can anyone find anything in the SRD that says one way or the other? Thanks! P.S. - I'm not confused about anything regarding *how* natural attacks work (attack and damage bonuses for single vs. multiple attacks, single vs. multiple attack types, etc.), just whether or not you must take a full round action to use them all.
Using the RAW, adding anything higher than 4th level spellcasters to an otherwise even fight means the side with the spellcasters always wins! See the thread "An analysis of the Kingmaker mass combat system" for more details. I originally wanted to offer something with a *few* more options, like being able to raise or lower another army's OM, DV, or damage mod as a melee action, but that quickly became more complicated than I wanted. So instead... If you just make the army's OM and DV bonus the caster's level divided by 4, rounded down (half the current bonus), things work out much better. Now, in an otherwise evenly-matched fight between 2 armies, where each side has about a 46% chance of winning (the rest goes to ties) : An army with 4th level casters wins about 67% of the time (21% more often)
And if the *other* side has the Spellbreaker Tactic, An army with 4th level casters wins about 23% of the time (loses 23% more often)
Basically, using Spellbreaker has the effect of bumping the effectiveness of the spellcasters down by 2 steps (8 levels). The "loses more often with 4th level casters" result should make people think twice about casually saying "I'm throwing in some spellcasters". BTW, that happens in the RAW, as well, it's not an artifact of the proposed change. If either of the above two results seems odd, just change the Spellbreaker DV bonus to +2. That makes a battle with 4th level casters a even fight, and drops the effectiveness of the casters by only 4 levels across the board. This seems about right to me - anyone else have an opinion? :)
After checking out about 8 of the most forum-recommended mass combat systems (in no order : War Machine, GURPS, Kingmaker, Heroes Of Battle, Conan, Die Men!, Green Ronin, Cry Havoc), I focused my attention on Kingmaker because it was by far the simplest system, using much of the existing system’s structure, with the fewest army “specs” (numbers), and melee rolls that are very similar to ordinary combat (d20+“to hit” bonus vs. AC, with a damage bonus if successful). It incorporates many tactical options into the attack, AC, and damage modifiers, thus allowing players to implement tactical choices easily. As a computer programmer with decades of experience, I decided to simulate the Kingmaker mass combat system, to see how well things worked or didn’t. First off, I am using the system described at http://kingmake.wikidot.com/armies. I discovered it first, and wasn’t aware of the Pathfinder SRD rules until I was done with the analysis. In general, the Pathfinder rules use *larger* bonuses and penalties, so the Pathfinder SRD results will be even MORE extreme than those shown here (mostly the Tactics). And many of the results will be identical. If people express enough interest, I could re-run the analysis with the Pathfinder SRD values. Keep in mind in all of the following that “CR” refers to the *army’s* CR, which varies by its size and the kind of creatures in it. So an army that is 3 CR smaller than another could have fewer soldiers, or soldiers with a smaller individual CR, or a little of both. But it could also have higher-CR troops, just very few of them (somewhat counter-intuitive). In all cases, I pitted two identical armies against each other from CR=1 to CR=20. Everything was always significantly different for CR=1 to 5, so the following results ignore CR 1-5 battles. These are probably pretty uncommon anyway, requiring small numbers of low-CR creatures. The average duration of a battle is about 6 rounds at the lowest CRs to about 12 rounds at the highest. There is always about a 5-10% chance that both armies are defeated (die, routed) on the same round. The lower the CR, the better the chances of a tie. If the CRs differ by more than 3, the smaller CR army WILL lose. This does not account for all the other modifiers discussed below, which can make a significant difference. Next I wanted to see how much each individual Tactic, Resource, Special Ability, and Battlefield Condition tipped the odds in favor of one army over the other (still with otherwise evenly matched armies). Each modifier was used thruout the entire battle. The results were surprising. In general, each army has about a 46% chance of winning (with the remainder going to a tie). So if some modifier increases that army’s chance of winning to 56%, that’s listed as a “10% increase to winning”. Note that when the *increase* gets to be about 50% or more, that’s a guaranteed win! First off I found that the increases to winning that single bonuses to OM (attack bonus), DV (AC bonus), or DM (damage bonus) are :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Bolstered Resolve : 5%
RECOMMENDATIONS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Fortification Builders : 35%
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Breath Weapon : 14% on average
RECOMMENDATIONS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Advantageous Terrain : 24%
RECOMMENDATIONS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Cavalry Experts (+2) vs. Hold the Line : 20% --> 18% (no real improvement)
Spellcaster(SL=1) vs. Spellbreaker : 21% --> –20% (the side with spellcasters loses *more* often!)
Fortification (+8) vs. Wallsmasher : WIN --> WIN
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Defensive : –16% (loses more often compared to Standard)
NOTE : Pathfinder’s damage modifiers are MUCH larger than those used here, so their chance-to-win results will be much bigger (both positive and negative)! While being Defensive or Cautious might lose you the battle in the long run, they extend the duration of the battle (Defensive doubles it!), giving more time for help to arrive.
The mass combat rules claim that “two CR 9 armies should make for a relatively even battle, but so would a CR 9 army against three CR 6 armies”. And one of Paizo’s creative directors also implied in a forum that the CRs of the armies should combine by the regular CR rules. Following the CR rules for a 2 vs. 1 battle, the battle should be evenly matched if the two armies have a CR that is 2 less than the single army, but I found this was NOT true. To produce an *evenly matched battle*, the simulation shows that the CRs must be :
The “sweet spot” for 2 vs. 1 is that the CR of the 2 armies should be 3 less than the single army, across CR=7 to 15 (probably the most typical CRs). So the CR ratings of the armies does not combine as it should. As a BTW, a single army always wins against two armies whose CRs are 5 or less than the single one’s CR. So a CR=15 army will always beat 2 armies whose CRs are 10 or less. Again, this is without any of the many modifiers, which can make a significant difference.
Please keep in mind that all of these tests assumed equal-CR armies. Things could change radically when one army has a higher CR than the other. For example, a “low-CR” army with Energy Drain or Paralysis would probably be evenly matched against a much larger CR army (but I don’t know how much larger). Also, I can usually only test the effect of one change at a time, and the number of ways Tactics can combine with Strategies is so large it cannot be accounted for. Not to mention that the number of Resources you can add to an army depends strongly on the situation. Finally, in any single battle, the roll of the dice is WAY more important than the average bonuses shown here.
As a long-time DM relatively new to D&D/Pathfinder, I've recently become aware of spells that many consider to be "breakers" (my term) : Battle breaker - significantly turns the tide in battle, with little that can be done about it
I'm most interested in spells of 4th level and higher. Below is a partial list I've cobbled together from various forums. Please feel free to add your own pet peeves, or argue against any of the spells in this list. It's not "my" list, I don't care. :) Please do not feel obligated to fit your spell into one of my categories, just say what you don't like about it.
Black Tentacles (4) – battle breaker
Commune (5) – mystery breaker
Wall of Iron (6) – battle breaker
Forcecage (7) – counterspell breaker
As briefly as possible, according to the RAW : "Noticing" an invisible creature means just being aware that it is somewhere within 30 feet of you. "Pinpointing" an invisible creature means knowing exactly what square it is in. An invisible creature's DC to be noticed while moving at half-speed is 15.
We have a difference of opinion in our group as to how Stealth interacts with this. For Stealth by itself, if the other creature makes its Perception check against your DC, you are "pinpointed" - the creature knows exactly what square you're in. It's my opinion that ANYTIME you use Stealth, you are always pinpointed if you fail (that is, if the other creature makes its Perception check). So if you're using Stealth to move at half speed while invisible, the DC is (according to the Stealth rules) 20+[your Stealth roll], but if you fail, you are pinpointed (in my opinion). That makes sense to me because there has to be a tradeoff for using Stealth while invisible, otherwise every invisible creature can just say "I'm moving with Stealth" and get at least +20+d20 to their DC.
Comments? Opinions? What I'm asking here is not for a re-iteration of the RAW, but how to combine the rules with invisibility with the rules for Stealth, which doesn't appear to be explicitly defined anywhere I can find. Thanks!
To recap from the RAW, under special abilities/invisibility : A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gets a hunch that “something's there” but can't locate it or target it accurately with an attack. The following mods apply to the base DC 20 to just “notice something's there” :
From the RAW under the Stealth skill description :
If we were to add the above information to the set of mods above, then to STAY CONSISTENT with the entire table's concept of “modifiers to the base of 20”, the entry would be :
Not "20 + Stealth check" as it is in the SRD. It seems for consistency and clarity, either the table entry should be modified, or the table entry should be removed and Stealth addressed separately in the text of Special Abilities/Invisibility. |
