Traiel's page

I liked VP when i tried it out.. until i saw that Intimidating Glare requires you to be trained in intimidation.... and then i was sad.

if the door has hardness 10, then you only need 11 damage to dent it... it is only shields that absorb up to the damage in hardness first. Nothing to say that normal objects do that.

We had this problem in our session... had no thief, so breakdoor check was DC 20, critical failure on first, so DC22 ... alchemist tried acid damage - but acid only causes 'extra' dents - and was never going to beat the door's hardness, so we decided to just attack the door.... and came to the same problem :P

Still with Hardness 10, you only need to do 11 damage.. so we got it on first try with raging barbarian

Hoo Raah at defeating the door.

lol the next 2 posts.. 1 says.. it does imply a connection; next poster... it doesn't imply a connection :P that was sorta the point of my post haha

I personally come down on the side of Mats... i don't think there is a connection.. i think 'a creature' means any creature, as the sentence is talking about a separate issue.

Cantriped wrote:

Stuff.

Quote:

DARKNESS

Stuff

I'm sorry, but this interpretation is ignoring half of the context. "A creature" is not referring to "a creature in darkness," it is referring to "A creature without these senses." You can't just skip over a sentence when trying to determine context, especially when the sentence you skip leads directly into the one you are trying to interpret. Had the final sentence been in a separate paragraph or contained a clarifying clause such as "regardless of senses" your reading might be better supported. As it stands, however, the assumption that the final sentence of that paragraph is unrelated to the sentence directly preceding it is just that, an assumption.

I agree, it is an assumption to read it either way, it is not clear which way from the paragraph itself, as both interpretations are fair.

That sentence just reads 'a creature' without any qualifiers.... so while yes it is in the same paragraph, the sentence does not necessarily join with the previous one as all creatures (with some form of sight) can potentially see into a lit area, and the context of the paragraph is about darkness and light in general and therefore it could be read:

if 'any' creature can see from darkness into light... as well as

if 'these' creatures can see from darkness into light.

'a creature' with no qualifiers reads more like 'any'

Great review, and sorry to nitpick, but the athletics check to break open the door has the 'attack' tag and therefore does not incur ACP.

Traiel wrote:

This is weird to me.. why in the world is a creature concealed just because the creature viewing it is in darkness? If i am out of the range of a fire, i can very clearly make out the people at a fire.

Stand in total darkness for half an hour, have a friend wave their phone in torch-mode in your eyes, and then try to accurately hit them with with waded paper balls while they try to dodge you. Sure you know where they are, but it would be hurting your eyes to stare into the light,

Besides being realistic, the balance reasons are obvious. The OP was complaining in another thread that his intrepretation of the rules resulted in near TPKs amongst his test group (since his goblins could snipe from the shadows with impunity, and the non-goblin/dwarven heroes could do little about it. Without a rule like this; carrying a light-source is often a liability, and creatures with Darkvision become far more effective than is reasonable.

Yes, sure, but that is a deliberate thing to 'shine the light directly in someone's direction' - in which case you wouldn't be in darkness.

Their example is a fire, so your example clearly doesn't really add to this conversation, and is countered by my silly examples in my OP

This is weird to me.. why in the world is a creature concealed just because the creature viewing it is in darkness? If i am out of the range of a fire, i can very clearly make out the people at a fire.

If i'm peeping from the darkness by myself into the next door neighbours' (uncurtained) dining room while they are eating at night, then i can certainly see and crave and wish for their smiles and happiness and joy.

I made sure to let the party know that these goblins were exceptionally handsome; with a +1 charisma, they were better looking than both the Ranger and Alchemist.

Thank you for this! That comment made my morning!

Isn't Assurance a final roll of 10, not like taking 10 used to be? how do you get assurance resulting in 15?

their example in the playtest specifically gives an example where the wooden shield receives 2 dents.

also.. the developer edited his response:

I have actually talked to Logan, and I need to correct myself- since the shield took (more than) double its hardness in damage, it does in fact have two dents. I was working from out of date knowledge based on some earlier in-house playtesting and I apologize for increasing the confusion on this subject.

What about the first question?
If you are hit with an attack, does armour also take dent (if the damage is higher than 2x it's hardness?

Yes you are correct! My apologies :P It was such a well constructed post as well

from what i can tell, an item can't be outright destroyed.

it needs to take an extra "dent" while broken to be destroyed.

most items take 2-3 dents to become broken.

earlier levels, a light steel shield has a hardness of 5.

that means that it takes 10 damage to get the 1st dent, and 15 to take 2 to become broken (still repairable)

that seems fine for a level 1 item.

now, higher levels, if you are...

You are not correct in your numbers, but are correct that the item cannot be destroyed unless it is already broken and takes another dent, or something that would cause it to be broken.

Where you have read the rules wrong is around this:

any damage equal to or higher than it's hardness dents the shield
i.e shield has hardness 5, 6 damage-10 damage = 1 dent, 11 damage or greater = 2 dent (maybe broken)

The example they use in that section:

For instance,
a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would
take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without
becoming broken.

Because twice the Hardness 3 (6) - hardness of shield < 10 , based on the second quote below, the shield has taken 2 dents.

Under Item Damage:

If an item takes damage
equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes
a dent

The shield absorbs the first 3 damage, player takes 7 damage

Same Section:

If the item takes damage equal to or greater than
twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents

7 damage is greater than 2xhardness 3, therefore it takes 2 dents.

I did see this (and did laugh at catfall's stupidity at legendary :P ) and I was sad.

Errr, you do take damage (not sure if that's what you meant by your post):

In the Shields section of Equipment:
While you have a shield raised, you can use the Shield
Block reaction to reduce damage you take by the shield’s
Hardness

In the Spells in Shield Block:
You snap your shield in place to ward off a blow. Your shield
prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the
shield’s Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly
becoming dented or broken. See the Item Damage section on
page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

So you do take damage - whatever is excess to the shield's hardness, as the quote you gave is referring to the damage blocked by the hardness, not the total damage.

The very fact that Recognise Spell exists, suggests that a non-zero amount of the time, you do not know what spell is being cast.

Obviously Counterspell requires that you know the spell (so you know that you have that same spell and can then counter it)

so either:
Recognise Spell is not needed - i.e there are some spells that you know are being cast - spells you have prepared for example

<in game terms>
the DM will have to always be aware of your prepared spell list, so he can inform you that this particular spell is one you are aware of (as Recognise Spell has led us to know that some spells are not known)

Or:
It is a mistake that both Recognise Spell and Counterspell are reactions.

Solution: Make Recognise Spell a free action, or make Counterspell a free action with a trigger of 'You Recognise Spell and have that spell in your list'

Seconded!

So does that mean that if you are hit, then your armour also takes dents if the damage is higher than it's hardness?

Is there a way to make a sundering attack? (as a PC)

Where do you find in the rules that you need to be trained+ in armour to be able to cast spells? I could not see anything, so it appears that you can just cast spells untrained in armour.

This.. seems weird.